Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2)

The case of Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) involved a dispute between the Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) concerning alleged contraventions of civil remedy provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court was required to determine the appropriate pecuniary penalties to be imposed on the CFMEU and its official, Mr. Gareth Stephenson, for their alleged contraventions of sections 340, 355, and 494(1) of the Act. The court also had to decide whether the multiple contraventions constituted a course of conduct and whether sections 552 and 553 of the Act operate when declarations for contempt of court are made.

In determining the appropriate penalties, the court considered the seriousness and circumstances of the contraventions, as well as the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court found that the CFMEU and Mr. Stephenson had indeed contravened the relevant provisions of the Act. The court concluded that the contraventions constituted a course of conduct, and thus the penalties should be cumulative rather than concurrent. The court also held that sections 552 and 553 of the Act do operate in the context of declarations for contempt of court, and therefore the penalties imposed should reflect the seriousness of the contempt.

The court ordered that the CFMEU pay various pecuniary penalties, totalling $105,000, for the contraventions of sections 340(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) and 355(a) of the Act. Mr. Stephenson was ordered to pay penalties totalling $7,000 for the contravention of section 355(a) and $2,000 for the contravention of section 494 of the Act. Additionally, the court imposed an injunction restraining the CFMEU from engaging in certain activities at the Bald Hills Wind Farm Project site. The amended originating application was dismissed, and no further order was made as to the costs of the proceeding.