Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

In the case of Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the appellant, CEPU, challenged the decision of the primary judge in the Federal Court of Australia, which found that the CEPU had engaged in conduct that contravened section 45E(3) of the Trade Practices Act by coercing Edison into a position to exclude electrical contractors, including DJN, from undertaking further work for Edison. The CEPU argued that the penalty imposed was manifestly excessive and that the primary judge's findings of fact were incorrect. The court was required to determine whether the CEPU's conduct constituted a contravention of section 45E(3) of the Trade Practices Act and whether the penalty imposed was appropriate.

The court found that the CEPU's conduct constituted a serious contravention of section 45E(3) of the Trade Practices Act. The court held that the CEPU had engaged in anti-competitive conduct by coercing Edison into a position to exclude electrical contractors, including DJN, from undertaking further work for Edison. The court found that the penalty imposed was at the lower end of the range for such conduct and was appropriate. The court held that the contravention involved the CEPU engaging in anti-competitive conduct by coercing Edison into a position to exclude electrical contractors, in particular DJN, engaged by Edison to have Enterprise Bargaining Agreements (EBAs). The court held that such conduct should be deterred by the imposition of appropriately substantial penalties when contraventions have been established.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court held that the CEPU's conduct constituted a serious contravention of section 45E(3) of the Trade Practices Act and that the penalty imposed was appropriate. The court held that the CEPU's conduct involved engaging in anti-competitive conduct by coercing Edison into a position to exclude electrical contractors, in particular DJN, engaged by Edison to have EBAs. The court held that such conduct should be deterred by the imposition of appropriately substantial penalties when contraventions have been established.