Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Myles & Ors
Case
•
[2014] FCCA 1429
•28 February 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Myles & Ors [2014] FCCA 1429
[2014] FCCA 1429
28 February 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (the Director) brought proceedings against Myles and others, alleging contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) by officials of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU). The dispute concerned penalties sought by the Director against the respondents for alleged unlawful conduct by union organisers. The proceedings were heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
The primary legal issue before the Court was the appropriate quantum of penalties to be imposed on the respondents, who were found to have contravened provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). In determining these penalties, the Court was required to consider various factors, including the nature and seriousness of the contraventions, the need for deterrence, the respondents' level of contrition, and any evidence of corrective action taken by the union.
In his reasoning, Judge Burnett considered the respondents' conduct as a course of conduct rather than isolated incidents, noting the significant impact on the building industry. The Court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in industrial law to discourage future contraventions. While acknowledging some expressions of regret, the Court found a lack of compelling evidence demonstrating genuine contrition or effective corrective action by the CFMMEU to prevent similar conduct in the future. Consequently, the Court determined that substantial penalties were warranted to reflect the seriousness of the contraventions and to achieve the objects of the Act.
The primary legal issue before the Court was the appropriate quantum of penalties to be imposed on the respondents, who were found to have contravened provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). In determining these penalties, the Court was required to consider various factors, including the nature and seriousness of the contraventions, the need for deterrence, the respondents' level of contrition, and any evidence of corrective action taken by the union.
In his reasoning, Judge Burnett considered the respondents' conduct as a course of conduct rather than isolated incidents, noting the significant impact on the building industry. The Court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in industrial law to discourage future contraventions. While acknowledging some expressions of regret, the Court found a lack of compelling evidence demonstrating genuine contrition or effective corrective action by the CFMMEU to prevent similar conduct in the future. Consequently, the Court determined that substantial penalties were warranted to reflect the seriousness of the contraventions and to achieve the objects of the Act.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Penalty
-
Intention
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Cradden [2015] FCA 614
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Vink
[2016] FCCA 488
ABCC v CFMEU (Pacific Highway Upgrade Case) (No 4)
[2022] FedCFamC2G 608
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
2
Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (No 4)
[2013] FCA 930
Fox v St Barbara Mines Ltd
[1998] FCA 621
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25