Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union

[1997] FCA 632

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	)  QG 66 of 1997
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:             

CURRAGH QUEENSLAND MINING LIMITED
Applicant

  AND:  

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
First Respondent

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION
Second Respondent

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	DRUMMOND J
PLACE:	BRISBANE
DATED:	11 JULY 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The costs of today be reserved to 1 August 1997.

1. The matter be adjourned to 9.30 am on Friday, 1 August 1997.

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 66 of 1997
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:             

CURRAGH QUEENSLAND MINING LIMITED
Applicant

  AND:  

CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
First Respondent

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION
Second Respondent

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	DRUMMOND J
PLACE:	BRISBANE
DATED:	11 JULY 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter, I am not by any means convinced that the resolution of the questions raised by the application will have a decisive impact on the wide-ranging dispute that has arisen between the applicant and the respondent union arising out of the applicant's decision to restructure its operations, a decision taken earlier in the year. I say that, having regard to the material before me, which gives an outline of the ambit of this dispute, and in particular to the letter from Mr Denny, Managing Director of Curragh, of 2 June 1997 which suggests the resolution of the validity of cl 24 lacks the pressing urgency which the Court was told it had in exhibit 1 and by Mr Denny in his first affidavit: resolution of this one issue does not appear likely to be going to have a significant impact on resolving the whole dispute.

However, even though I do not accept that there is any special urgency that would justify arranging an early hearing of Curragh's entire application, the Court can accommodate the parties to the extent of dealing with the issue raised by par 3 of the application. This involves a narrow question, it seems to me, of whether cl 24 is invalid for conflict with various provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, at an early date.  The respondents indicate that they will be challenging, in effect, the jurisdiction of the Court under s 413 of that Act to deal with a question of validity.  But the issue raised by par 3 of the application does seem to me to be within a quite narrow compass, and to be able to be dealt with conveniently in the immediate future.

Counsel for the applicant is prepared to have the issue raised by question 3 dealt with as a separate issue.  I will therefore direct that the issues raised by par 3 of the application be dealt with as separate issues pursuant to O 29 r 2 the Federal Court Rules.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Drummond.

Associate:

Dated:            11 July 1997