Cahill v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union

The case of Cahill v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 283 involves a dispute between the applicant, Cahill, and the respondents, the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEUA) and Federated Engineering and Electrical Workers' Union of Australia (FEDFA). Cahill sought interlocutory injunctions against the respondents for alleged contraventions of sections 38 and 43 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). The court was required to decide whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the respondents' conduct and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunctions sought. The court also needed to consider the definition of coercion under section 43 of the Act.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and concluded that the evidence did not establish the applicant’s case. The court found that the respondents' conduct, including the picketing and the direction given to the Independent Crane crew, did not amount to coercion as it did not negate choice and was not unlawful, illegitimate, or unconscionable. The court also noted that crane operators had made a commercial decision not to work on the site and that the evidence did not establish any CFMEU presence on the picket. The court held that the applicants had not satisfied the threshold for a serious question to be tried regarding the respondents' conduct, and therefore, the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of the injunctions sought.

The court dismissed the application for interlocutory injunctions against the respondents. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated a serious question to be tried regarding the respondents' conduct, and therefore, the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of the injunctions sought. The court also noted that the evidence did not establish the applicant’s case and that the respondents' conduct did not amount to coercion under section 43 of the Act.