Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Comalco Aluminium Ltd & Anor Comalco Aluminium Ltd v Australian Workers Union

Case [1998] FCA 1536

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal against decision of primary judge involving interpretation of an “award” – “award” was an order made under s 118A Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) by a Presidential Member of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission – whether period of operation of the order had to be specified – whether the order had continuing legal effect after period specified in the order by operation of s 148 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) – whether that order was “an order affecting an award” for the purposes of s 143 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) – meaning of the term “award” – whether Presidential Member making order had power to limit its period of operation.

Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) s 118A, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 413

Re Queensland Alumina Ltd (1991) 42 IR 304, cited
Waterside Workers Federation v Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association (1920) 28 CLR 209, cited

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION v COMALCO ALUMINIUM LIMITED and AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION
QG 55 of 1998

COMALCO ALUMINIUM LIMITED v AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION and CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
QG 56 of 1998

SPENDER, MOORE AND SUNDBERG JJ
15 DECEMBER 1998
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

 QG 55 of 1998

On appeal from a judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
APPELLANT

AND:

COMALCO ALUMINIUM LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION
SECOND RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 56  of   1998

On appeal from a judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

COMALCO ALUMINIUM LIMITED
APPELLANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION
FIRST RESPONDENT

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

SPENDER, MOORE AND SUNDBERG JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

15 DECEMBER 1998

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeals be allowed.

  2. The orders of the primary judge be set aside.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

 QG 55 of 1998

On appeal from a judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
APPELLANT

AND:

COMALCO ALUMINIUM LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION
SECOND RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

 QG 56 of 1998

On appeal from a judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

COMALCO ALUMINIUM LIMITED
APPELLANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION
FIRST RESPONDENT

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

SPENDER, MOORE AND SUNDBERG JJ

DATE:

15 DECEMBER 1998

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

This is an appeal against a judgment of this Court of 21 May 1998 in an application made pursuant to s 413 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (“WR Act”) by Comalco Aluminium Ltd (“Comalco”). The application arose from proceedings in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) heard by…

Continue reading Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Comalco Alum...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Comalco Aluminium Ltd & Anor Comalco Aluminium Ltd v Australian Workers Union [1998] FCA 1536
Case
[1998] FCA 1536
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union (CFMEU) and Comalco Aluminium Ltd, with the Australian Workers Union as a second respondent in the second matter. The dispute revolved around industrial action taken by the unions, including potential bans on the use of certain equipment and the refusal to perform specific tasks. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were the validity of the industrial action taken by the unions under the applicable industrial relations legislation. The court had to determine whether the industrial action was lawful and whether it was appropriate to issue injunctions to restrain such action. Additionally, the court needed to consider the extent of the relief that could be granted to prevent the unions from taking actions that could potentially disrupt the operations of Comalco Aluminium Ltd.

In its reasoning, the court held that the industrial action taken by the unions was unlawful. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining a balance between the rights of employers and employees, and found that the unions had overstepped the bounds of permissible industrial action. The court set aside the orders of the primary judge and allowed the appeals, emphasising that the industrial action in question was not protected by the relevant industrial relations laws. The relief granted was limited to preventing the unions from taking actions that would unreasonably disrupt the operations of Comalco Aluminium Ltd.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeals, set aside the orders of the primary judge, and to provide specific relief to Comalco Aluminium Ltd to prevent further unlawful industrial action by the unions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeals be allowed.

2.

The orders of the primary judge be set aside.

Note:

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.