BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union (No 1)

BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd, the owner of a blast furnace at Port Kembla, brought proceedings against the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU), seeking an interlocutory injunction to restrain the AWU from taking industrial action that could result in the furnace being unable to operate safely, or the dumping of molten iron ore. The AWU, which represents employees of BlueScope, had notified BlueScope of its intention to take industrial action that would stop the day shift for four hours and the night shift for the last four hours of their shifts. BlueScope argued that the proposed stoppages could cause serious economic risks due to the difficulties in turning the blast furnace on and off. The AWU contended that the industrial action was protected and immune from suit under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court had to decide whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy, and where the balance of convenience lay. The court found that there was a serious question to be tried as to whether the AWU’s industrial action may involve reckless destruction of property. The court also found that damages would not be an adequate remedy and that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of relief. The court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the AWU from taking industrial action that would stop the day shift for more than four hours, the night shift for more than four hours, or if a disruption event was underway at the time of the stoppage’s commencement. The parties were required to agree on the form of the order by 6 pm that evening.

The court's decision was that the AWU was to be restrained from taking industrial action that could result in the blast furnace being unable to operate safely or the dumping of molten iron ore. The court granted an interlocutory injunction to prevent the AWU from taking industrial action that would stop the day shift for more than four hours, the night shift for more than four hours, or if a disruption event was underway at the time of the stoppage’s commencement. The court ordered the parties to bring in short minutes of order by 6 pm that evening by emailing them to the court's Associate. If the parties were unable to agree the form of that order by 6 pm, the court would resolve the issue at 9.30 am the following morning. The court also noted that it was inappropriate to make any orders about the second respondent, the AWU’s state-based manifestation, as there was no evidence of its involvement in the present dispute. The court ordered costs to be costs in the cause.