Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hanna and Anor (No.2)

In the matter of *Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hanna and Anor (No.2)*, heard in the Federal Court of Australia before Judge Vasta, the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABCC) brought proceedings against Mr. Hanna and another respondent. The dispute concerned alleged contraventions of the *Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2013* (Cth) (BCII P Act) and the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) (FW Act). Specifically, the ABCC alleged that Mr. Hanna, acting as an official of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU), had engaged in unlawful industrial action and made threats to a site manager.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr. Hanna's conduct constituted unlawful coercion and intimidation, thereby contravening provisions of the BCII P Act and the FW Act. The Court was required to determine if the actions taken by Mr. Hanna, including alleged threats to cease work and to report safety concerns in a manner intended to disrupt the project, amounted to unlawful pressure on the employer to agree to the union's demands. This involved an assessment of the intent behind Mr. Hanna's communications and actions in the context of industrial relations law.

Judge Vasta found that Mr. Hanna's conduct did indeed contravene the relevant provisions of the Acts. The Court reasoned that Mr. Hanna's threats to stop work and his communication of safety concerns were not made in good faith but were strategically employed to exert illegitimate pressure on the employer to accede to the union's demands regarding the employment of a particular individual. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the relevant sections of the BCII P Act and the FW Act, focusing on the definition of coercion and the intent required to establish a contravention. The Court concluded that the evidence demonstrated a deliberate attempt by Mr. Hanna to unlawfully influence the employer's decision-making through intimidation.

The Court ordered that Mr. Hanna pay pecuniary penalties for the contraventions found.