AWU v Johnson Matthey (Australia) Ltd [1999] FCA 1742
Industrial
law
AWU v Johnson Matthey (Australia) Ltd [1999] FCA 1742
INDUSTRIAL LAW - subpoena for production of particular records of the applicant - whether documents sought too broad and therefore oppressive - whether documents sought relevant
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) Parts VIB, XA
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hamberger (Employment Advocate) [1999] FCA 1301, referred to
AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION v JOHNSON MATTHEY (AUSTRALIA) LTD ACN 004 146 838
V425 OF 1999
MARSHALL J
MELBOURNE
1 DECEMBER 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V425 OF 1999
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION Applicant
AND: JOHNSON MATTHEY (AUSTRALIA) LTD Respondent
#DATE 01:12:1999
JUDGE:
MARSHALL J DATE OF ORDER: 1 DECEMBER 1999 WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE (via video link)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application to set aside the subpoena for production in part be dismissed, save that the documents be confined to those which came into existence on or prior to 14 July 1999.
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 V425 OF 1999
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION Applicant
AND: JOHNSON MATTHEY (AUSTRALIA) LTD Respondent
JUDGE: MARSHALL J DATE: 1 DECEMBER 1999 PLACE: ADELAIDE (via video link)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The substantive application before the Court is one which alleges a breach of the provisions of Part VIB and Part XA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ("the Act"). A central issue in dispute in the proceeding is the union membership status of certain employees of the respondent company.
2 The company subpoenaed certain records relating to the membership of the applicant, the Australian Workers' Union ("the Union"). The Union sought to set aside the subpoena in part. First it alleged that in so far as the subpoena sought documents in respect of all members of the Union and not merely in respect of certain named individuals the subpoena was too broad. Secondly, in so far as the subpoena sought the production of the documents associated with the payment and receipt of contributions, the subpoena should be set aside on the grounds of relevance.
3 The Court rejects both grounds of objection. The question of who is or is not, or who was or was not at any material time, a member of the Union is an important issue which may require resolution in the proceeding. Whether or not certain industrial action was "protected" having regard to the provisions of Part VIB of the Act is a live issue which requires determination in the proceeding.
4 A proper consideration of r 8 of the Union's rules shows that a person may become a member of the Union by the mere payment of a contribution which may or may not be at the rate determined by the rules. Therefore it cannot be said that documents associated with the payment and receipt of contributions are irrelevant to the issue of union membership.
5 I accept the submissions of the company that the production of the documents sought by the subpoena would not be oppressive to the Union. The Union has nearly two months to arrange to produce the relevant documents to the Court. The documents are described in the subpoena with reasonable specificity. The interests of justice in the attainment of a fair trial based on all relevant material dictate that the documents should be produced to the Court. See, for example, Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hamberger (Employment Advocate) [1999] FCA 1301.
6 The documents sought should be confined to those that existed as at the date of the meeting at which a vote was taken to engage in the second strike. That is because it appears to be the last date referred to in the amended application upon which membership of the Union is relevant to the issue of whether a breach of the Act occurred as at the date of the institution of the proceeding.
7 The Court orders that the application to set aside the subpoena for production in part be dismissed, save that the documents be confined to those which came into existence on or prior to 14 July 1999.
I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.
Associate:
Dated: 20 December 1999
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Rozen Solicitor for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn Cashman Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Wood Solicitor for the Respondent: Mallesons Stephen Jaques Date of Hearing: 19 October 1999 Date of Judgment: 1 December 1999 (ex-tempore as revised from the transcript)
- AGLC
- AWU v Johnson Matthey (Australia) Ltd [1999] FCA 1742 Industrial
- Case
- [1999] FCA 1742
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the appropriate scope of the subpoena, assessing the relevance and necessity of the documents in question. In particular, the court had to consider whether the documents in question, which Johnson Matthey argued were irrelevant and unnecessary, were indeed pertinent to the claims being pursued by the AWU. This involved a detailed examination of the documents and their relationship to the case at hand, as well as the principles governing the issuance and enforcement of subpoenas for production in Australian law. The court needed to balance the rights of the parties involved with the overarching objective of ensuring that the proceedings were conducted in a fair and efficient manner.
Justice Gilmour held that the subpoena for production was valid and enforceable, but the scope of the documents sought had to be limited. The court found that the documents which came into existence prior to 14 July 1999 were relevant and necessary for the proceedings, while those created after this date were not. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to set aside the subpoena in part, but modified it to confine the documents to those which existed on or before 14 July 1999. This decision ensured that the AWU could access the necessary documents for their case while also protecting Johnson Matthey from having to produce irrelevant material.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application to set aside the subpoena for production in part be dismissed, save that the documents be confined to those which came into existence on or prior to 14 July 1999.
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.