Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Allegation of contravention of.345 of the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) – application for summary dismissal or to strike out all or part of Statement of Claim.
[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.
Continue reading CFMEU v Lendlease Engineering Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
CFMEU v Lendlease Engineering Pty Ltd [2019] FCCA 746
Case
[2019] FCCA 746
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Federal Court of Australia, constituted by Judge Barnes, considered a dispute between the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Lendlease Engineering Pty Ltd. The core of the dispute concerned allegations that Lendlease Engineering had contravened section 348C of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) by failing to provide the CFMEU with a list of employees on a particular project site who were members of the union. The CFMEU sought declarations and penalties for this alleged contravention.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Lendlease Engineering had contravened section 348C of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) by failing to provide the CFMEU with the requested list of union members. This required the Court to determine the scope and application of section 348C, particularly in relation to the definition of "relevant employees" and the circumstances under which an employer is obliged to furnish such a list to a union.
Judge Barnes found that Lendlease Engineering had indeed contravened section 348C. The Court reasoned that the employer's obligation under the section was triggered by the union's request for a list of its members employed on the project. The Court rejected arguments that the request was invalid or that the employees in question did not fall within the scope of "relevant employees" as defined by the Act. The Court concluded that the employer had failed to provide the requested information within the statutory timeframe, thereby breaching its obligations. The Court made declarations that Lendlease Engineering had contravened section 348C and ordered Lendlease Engineering to pay a penalty of $10,000.