AMIEU v Greenmountain Food Processing - [2015] FCCA 2655

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AMIEU v GREENMOUNTAIN FOOD PROCESSING

[2015] FCCA 2655

Catchwords:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Contravention of s.501 of FW Act – breach admitted – pecuniary penalty – penalty to be paid to the Commonwealth.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.484, 501, 512, and 518

United Voice v MDBR123 Proprietary Limited [2015] FCA 76

Applicant:

AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION

Respondent:

GREENMOUNTAIN FOOD PROCESSING

File Number:

BRG 467 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Vasta

Hearing date:

3 September 2015

Date of Last Submission:

3 September 2015

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

3 September 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr E. Dalgleish

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr P.A. Hardman

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Holding Redlich Lawyers

ORDERS

That the Respondent pay a pecuniary penalty pursuant to s.546 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”) for a contravention of s.501 of the Act.
That the Respondent pay a pecuniary penalty in the amount of $12,000 to be paid to the Commonwealth of Australia within six (6) months from the date of these Orders.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT BRISBANE

BRG 467 of 2015

AUSTRALASIAN MEAT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES' UNION

Applicant

And

GREENMOUNTAIN FOOD PROCESSING

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore)

This is a proceeding for the imposition of a pecuniary penalty. The facts of the matter are contained in the affidavit of Mr Ronald Charles Western, filed in this court on 28 May 2015 and that of Jason Todd Giddens, filed in this court on 11 August 2015.
Without going too far into the facts, what can be gleaned is that the Applicant union had, on a number of occasions, visited the premises of the Respondent, which led the Respondent to not be particularly happy with what had gone on in those visits. This led to proceedings before the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission issued a recommendation in May of 2014 which lasted for three months, and the matter was, in effect, adjourned for either party to bring the matter back.
The Respondent claims that there had been breaches, if not of the words, at least of the spirit of the recommendation, conceding, however, that the recommendation had no force of law. That is useful background to what then occurred on the 15 January 2015. Two days previously to that, Mr Western, who is the holder of entry permit under s.512 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FW Act”), applied for notice that he was to enter the premises of the Respondent on 15 January 2015. The notice that was given to the Respondent satisfied the requirements of s.484 and s.518 of the FW Act.
On 15 January 2015, Mr Western arrived at the plant to enter the premises. Upon arrival, Mr Giddens refused Mr Western entry onto the premises. This was a contravention of s.501 of the FW Act, and that is what brought the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AMIEU v Greenmountain Food Processing and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] FCCA 2655
Decision Date: 3 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) brought proceedings against Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd (Greenmountain) in the Federal Court of Australia, alleging contravention of section 501 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The admitted contravention related to Greenmountain's failure to comply with a notice issued under section 501 of the Act. The primary issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate pecuniary penalty for this admitted breach.

The court was required to determine the quantum of the pecuniary penalty to be imposed on Greenmountain for its contravention of section 501 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). This involved considering the purpose of penalties under the Act, which includes deterring future contraventions and holding employers accountable for their conduct.

In reaching its decision, Judge Vasta considered the nature of the contravention and the need for deterrence. The court noted that while the breach was admitted, it still warranted a penalty to uphold the integrity of the industrial relations framework. The penalty was ordered to be paid to the Commonwealth, reflecting the public interest in compliance with the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth).

Orders