Legal Research
Cases
Australian Workers' Union v Pilkington (Aust) Ltd

Australian Workers' Union v Pilkington (Aust) Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 22 August 2000 22 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Workers’ Union v Pilkington (Aust) Ltd [2000] FCA 1169
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS – application for stay – stay sought of order of single judge of Supreme Court of Victoria – circumstances in which stay may be granted – whether necessary to preserve subject‑matter of litigation – whether irreparable damage if no stay granted – effect of absence of certificate under s 166A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth): s 170MO
Federal Court Rules: O 52 r17
National Union of Workers v Davids Distribution Pty Ltd (1999) 91 FCR 513 referred to
AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION & ORS v PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) LTD & ANOR
V 586 of 2000
GOLDBERG, FINKELSTEIN & WEINBERG JJ
MELBOURNE
22 AUGUST 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 586 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

(HIS HONOUR MR JUSTICE BEACH)

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION
First Appellant

BOB OLIVER & OTHERS
(according to the attached schedule)

Second to Ninety-Fourth Appellants

AND:

PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) LTD
(ACN 006 904 052)
First Respondent

PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) OPERATIONS LTD
(ACN 004 158 909)
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG, FINKELSTEIN & WEINBERG JJ

DATE:

22 AUGUST 2000

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appellants’ motion by notice filed 10 August 2000 for a stay in respect of part of the orders made by Beach J on 9 August 2000 is dismissed.

2.There be no order as to costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 586 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

(HIS HONOUR MR JUSTICE BEACH)

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION
First Appellant

BOB OLIVER & OTHERS
(according to the attached schedule)

Second to Ninety-Fourth Appellants

AND:

PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) LTD
(ACN 006 904 052)
First Respondent

PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) OPERATIONS LTD
(ACN 004 158 909)
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG, FINKELSTEIN & WEINBERG JJ

DATE:

22 AUGUST 2000

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GOLDBERG AND WEINBERG JJ:

On 9 August 2000 Beach J in the Supreme Court of Victoria made orders at the suit of the respondents, Pilkington (Australia) Ltd and Pilkington (Australia) Operations Limited, restraining the appellants until 4.15pm on Monday 14 August 2000 from carrying out certain acts and participating in certain conduct which can generally be described as picketing the premises of the respondents. The order restrained the first appellant, Australian Workers’ Union (“the Union”), and ninety‑two employees of the respondents (“the employees”) from:
“(a)preventing, hindering or interfering with, free access to, and free egress from the premises of the secondnamed Plaintiff at 95 Greens Road, Dandenong in the State of Victoria (‘the Dandenong Site’);
(b)threatening, besetting, harassing or intimidating any person entering or leaving or about to enter or leave or who has entered or left the Dandenong Site;
(c)inducing, procuring, advising or persuading any person not to enter or not to leave the Dandenong site, or…

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 Pilkington (Aust) 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: [2000] FCA 1169
Decision Date: 22 AUGUST 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Australian Workers' Union as the appellant and Pilkington (Aust) Ltd as the respondent. The dispute arose from an application made by the union for an injunction to prevent the employer from carrying out certain industrial action. Beach J granted the injunction, and the union subsequently appealed the decision, seeking a stay of part of the orders made by Beach J. The court was tasked with determining whether the union's motion for a stay should be granted and whether any order should be made as to costs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union's motion for a stay of part of the orders made by Beach J should be granted. The court needed to consider the circumstances under which such a stay might be appropriate and whether the union had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a stay. The court also had to consider whether any order should be made as to the costs of the motion.

In determining the appeal, the court held that the union's motion for a stay was not well-founded. The union had not demonstrated that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a stay of part of the orders. The court found that the union's appeal was unlikely to succeed and that there was no compelling reason to grant a stay. The court also considered the principle that the party seeking a stay must demonstrate exceptional circumstances, and the union had not met this burden. Consequently, the court dismissed the union's motion for a stay. The court made no order as to costs, as it found that the union's appeal was not frivolous or vexatious.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellants’ motion by notice filed 10 August 2000 for a stay in respect of part of the orders made by Beach J on 9 August 2000 is dismissed.

2. There be no order as to costs.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY		V 586 of 2000
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA (HIS HONOUR MR JUSTICE BEACH)
BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION First Appellant BOB OLIVER & OTHERS (according to the attached schedule) Second to Ninety-Fourth Appellants
AND:	PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) LTD (ACN 006 904 052) First Respondent PILKINGTON (AUSTRALIA) OPERATIONS LTD (ACN 004 158 909) Second Respondent

JUDGE:	GOLDBERG, FINKELSTEIN & WEINBERG JJ
DATE:	22 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:	MELBOURNE