The Australian Workers Union v Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd [2000] FCA 360

The Australian Workers Union v Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd [2000] FCA 360

The respondent contravened s170MU(1)(a) and s298K(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) by dismissing, injuring, or altering the position of Mr Mrmacoski and Mr Naumovski, and by threatening to dismiss Mr Scicluna, because they proposed to engage in protected action or because of their union membership. The evidence did not establish breaches of s298M regarding inducements to resign from the union.

Parties
Applicant: The Australian Workers Union; Respondent: Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Declaratory relief granted as to contraventions of s170MU(1)(a) and s298K(1); otherwise application dismissed except as to penalty and compensation, which are adjourned.
Legal Topics
Protected Industrial Action, Dismissal for Union Activity, Adverse Action, Union Membership Rights
Industrial Law Employment Law Protected Industrial Action Dismissal for Union Activity Adverse Action Union Membership Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Australian Workers Union

Applicant

Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent employer contravened s170MU and/or s298K of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) by dismissing, injuring or altering the position of employees for proposing to engage in protected action or for union membership
  2. 2 Whether the respondent offered inducements to resign from the union in contravention of s298M of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the conduct alleged by the applicant was made out on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent contravened s170MU(1)(a) and s298K(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) by dismissing, injuring, or altering the position of Mr Mrmacoski and Mr Naumovski, and by threatening to dismiss Mr Scicluna, because they proposed to engage in protected action or because of their union membership. The evidence did not establish breaches of s298M regarding inducements to resign from the union.

Court Disposition

Declaratory relief granted as to contraventions of s170MU(1)(a) and s298K(1); otherwise application dismissed except as to penalty and compensation, which are adjourned.

Orders

  • Declaration of contraventions of s170MU(1)(a) by dismissal, injury, and alteration of position of Mr Mrmacoski and Mr Naumovski for proposing to engage in protected action.
  • Declaration of contraventions of s298K(1) by dismissal, injury, and alteration of position of Mr Mrmacoski and Mr Naumovski for union membership reasons.