Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The U-Vet School Case)
Case
•
[2022] FCA 1068
•12 September 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The U-Vet School Case) [2022] FCA 1068
[2022] FCA 1068
12 September 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner sought declarations of contraventions of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 (Cth) and the imposition of pecuniary penalties on the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) and three individuals associated with it. The Commissioner alleged that the CFMMEU and the individuals engaged in conduct that contravened the Act, including unlawful industrial action and hindering or obstructing the lawful activities of workers. The CFMMEU admitted to the facts pleaded by the Commissioner, and the Commissioner sought declarations and penalties against the CFMMEU and the individuals for their involvement in the unlawful conduct.
The court had to determine whether the conduct of the CFMMEU and the individuals constituted a single course of conduct for the purposes of the Act, and if so, whether the penalties imposed were appropriate. The court found that the conduct of the CFMMEU and the individuals did constitute a single course of conduct, and that the penalties imposed were appropriate given the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the CFMMEU’s history of non-compliance with industrial laws. The court also considered the mitigating factor of the CFMMEU’s recent efforts to provide training to its organisers, shop stewards, and members of the Branch Executive.
The court made declarations of contraventions of the Act and imposed pecuniary penalties on the CFMMEU and the individuals. The CFMMEU was ordered to pay $360,000 in penalties, while the individuals were ordered to pay penalties ranging from $15,000 to $70,000. The court also dispensed with the requirement for service of the orders on the respondents and ordered that the penalties be paid to the Commonwealth of Australia within 28 days. The court made no order as to costs.
The court had to determine whether the conduct of the CFMMEU and the individuals constituted a single course of conduct for the purposes of the Act, and if so, whether the penalties imposed were appropriate. The court found that the conduct of the CFMMEU and the individuals did constitute a single course of conduct, and that the penalties imposed were appropriate given the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the CFMMEU’s history of non-compliance with industrial laws. The court also considered the mitigating factor of the CFMMEU’s recent efforts to provide training to its organisers, shop stewards, and members of the Branch Executive.
The court made declarations of contraventions of the Act and imposed pecuniary penalties on the CFMMEU and the individuals. The CFMMEU was ordered to pay $360,000 in penalties, while the individuals were ordered to pay penalties ranging from $15,000 to $70,000. The court also dispensed with the requirement for service of the orders on the respondents and ordered that the penalties be paid to the Commonwealth of Australia within 28 days. The court made no order as to costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Industrial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Penalties
-
Unlawful Industrial Action
-
Deterrence
-
Specific Performance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (The Mordialloc Freeway Project Case) [2024] FCA 655
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (North East Link Project Case)
[2024] FedCFamC2G 396
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
[2023] FedCFamC2G 1060
Cases Cited
19
Statutory Material Cited
1
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (The Bay Street Appeal)
[2020] FCAFC 192