Legal Research
Cases
Australian Workers' Union v BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd

Australian Workers' Union v BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 10 January 2001 78 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Workers' Union v BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 3
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Commonwealth powers – corporations power – validity of ss 298K, 298L & 298M of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
INDUSTRIAL LAW – industrial relations – freedom of association – employer offering workplace agreements – whether injury of employees or alteration of their positions to their prejudice – whether offer of workplace agreements made for prohibited reasons – whether employer by threats or promises or otherwise inducing employees to stop being members of industrial association – relevance of employer’s intent to inducement considered – whether employer’s obligation under award to refrain from entering into contracts inconsistent with award expressly incorporated in employees’ contracts of employment
CONTRACTS – terms – whether express incorporation of terms of industrial award into contract of employment – whether obligation not to enter into contracts inconsistent with award a term or condition of employment – whether breach of contract for employer to enter into workplace agreements inconsistent with award
WORDS AND PHRASES – “induce”, “member of an industrial association”
Workplace Relations Act 1996 ss 3, 298A, 298C, 298G, 298K, 298L, 298M, 298U, 298V
Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996
Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993
Workplace Agreements Act 1993 (WA)
Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA)
Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v The Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 513 cited
Re Dingjan; ex parte Wagner (1995) 183 CLR 323 considered, applied
The Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1 referred
Quickenden v O’Connor (1999) 91 FCR 597 referred
Rowe v Transport Workers’ Union (1998) 90 FCR 95 referred
Victoria v The Commonwealth (1996) 187 CLR 416 discussed, followed
Re Pacific Coal Pty Ltd; ex parte Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2000] HCA 34 referred
R v Australian Industrial Court; ex parte CLM Holdings Pty Ltd (1977) 136 CLR 235 referred
National Wage Case (1987) 17 IR 65 cited
National Wage Case (1988) 25 IR 170 cited
National Wage Case (1991) 39 IR 127 cited
Safety Net Review – Wages (1997) 71 IR 1 cited
Heidt v Chrysler Australia Ltd (1976) 26 FLR 257 referred
Bowling v General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd (1980) 50 FLR 79 referred
David’s Distribution Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers (1999) 165 ALR 550 considered
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1008 cited
Burnie Port Corporation Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [2000] FCA 1768 cited
Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1 cited, distinguished
BHP Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union (2000) 171 ALR 680 explained, followed
CPSU, Community and Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Limited [2000] FCA 844 referred
Finance Sector Union v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2000] FCA 1372 cited
Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission v Mount Isa Mines Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 80 referred
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 referred
Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical & Services…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Workers' Union v BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] FCA 3
Decision Date: 10 JANUARY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, the Australian Workers' Union contested the validity of a contractual clause in their dispute with BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd. The crux of the matter lay in the interpretation and applicability of a specific clause within the employment contracts. The Union argued against the clause, asserting its invalidity under the Workplace Authority Industrial Relations Act (WAIR Act). Conversely, BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd defended the clause, claiming it was a legitimate term of their employment contracts.

The court was tasked with determining whether the clause was an incorporated term and, if so, whether it was valid under the WAIR Act. The Union argued that the clause, if incorporated, only applied to the specific contract in which it was included and contended that it was repugnant to the WAIR Act, rendering it invalid. BHP Iron-Ore Pty Ltd, on the other hand, argued for the clause's validity and applicability. The court's analysis centred on these contentions, examining the precise wording and context of the clause in question.

After careful deliberation, the court found that the Union had not demonstrated a valid basis for the relief they sought. The court concluded that the injunction previously granted and varied should be discharged, as the Union failed to substantiate their claims. The decision hinged on the interpretation of the clause and its compliance with the WAIR Act, with the court finding no merit in the Union's arguments. The matter was adjourned to allow for submissions on costs and any consequential orders.

The final orders of the court were to discharge the injunction previously granted, without prejudice to the parties' rights to seek further legal remedies or orders as appropriate. The court directed that the matter be adjourned to facilitate the preparation of submissions on costs and any other orders that the parties deemed necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

KENNY J

The respondent also submitted that if clause 5(14)(a) was an incorporated term of a contract of employment, then the clause as incorporated applied only to the particular employment contract in which it was incorporated. In the alternative, the respondent submitted that the clause was invalid since it was repugnant to the WAIR Act: see s 114(3) and s 7E. In light of the conclusion reached, however, it is unnecessary to express a view on these submissions. conclusion Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the applicants have not established entitlement to the final injunctive relief that they seek in this proceeding. The injunction granted by Gray J on 31 January 2000 as varied by the Full Court on 7 April 2000 should be discharged. I propose to adjourn the matter to enable counsel to prepare short submissions on costs and on any consequential orders that they consider should be made.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: KENNY J

Full text does not contain this section.