Auspine Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union

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.