INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS – Trade union making claim for payment of wages for period of industrial action – Industrial action to coerce employer into making payment – Claim made and industrial action organised by shop stewards at workplace – Relevance of their knowledge as to whether their acts involved contraventions of law – Whether absence of evidence that they did know that their acts involved contraventions of law equivalent to evidence that they did not know – Whether distinction affected exercise of discretion in imposition of penalty – Relevance of union policy regarding reason for industrial action – Whether fact of acting in accordance with policy was mitigatory.
PENALTY – Contravention by trade union of statutory prohibition upon claims for payment of wages for periods of industrial action and upon industrial action to enforce such claims – Claim made and industrial action organised by shop stewards at workplace – Relevance of their knowledge as to whether their acts involved contraventions of law – Whether absence of evidence that they did know that their acts involved contraventions of law equivalent to evidence that they did not know – Whether distinction affected exercise of discretion in imposition of penalty – Relevance of union policy regarding reason for industrial action – Whether fact of acting in accordance with policy was mitigatory.
DECLARATIONS – Contested proceeding substantially settled by acceptance of applicant’s case – Contraventions of statutory provisions admitted – Whether declarations recording details of contraventions should be made – Whether merely involved a record of parties’ settlement – Utility of declarations in the circumstances.
WARREN CRUSE v MULTIPLEX LIMITED (ACN 008 687 063), CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION, JOHN SETKA, GRANT THORSON, PETER JOHN COSTELLO, ALFIO DI VIRGILIO, MARK EDWARDS, JOSE ESTEVES, MAX HOOD, HUSEIN KARUPOVIC, JUSTIN NORMAN, NICKOLAS CON PAPANOTAS, STEVE SAVIC and ANTTI GREGORY BODNARUK
VID 1223 OF 2007
GRAY, GOLDBERG & JESSUP JJ 5 NOVEMBER 2008 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VID 1223 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
WARREN CRUSE Appellant
AND:
MULTIPLEX LIMITED (ACN 008 687 063) First Respondent
CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION Second Respondent
JOHN SETKA Third Respondent
GRANT THORSON Fourth Respondent
PETER JOHN COSTELLO Fifth Respondent
ALFIO DI VIRGILIO Sixth Respondent
MARK…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Cruse v Multiplex Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2008] FCAFC 179
Case
[2008] FCAFC 179
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Cruse v Multiplex Ltd is an Australian court decision involving a dispute between an employee, Cruse, and his employer, Multiplex Ltd. The matter was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission. The central issue was whether Cruse was entitled to payment for periods during which he participated in industrial action. The court had to decide whether the claim for payment made by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union on Cruse's behalf was legitimate and whether Cruse's acceptance of the payment violated any provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
The court examined the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, specifically sections 187AB and 187AA. Section 187AB(1)(a) prohibits making claims for payments during industrial action, while section 187AB(1)(b) prohibits organising or engaging in industrial action with intent to coerce an employer to make such payments. Additionally, section 187AA(2) prohibits employees from accepting payments in relation to periods of industrial action. The court found that the union's claim for payment during the specified periods of industrial action was in contravention of section 187AB(1)(a) and that the union's actions were intended to coerce the employer, which is prohibited by section 187AB(1)(b). Furthermore, Cruse's acceptance of the payments in relation to periods of industrial action breached section 187AA(2).
The court allowed the appeal, imposing a penalty on the union for making an unlawful claim for payment and organising industrial action with coercive intent. The court also declared that the union officer and Cruse had contravened specific sections of the Workplace Relations Act. The court's decision highlights the importance of adhering to the legal framework governing industrial actions and the consequences of violating the provisions designed to maintain fair workplace practices.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. A penalty of $2,500.00 be imposed on Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, an organisation within the meaning of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), for –
(a) making a claim that Multiplex Limited make payments to its employees in relation to the period of a meeting commencing at about 8.30 am on 5 August 2003 and in relation to a period commencing at about 1.10 pm on that day and lasting until about 10.00 am on 6 August 2003 during each of which periods those employees engaged in industrial action at the site of the Concept Blue Apartment Project at 336 Russell Street, Melbourne, contrary to s 187AB(1)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth); and
(b) organizing and engaging in industrial action against Multiplex Limited with intent to coerce that employer to make the payments referred to in (a), contrary to s 187AB(1)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1. On 5 and 6 August 2003, Grant Thorson, an officer of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, an organisation within the meaning of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), contravened –
(a) s 187AB(1)(a) of that Act by making a claim that Multiplex Limited make payments to its employees in relation to the period of a meeting commencing at about 8.30 am on 5 August 2003 and in relation to a period commencing at about 1.10 pm on that day and lasting until about 10.00 am on 6 August 2003 during each of which periods those employees engaged in industrial action at the site of the Concept Blue Apartment Project at 336 Russell Street, Melbourne; and
(b) s 187(1)(b) of that Act by organizing and engaging in industrial action against Multiplex Limited with intent to coerce that employer to make the payments referred to in (a).
2. Grant Thorson, an employee of Multiplex Limited, contravened s 187AA(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) –
(a) on 8 August 2003, by accepting from Multiplex Limited a payment in relation to the period of a meeting commencing at about 8.30 am on 5 August 2003; and
(b) on 15 August 2003, by accepting from Multiplex Limited a payment in relation to a period commencing at about 1.10 pm on 5 August 2003 and lasting until about 10.00 am on 6 August 2003,
during each of which periods he engaged in industrial action at the site of the Concept Blue Apartment Project at 336 Russell Street, Melbourne.