Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Myles
Case
•
[2019] FCCA 352
•14 February 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Myles [2019] FCCA 352
[2019] FCCA 352
14 February 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Federal Circuit Court of Australia heard a dispute between the Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (the Director) and Mr Myles. The Director alleged that Mr Myles contravened section 346 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) by unlawfully influencing or threatening an employee to take adverse action against them. The specific allegations concerned Mr Myles' conduct towards an employee, Mr G, in relation to Mr G's employment.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Myles' actions constituted a contravention of section 346 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). This required the Court to determine if Mr Myles had engaged in conduct that was intended to influence or threaten Mr G for the purpose of causing adverse action to be taken against him in his employment. The Court also had to consider the nature of the alleged adverse action and whether it was sufficiently connected to Mr Myles' conduct.
Judge Jarrett found that Mr Myles' conduct did not meet the threshold for a contravention of section 346. The Court reasoned that while Mr Myles' communication with Mr G was direct and potentially unwelcome, it did not establish the necessary intent to unlawfully influence or threaten Mr G for the purpose of causing adverse action. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to section 346, emphasising the need for clear evidence of the specific intent required by the provision. The Court concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that Mr Myles' actions were taken with the requisite unlawful purpose.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Myles' actions constituted a contravention of section 346 of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). This required the Court to determine if Mr Myles had engaged in conduct that was intended to influence or threaten Mr G for the purpose of causing adverse action to be taken against him in his employment. The Court also had to consider the nature of the alleged adverse action and whether it was sufficiently connected to Mr Myles' conduct.
Judge Jarrett found that Mr Myles' conduct did not meet the threshold for a contravention of section 346. The Court reasoned that while Mr Myles' communication with Mr G was direct and potentially unwelcome, it did not establish the necessary intent to unlawfully influence or threaten Mr G for the purpose of causing adverse action. The Court applied the principles of statutory interpretation to section 346, emphasising the need for clear evidence of the specific intent required by the provision. The Court concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that Mr Myles' actions were taken with the requisite unlawful purpose.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
3
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 34
Ingersole v Castle Hill Country Club Limited
[2014] FCCA 450
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 34