Auspine Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union

Case [2000] FCA 501


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Auspine Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2000] FCA 501

INDUSTRIAL LAW – interlocutory injunction sought to restrain picketing during negotiations for new industrial agreement – power of the Court to grant interlocutory injunction – s 170NG of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – whether serious question to be tried that the respondents have been hindering or preventing access to or egress from premises of the applicant – whether serious question to be tried that conduct of the respondent amounts to picketing – whether picketing is “industrial action” and therefore “protected action” under Div 8 of the Workplace Relation Act 1996 (Cth) – whether serious question to be tried that the action was taken with intent to coerce employer to agree to making an enterprise agreement – whether balance of convenience favours granting of injunction.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – negotiations for new industrial agreement – whether notice of initiation of bargaining period given – content of notices – whether notices sufficient to encompass picketing – whether serious question to be tried on that issue.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 23

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 170LT, 170LX(1), 170LX(2)-(4), 170MI, 170MM, 170MO, 170MO(3)(b), 170MO(4), 170MO(5), 170NC, 170NG, Pt VIB Div 2, Pt VIB Div 3, Pt VIB Div 8

Davids Distribution Pty Ltd v the National Union of Workers (1999) 91 FCR 463 applied

Burswood Resort (Management) Ltd v Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union (1999) FCA 1443 applied

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Community and Public Sector Union (1997) 76 IR 478 referred to

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (1998) 89 FCR 2000 applied

Dollar Sweets Pty Ltd v Federated Confectioners Association of Australia [1986] VR 383 applied

ACI Operations v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2000] FCA 393 applied

Australian Workers Union v Yallourn Energy Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 65 applied

AUSPINE LIMITED (ACN 004 289 730) v
THE CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION,
COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA,
AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING WORKERS UNION
AND
PAUL MARTINELLA AND OTHERS

S 24 OF 2000

MANSFIELD J
4 APRIL 2000
ADELAIDE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

S 24 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

AUSPINE LIMITED
(ACN 004 289 730)
Applicant

AND:

THE CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND
ENERGY UNION
First Respondent

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING WORKERS UNION
Third Respondent

PAUL MARTINELLA AND OTHERS
Fourth Respondents

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 APRIL 2000

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Upon Auspine by its counsel giving the usual undertaking as to damages, I order that the respondents, by themselves or their servants, members or agents, be restrained from engaging in conduct in concert with others and with each other that hinders or prevents the…

Continue reading Auspine Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Auspine Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2000] FCA 501
Case
[2000] FCA 501
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Auspine Ltd sought an interlocutory injunction against the Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union to restrain picketing during negotiations for a new industrial agreement. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the Court had the authority to grant an interlocutory injunction under s 170NG of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and if there was a serious question to be tried that the respondents were hindering or preventing access to or egress from Auspine's premises. Further, the Court had to determine whether the conduct of the respondents constituted picketing, whether such picketing qualified as "industrial action" and thus "protected action" under the Workplace Relations Act, and if the action was taken with the intent to coerce Auspine to agree to an enterprise agreement. The balance of convenience was also considered to decide whether it favoured granting the injunction.

The Court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the respondents' conduct amounting to picketing and hindering access to Auspine's premises. It was also determined that the picketing could be considered "industrial action" and "protected action" under the Act. However, the Court held that the respondents' conduct did not meet the threshold to be deemed coercive. The Court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, as the disruption caused by the picketing outweighed the potential harm to the respondents' rights to engage in protected industrial action.

The Court ordered that the respondents be restrained from engaging in conduct that hinders or prevents access to or exit from Auspine's premises in Tarpeena, South Australia. The order was to be served on the respondents and a copy placed on the entrances to Auspine's premises. Costs of the application were reserved, and the matter was adjourned for further directions. Any party was granted liberty to apply on short notice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Upon Auspine by its counsel giving the usual undertaking as to damages, I order that the respondents, by themselves or their servants, members or agents, be restrained from engaging in conduct in concert with others and with each other that hinders or prevents the access to or exit from the premises of Auspine Ltd situated in Tarpeena in the State of South Australia.

2. That this order be served upon the respondents:

(a) by service upon the respondents by their solicitors at the address for service given in the appearance; and

(b) by placing a copy of the orders on the entrances to the premises of Auspine Ltd situated at Tarpeena in the State of South Australia.

3. Costs of this application reserved.

4. Adjourn the matter for further directions to 9.15 am on 18 April 2000.

5. Liberty to any party to apply on short notice.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.