Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The North Queensland Stadium Case) (No 2)

The case before the court was between the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, along with various employees, in what has come to be known as the North Queensland Stadium Case. The Commissioner alleged that the Union and its employees had engaged in unlawful industrial action in contravention of sections 46 and 54 of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 (Cth). The Commissioner sought pecuniary penalties for the contraventions and argued that specific deterrence was crucial due to the Union's prior contravening conduct. The court had to decide the appropriate penalties for the contraventions, considering the seriousness of the conduct and the need for deterrence.

The legal issues centred on the appropriate penalties for the contraventions of sections 46 and 54 of the BCI Act. The court had to consider the specific deterrence principle, the seriousness of the conduct, and the overlap in conduct between the Union and Mr Harradine, a union official. The Commissioner argued for high penalties for the Union and mid to high penalties for Mr Harradine, considering that they could only be penalised for the contravention of section 54 due to the overlap. The court had to balance the need for deterrence with the appropriate level of penalty for each respondent.

The court found that the Commissioner had substantially succeeded in proving the pleaded case. The court held that the Union and the Employees had engaged in unlawful industrial action in contravention of sections 46 and 54 of the BCI Act. The court found that Mr Harradine organised the industrial action, leading to the contraventions. The court imposed penalties based on the seriousness of the conduct and the need for deterrence. The Union was ordered to pay a penalty of $190,000 for its contraventions of section 54, while Mr Harradine was ordered to pay a penalty of $20,000. The Employees were ordered to pay penalties ranging from $4,500 to $5,000 for their contraventions of section 46. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the Commissioner’s costs of the proceedings.

In summary, the court ordered the Union to pay a penalty of $190,000, Mr Harradine to pay a penalty of $20,000, and specific Employees to pay penalties ranging from $4,500 to $5,000. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the Commissioner’s costs of the proceedings. The penalties were based on the seriousness of the conduct and the need for deterrence, with consideration given to the overlap in conduct between the Union and Mr Harradine. The court dismissed the Commissioner’s application to file an amended originating application.