Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd

In the matter of Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd, the court was presented with an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent from excluding the applicant from a coal mine. The dispute arose after the respondent, BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd, informed the applicant, Kim Star, that her services were no longer required at the mine. The applicant had previously been reinstated following a successful unfair dismissal claim but was subsequently demobilised without any given reason. The union, on behalf of the applicant, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, compensation, and pecuniary penalties, alleging that the demobilisation constituted adverse action taken for a prohibited reason under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court had to decide whether the application was statute-barred, whether the applicant had exercised a workplace right, and if the decision to demobilise was influenced by the purported exercise of such a right.

The court considered the criteria for granting interlocutory relief, including the presence of a serious question to be tried, the likelihood of injury for which damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience. The court noted that the applicant needed to demonstrate a prima facie case for relief, which involves a sufficient likelihood of success to justify preserving the status quo. The court also weighed the respective merits of the parties' cases and the potential consequences of granting or refusing the injunction. The court found that the application was not statute-barred, that the applicant had exercised a workplace right, and that there was a serious question to be tried regarding whether the demobilisation was influenced by the exercise of that right.

The court ultimately concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as the injunction was necessary to avoid personal inconvenience to Ms Star pending the trial. The court noted that there was no evidence of financial or other detriment to Ms Star or the union if the injunction was not issued. Conversely, the refusal of the injunction would require the respondent to accept a person to work at the mine that it did not want there. Given these considerations, the court granted the injunction, restraining the respondent from excluding the applicant from the mine until the matter was heard and determined.