Cruse v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2009] FCA 787

Cruse v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2009] FCA 787

The respondents admitted that the stop work meeting and short ban on crane installation work constituted unlawful industrial action contrary to s 38. Although the conduct was deliberate and involved Union senior management, it was brief, caused minimal disruption and loss, and was met by early admissions and cooperation. Having considered prior contraventions by the Union, absence of prior similar conduct by the second respondent, and the need for deterrence, the agreed penalties were within the permissible range and appropriate in all the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Pecuniary Penalty Proceeding / Penalty Hearing After Admitted Contraventions
Outcome
Declarations made, pecuniary penalties imposed, proceeding otherwise dismissed, and each party ordered to bear his or its own costs.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Industrial Action' 'building and Construction Industry' 'agreed Penalty' 'specific and General Deterrence' 'stop Work Meeting' 'work Ban']
['industrial Law' 'civil Penalties'] ['unlawful Industrial Action' 'building and Construction Industry' 'agreed Penalty' 'specific and General Deterrence' 'stop Work Meeting' 'work Ban']

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

Industrial Law Pecuniary Penalty Proceeding / Penalty Hearing After Admitted Contraventions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each respondent contravened s 38 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) by engaging in unlawful industrial action.' 'Whether the agreed penalties of $10,000 for the Union and $5,000 for the second respondent were appropriate in all the circumstances.' 'What factors were relevant to assessing the permissible range of penalties for the contraventions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents admitted that the stop work meeting and short ban on crane installation work constituted unlawful industrial action contrary to s 38. Although the conduct was deliberate and involved Union senior management, it was brief, caused minimal disruption and loss, and was met by early admissions and cooperation. Having considered prior contraventions by the Union, absence of prior similar conduct by the second respondent, and the need for deterrence, the agreed penalties were within the permissible range and appropriate in all the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Declarations made, pecuniary penalties imposed, proceeding otherwise dismissed, and each party ordered to bear his or its own costs.

Orders

  • ['On 6 October 2006, each of the respondents contravened s 38 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) by engaging in unlawful industrial action.' 'A penalty of $10,000 is imposed on the first respondent for contravening s 38 of the Act.' 'A penalty of $5,000 is imposed on the second...