FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Molina [2020] FCAFC 97
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Molina and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2020] FCAFC 97
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Molina, the appellant, the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, sought to appeal a decision by the primary judge that dismissed their application for declarations that the respondents had contravened sections 346(b) and 348 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred around whether the primary judge had correctly interpreted the sections in question and whether the actions of the respondents constituted adverse action. The respondents contended that the primary judge had correctly applied section 361 of the Act, which places the onus of proof on the party alleging the contravention. They also argued that the threats made by Mr Molina, on behalf of the union, were not coercive as required by section 348.
The court examined whether the primary judge had erred in their interpretation of section 346, particularly regarding when a threat to take action would constitute adverse action. The court also considered whether the presumption in section 361 applied to allegations that a person threatened to take action with intent to coerce. The court concluded that the primary judge had not erred in their approach to the construction of section 346. The court found that the threat, while presumed to have been made with the intent to coerce, had not been shown to be unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable. Thus, the appeal was dismissed as the findings of the primary judge were upheld.
The court also denied the appellant leave to advance a new case on appeal, which sought to depart from the case presented before the primary judge. The nature of conduct and intent required to establish coercion under section 348 was considered, but the court ruled against allowing the appellant to present a new case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were granted leave to apply for any costs orders within 14 days. The court did not consider making any costs order itself, leaving it to the respondents to pursue this within the specified timeframe.
The court examined whether the primary judge had erred in their interpretation of section 346, particularly regarding when a threat to take action would constitute adverse action. The court also considered whether the presumption in section 361 applied to allegations that a person threatened to take action with intent to coerce. The court concluded that the primary judge had not erred in their approach to the construction of section 346. The court found that the threat, while presumed to have been made with the intent to coerce, had not been shown to be unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable. Thus, the appeal was dismissed as the findings of the primary judge were upheld.
The court also denied the appellant leave to advance a new case on appeal, which sought to depart from the case presented before the primary judge. The nature of conduct and intent required to establish coercion under section 348 was considered, but the court ruled against allowing the appellant to present a new case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were granted leave to apply for any costs orders within 14 days. The court did not consider making any costs order itself, leaving it to the respondents to pursue this within the specified timeframe.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. There be leave to the respondents to apply for any cost orders within 14 days.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
The respondents filed a notice of contention raising two grounds. The first was to the effect that if s 361 applied then the respondents discharged their onus. For reasons given, this contention should not be upheld. The second dealt with the issue of whether the conduct of Mr Molina (for which the Union was also said to be responsible) was unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable. For reasons we have given, we uphold the contention that on the findings of the primary judge it has not been shown that the threat was a threat to coerce. Although it is presumed to have been made with intent to coerce it has not been established that it was unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable.Conclusion and costs It follows that, for the reasons given, the appeal must be dismissed. The Court was not invited to consider the making of any costs order. There should be leave to the respondents to make any application for a costs order within 14 days.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.