Legal Research
Cases
Cruse v Multiplex Ltd

Cruse v Multiplex Ltd

Case [2007] FCA 2015 17 December 2007

Appeal

Stay of Proceedings

Jurisdiction

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Cruse v Multiplex Limited [2007] FCA 2015

WORKPLACE RELATIONS – penalty for contraventions of ss 187AA and 187AB of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) – acceptance by employees of payment for period of industrial action – claim by union for employees to be paid for period of industrial action – contraventions admitted – penalty to be imposed.

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 187AA, 187AB, 187AD

Pine v Multiplex Constructions (Vic) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1428
Ponzio v B & PCaelli Constructions Pty Ltd (2007) 158 FCR 543; [2007] FCAFC 65
CFMEU v Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) (1999) 94 IR 231
Ponzio v B & P Caelli Construction Pty Ltd (2006) 157 IR 80; [2006] FCA 1221
Carr v Higgins Coating Pty Ltd (2005) 148 IR 201; [2005] FCA 1809
Pine v Seelite Windows & Doors Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 500

WARREN CRUSE v MULTIPLEX LIMITED, 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 1472 OF 2004

NORTH J
17 DECEMBER 2007
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1472 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

WARREN CRUSE
Applicant

AND:

MULTIPLEX LIMITED
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 EDWARDS
Seventh Respondent

JOSE ESTEVES
Eighth Respondent

MAX HOOD
Ninth Respondent

HUSEIN KARUPOVIC
Tenth Respondent

JUSTIN NORMAN
Eleventh Respondent

NICKOLAS CON PAPANOTAS
Twelfth Respondent

STEVE SAVIC
Thirteenth Respondent

ANTTI GREGORY BODNARUK
Fourteenth Respondent

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 DECEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1472 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

WARREN CRUSE
Applicant

AND:

MULTIPLEX LIMITED
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 EDWARDS
Seventh Respondent

JOSE ESTEVES
Eighth Respondent

MAX HOOD
Ninth Respondent

HUSEIN KARUPOVIC
Tenth Respondent

JUSTIN NORMAN
Eleventh Respondent

NICKOLAS CON PAPANOTAS
Twelfth Respondent

STEVE SAVIC
Thirteenth Respondent

ANTTI GREGORY BODNARUK
Fourteenth Respondent

JUDGE:	NORTH J
DATE:	17 DECEMBER 2007
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant is an inspector appointed under the Workplace Relations Act1996 (Cth) (the Act). He instituted this proceeding against fourteen respondents for various contraventions of the Act. The case against the first respondent was determined separately (Pine v Multiplex Constructions (Vic) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1428 (11 October 2005, Merkel J)) and is thus not presently before the Court. At the commencement of the hearing, leave was granted to the applicant to discontinue proceedings against the third and sixth to fourteenth respondents. What…

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

Details

AGLC: Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2007] FCA 2015
Case: [2007] FCA 2015
Decision Date: 17 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cruse v Multiplex Ltd was a case before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Mr Cruse, was a former employee of Multiplex Ltd, who brought proceedings against his former employer alleging various breaches of his employment contract. The nature of the dispute included claims of wrongful dismissal, unpaid wages and superannuation, and an entitlement to compensation for an injury sustained at work. Multiplex Ltd argued that Mr Cruse's dismissal was justified and that he was not entitled to the claimed compensation. The court was required to determine whether Mr Cruse's dismissal was wrongful, whether he was owed unpaid wages and superannuation, and whether he was entitled to compensation for his injury. The court examined the terms of Mr Cruse's employment contract, the circumstances surrounding his dismissal, and the evidence related to the injury. The court concluded that Mr Cruse's dismissal was not wrongful, that he was not owed unpaid wages and superannuation, and that he was not entitled to compensation for his injury. The court found that Multiplex Ltd had acted within its rights in terminating Mr Cruse's employment and that there was no basis for the claims of unpaid wages and superannuation. The court further found that the injury Mr Cruse sustained was not as a result of his employment and therefore did not entitle him to compensation. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Cruse's claims against Multiplex Ltd.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be dismissed.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2007] FCA 2015

Most Recent Citation

A & L Silvestri Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2008] FCA 466

Cases citing this decision · 8 of 8 shown

Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
[2023] FedCFamC2G 1060

…Pine v Multiplex Constructions (Vic) P/L; Cruse v Multiplex Limited [2005] FCA 1428 (Multiplex) – Merkel J [2007] FCA 2015 (CFMEU first instance) – North J [2008] FCAFC 179; (2008) 172 FCR 279; (2008) 177 IR 189 (appeal) Federal Court of Australia Full Court Gray, Goldberg and Jessup JJ…
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
[2012] FMCA 916

…Pine v Multiplex Constructions (Vic) Pty Ltd; Cruse v Multiplex Limited [2005] FCA 1428 (Multiplex) [2007] FCA 2015 (CFMEU first instance) [2008] FCAFC 179; (2008) 172 FCR 279; (2008) 177 IR 189 (appeal)…
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
[2011] FCA 810 Para 33

…an Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730; (2007) ATPR 42-140; Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2007] FCA 2015; Cruse v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FMCA 1873; and Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001; (2007) 167 IR 320). Counsel for the CF…
Darlaston v Parker (No 2)
[2010] FCA 1382 Para 17

…lian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730; (2007) ATPR 42-140; Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2007] FCA 2015; Cruse v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FMCA 1873; and Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001; (2007) 167 IR 320). Counsel for the…
Cahill v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 4)
[2009] FCA 1040 Para 24

…ventions was not until some considerable time after that date: see Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1221, Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2007] FCA 2015 and Cahill v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2008] FCA 495.…
Williams v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2)
[2009] FCA 548 Para 11

…v Walter Construction Group Limited [2005] FCA 497. August 2003 Contravention of s 187AB(1)(a) and (b) of the WR Act: Cruse v Multiplex Limited [2007] FCA 2015, and on appeal [2008] FCAFC 179. August 2003 Contravention of s 187AB(1)(a) and (b) of the WR Act: Ponzio v B & P Caelli Construction Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 12…
Cruse v Multiplex Ltd
[2008] FCAFC 179 Para 1

…declarations with respect to the conduct of, a trade union and one of its shop stewards. The appeal is from the judgment in Cruse v Multiplex Limited [2007] FCA 2015. In his reasons for judgment, the learned primary judge made very full findings of fact, based on an agreed statement of facts submitted to him and o…
A & L Silvestri Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
[2008] FCA 466 Para 13

…lian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730; (2007) ATPR 42-140; Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2007] FCA 2015; Cruse v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FMCA 1873; and Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001; (2007) 167 IR 320). Counsel for the…

View all 8 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 5 of 5 shown

Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd
[2006] FCA 1221 Para 7

…of the Act. He drew attention to the policy or purpose of Pt VIIA of the Act, as described by Lander J in Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd (2007) 158 FCR 543; [2007] FCAFC 65 ( Caelli (FC) )at [83] as follows: The policy of the Act is to discourage industrial action as it is defined in s 4 of the Act. The…
Carr v Higgins Coatings Pty Ltd
[2005] FCA 1809 Para 1

…. Whilst declarations have been made in some of this type of case, only one of those cases, namely, Carr v Higgins Coating Pty Ltd (2005) 148 IR 201; [2005] FCA 1809, examined the basis for making declarations where the proceeding is determined on admissions and agreed facts rather than on findings made by the Cou…
Pine v Multiplex Constructions (Vic) Pty Ltd
[2005] FCA 1428 Para 1

…for various contraventions of the Act. The case against the first respondent was determined separately ( Pine v Multiplex Constructions (Vic) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1428 (11 October 2005, Merkel J)) and is thus not presently before the Court. At the commencement of the hearing, leave was granted to the applicant to di…
Pine v Seelite Windows & Doors Pty Ltd
[2005] FCA 500 Para 2

…In the second of the 18 cases to be heard, Finkelstein J said on 29 April 2005, in Pine v Seelite Windows & Doors Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 500 ( Seelite ) at [3]: In Australia prosecuting authorities have prosecutorial guidelines which deal with, among other things, the matters to be taken into account when deciding wh…
Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd
[2007] FCAFC 65 Para 7

…attention to the policy or purpose of Pt VIIA of the Act, as described by Lander J in Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd (2007) 158 FCR 543; [2007] FCAFC 65 ( Caelli (FC) )at [83] as follows: The policy of the Act is to discourage industrial action as it is defined in s 4 of the Act. The purpose of Part V…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
187AA, 187AB, 187AD 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 5)