Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Moses and Ors (No.2)
Case
•
[2017] FCCA 2738
•9 November 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australian Building And Construction Commissioner v Moses and Ors (No.2) [2017] FCCA 2738
[2017] FCCA 2738
9 November 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, Justice Jarrett considered the application by the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABCC) against Mr. Moses and other respondents. The dispute concerned alleged contraventions of the *Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005* (Cth) (BCII Act) by the respondents, who were officials of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The ABCC sought declarations and penalties for these alleged breaches.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the respondents had contravened specific provisions of the BCII Act, particularly those relating to unlawful entry to premises and coercion. The Court was required to determine if the actions of the respondents, in attending a construction site and engaging with employees and management, constituted unlawful conduct under the Act, and if so, whether penalties should be imposed.
Justice Jarrett found that the respondents had indeed contravened the BCII Act. The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the provisions concerning lawful entry and the prohibition of coercion. His Honour concluded that the respondents' conduct, including their presence on the site and their interactions, exceeded the scope of any lawful right of entry and amounted to coercion, as they sought to influence the employees' decisions regarding union membership and industrial action. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the relevant sections of the BCII Act, finding that the respondents' actions were not protected by any statutory exceptions.
Consequently, Justice Jarrett made declarations that the respondents had contravened the BCII Act and ordered them to pay penalties.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the respondents had contravened specific provisions of the BCII Act, particularly those relating to unlawful entry to premises and coercion. The Court was required to determine if the actions of the respondents, in attending a construction site and engaging with employees and management, constituted unlawful conduct under the Act, and if so, whether penalties should be imposed.
Justice Jarrett found that the respondents had indeed contravened the BCII Act. The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the provisions concerning lawful entry and the prohibition of coercion. His Honour concluded that the respondents' conduct, including their presence on the site and their interactions, exceeded the scope of any lawful right of entry and amounted to coercion, as they sought to influence the employees' decisions regarding union membership and industrial action. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the relevant sections of the BCII Act, finding that the respondents' actions were not protected by any statutory exceptions.
Consequently, Justice Jarrett made declarations that the respondents had contravened the BCII Act and ordered them to pay penalties.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Employment Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Standing
-
Abuse of Process
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson [2019] FCA 1654
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The Yatala Labour Prison Case) (No 3)
[2024] FCA 732
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson
[2019] FCA 1654
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
2
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Moses
[2017] FCCA 738
Balding v Ten Talents Pty Ltd
[2007] FMCA 145
Canturi v Sita Coaches Pty Ltd
[2002] FCA 349