Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Robinson

The case involves the Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate against several respondents, including Michael Robinson, Shaun Taylor, Michael Haire, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU). The dispute centres on allegations that these respondents organised industrial action in contravention of section 417 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.

The court had to decide whether the CFMEU, as a body corporate, contravened section 417 on more than one occasion through the conduct of its officers. It also needed to interpret the interplay between section 793 and section 557 of the FW Act, particularly in determining the meaning of "organise" and the appropriateness of the civil penalties imposed. The court had to determine if the two contraventions constituted a single contravention and assess the purpose of the civil penalties under the FW Act.

The court found that the CFMEU, as a body corporate, had contravened section 417 on two separate occasions. It held that section 557 does not apply because the contraventions arose out of different conduct by different individuals, even though they were part of the same industrial action. The court emphasised the importance of examining the facts, including the conduct and state of mind attributed to the CFMEU, against the elements of the contravention. The court also clarified that section 793 attributes to the body corporate the conduct and state of mind of its officers, employees, and agents, but the determination of liability rests on the facts of the case. The court concluded that the civil penalties imposed were appropriate, considering the seriousness of the contraventions and the need to uphold the integrity of the industrial relations system.

In summary, the court determined that the CFMEU contravened section 417 on two separate occasions and that these did not constitute a single contravention under section 557. The court also upheld the penalties imposed on the respondents, finding them to be appropriate in the circumstances.