CFMEU v Lendlease Engineering Pty Ltd

Case

[2019] FCCA 746

29 March 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
CFMEU v Lendlease Engineering Pty Ltd [2019] FCCA 746 [2019] FCCA 746 29 March 2019

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.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Employment Law

Legal Concepts

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Natural Justice

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

36

Statutory Material Cited

5