Cozadinos v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

In the matter of Cozadinos v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the Federal Court of Australia was called to address a dispute arising from an alleged contravention of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) ("BCII Act") by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The case involved the CFMEU's actions that obstructed Bendigo Scaffolding Pty Ltd from commencing work on a construction site, unless certain conditions, including membership in the CFMEU and an enterprise bargaining agreement, were met. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalty for the CFMEU's admitted contravention of the BCII Act and assessing the joint proposal of the parties for a penalty amount. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the penalty proposed was within an acceptable range, given the circumstances of the case, and whether the proposed penalty would serve as a deterrent for future misconduct.

The court outlined the established approach to determining penalties in cases such as this, emphasising that while it is the court's responsibility to set the penalty, the views of the parties and the regulator are relevant but not determinative. The court noted that the penalty should fall within a permissible range and should serve both a general and specific deterrent effect. In this case, the court had to consider the CFMEU's history of contraventions and its lack of remorse or corrective actions. The court also highlighted the importance of promoting respect for the rule of law and ensuring accountability within the building industry.

After reviewing the circumstances and considering the joint proposal by the parties for a penalty of $20,000, the court found that while the penalty was at the lower end of the permissible range, it was appropriate given the factors at play. The court concluded that there was no reason to reject the agreed penalty, and it was satisfied that the penalty would serve as a deterrent. The court accepted the joint proposal for the penalty and agreed to the additional order for the CFMEU to pay the applicant's costs.