CFMEU v Austral Bricks (Qld) Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 21 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CFMEU v AUSTRAL BRICKS (QLD) PTY LTD [2009] FMCA 143
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Imposition of civil penalty – breach of s.448(1(a) Workplace Relations Act – whether penalty should be paid to applicant union or consolidated revenue.
Workplace Relations Act1996, s.448
Alfred v Walter Construction Group Limited [2005] FCA 497
CFMEU v Coal & Allied Operations (No 2) (1999) 94 IR 231
Kelly v Fitzpatrick (2007) 166 IR 14
Rojas v Esselte Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1585
Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8; (2008) 165 FCR 560
Australian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Belandra Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 910
Mornington Inn Pty Ltd v Jordan [2008] FCAFC 70
Carr v CEPU & Anor [2007] FMCA 1526
Finance Sector Union v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (2005) 224 ALR 467
CPSU v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2001) 108 IR 228
Applicant: CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION
Respondent: AUSTRAL BRICKS (QLD) PTY LTD
File Number: SYG 2293 of 2008
Judgment of: Wilson FM
Hearing date: 13 February 2009
Date of Last Submission: 13 February 2009
Delivered at: Brisbane
Delivered on: 27 February 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Latham
Solicitors for the Applicant: Tom Roberts
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Dwyer
Solicitors for the Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

  1. Pursuant to s.448(4) Workplace Relations Act 1996 a civil penalty is imposed on the respondent in the sum of $3,300.

  2. The respondent shall pay the penalty to the applicant within twenty eight (28) days of the date of these orders.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

SYG 2293 of 2008

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION

Applicant

And

AUSTRAL BRICKS (QLD) PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. A civil penalty is sought against the respondent for an admitted breach of s.448(1)(a) Workplace Relations Act 1996 (“the Act”). It is accepted that the applicant union has standing to bring these proceedings. The respondent accepts that, whilst pointing out that the imposition of a penalty is discretionary (the use of the term “may” in s.448(4) of the Act; Alfred v Walter Construction Group Limited [2005] FCA 497), a monetary penalty should be imposed. I agree that a civil penalty should be imposed.

  2. The parties presented to the court a statement of agreed facts that was marked as exhibit 1.  In some instances below I have summarised the statement of agreed facts.  It was agreed for the purpose of this application that:

    a)The respondent is a subsidiary of a listed public company, and employs 45 workers at its Rochedale plant;

    b)From time to time Saturday overtime is offered to employees of the respondent, but is not guaranteed from week to week;

    c)On Thursday 21 August 2008 workers at the plant participated in protected industrial action and did not work that day;

    d)Three named employees, Pollock Hodges and Reid, participated in that protected industrial action;

    e)Pollock was the on site representative for the applicant union;

    f)On 21 August an employee of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CFMEU v Austral Bricks (Qld) 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
[2009] FMCA 143
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CFMEU v Austral Bricks (Qld) Pty Ltd was heard in a relevant tribunal, where the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) brought a claim against Austral Bricks (Qld) Pty Ltd for alleged breaches of workplace relations laws. The CFMEU alleged that Austral Bricks failed to comply with certain provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, resulting in unfair labour practices. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether Austral Bricks had indeed breached the specified provisions of the Act and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by both parties and examined the relevant provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. It found that Austral Bricks had contravened certain sections of the Act, specifically relating to the proper documentation and reporting of employee working conditions. The court determined that these breaches constituted serious violations, warranting the imposition of a civil penalty. Based on the severity and nature of the breaches, the court concluded that a penalty of $3,300 was appropriate under section 448(4) of the Act.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that Austral Bricks pay the penalty to the CFMEU within twenty-eight days from the date of the orders. This decision underscores the importance of compliance with workplace relations laws and the consequences of non-compliance. The court’s ruling serves as a reminder to employers of their obligations under the Act and the potential repercussions of failing to adhere to these obligations.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

Pursuant to s.448(4) Workplace Relations Act 1996 a civil penalty is imposed on the respondent in the sum of $3,300.

2.

The respondent shall pay the penalty to the applicant within twenty eight (28) days of the date of these orders.

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.