Automotive, Foods, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Thornton Engineering Australia Pty Ltd (2009) FCA 1584

Automotive, Foods, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Thornton Engineering Australia Pty Ltd (2009) FCA 1584

The respondent's clean record justified a significant discount from the maximum, but the contraventions were deliberate, caused injury to three employees, occurred as three separate events, required general deterrence because the respondent was a significant regional employer, and required strong specific deterrence because Mr Thornton did not genuinely accept or show contrition for the contraventions. Because the contraventions concerning Mr Coon and Mr Kemmis had factual overlap, the Court treated the matter as three occasions for liability rather than five, and a just and reasonable total penalty was $20,000 per employee, totalling $60,000, payable to the Union. The employees proved...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Workplace Relations Proceeding Alleging Contraventions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Arising From Dismissals / Penalty, Compensation and Costs Following Findings of Liability
Outcome
The respondent was ordered to pay total penalties of $60,000 to the Union and compensation with interest to the second, third and fourth applicants; no costs order was made in favour of the respondent for the directions hearing.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination for Prohibited Reasons' 'union Membership' 'seeking Better Industrial Conditions' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'totality Principle' 'compensation for Lost Wages and Interest' 'costs']
['employment and Industrial Law' 'workplace Relations' 'penalties and Compensation'] ['unlawful Termination for Prohibited Reasons' 'union Membership' 'seeking Better Industrial Conditions' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'totality Principle' 'compensation for Lost Wages and Interest' 'costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Workplace Relations Proceeding Alleging Contraventions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Arising From Dismissals / Penalty, Compensation and Costs Following Findings of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What penalties should be imposed under s 298U(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) for the respondent's contraventions of s 298K(1)(a)." 'Whether compensation and interest should be ordered under s 298U(c) for the dismissed employee applicants.' 'Whether the penalties should be paid to the Union or to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.' 'Whether the respondent should receive costs of the directions hearing held on 8 December 2008.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's clean record justified a significant discount from the maximum, but the contraventions were deliberate, caused injury to three employees, occurred as three separate events, required general deterrence because the respondent was a significant regional employer, and required strong specific deterrence because Mr Thornton did not genuinely accept or show contrition for the contraventions. Because the contraventions concerning Mr Coon and Mr Kemmis had factual overlap, the Court treated the matter as three occasions for liability rather than five, and a just and reasonable total penalty was $20,000 per employee, totalling $60,000, payable to the Union. The employees proved...

Court Disposition

The respondent was ordered to pay total penalties of $60,000 to the Union and compensation with interest to the second, third and fourth applicants; no costs order was made in favour of the respondent for the directions hearing.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 298U(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), the respondent pay a penalty of $20,000 for contraventions of s 298K(1)(a) arising from the termination of the second applicant for reasons including s 298L(1)(a) and s 298L(1)(l).' 'Pursuant to s 298U(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth),...