Dixon v United Workers Union

Case [2023] FCA 1526

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dixon v United Workers Union [2023] FCA 1526  

File number: VID 992 of 2023
Judgment of: SNADEN J
Date of judgment: 7 December 2023
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for urgent injunctive relief to restrain first respondent from terminating applicants’ employment, from subjecting applicants to a “show cause” process and from continuing applicants’ suspension – whether there is a prima facie case that favours injunctive relief – alleged contravention of s 340(1) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether balance of convenience favours injunctive relief – application for interlocutory relief dismissed
Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 340, 341, 360, 361, 570

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth)
Cases cited:

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Quinn v Overland (2010) 199 IR 40

Australian Red Cross Society v Queensland Nurses’ Union of Employees (2019) 273 FCR 332

Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU) v O-I Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1272

Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1126

AWU v Dee Vee [2012] FCA 988

Blackadder v Ramsey (2005) 221 CLR 539

Bullock v FFTSA (1985) 5 FCR 464

Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148

CEPU v Blue Star Pacific (2009) 184 IR 333

Construction, Forestry Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 243

Liberty Financial Pty Ltd v Jugovic [2021] FCA 607

Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1

Police Federation of Australia v Nixon (2008) 168 FCR 340

Qantas Airways Ltd v Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (2022) 402 ALR 1

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd v Apple Inc. (2011) 217 FCR 238

Serpanos v Commonwealth of Australia [2022] FCA 1226

Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth (2009) 81 IPR 339

Wong v National Australia Bank Limited [2022] FCAFC 155
Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 86
Date of hearing: 5 December 2023
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J Tracey SC with Mr B Holding
Solicitor for the Applicants: Kelly Workplace Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr W Friend KC with Ms L Martin
Solicitor for the Respondents: Hall Payne Lawyers

ORDERS

VID 992 of 2023
BETWEEN:

JONATHON DIXON

First Applicant

PAREEN MINHAS

Second Applicant
AND:

UNITED WORKERS UNION

First Respondent

JO-ANNE SCHOFIELD

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SNADEN J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 DECEMBER 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicants’ application for interlocutory relief be dismissed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SNADEN J:

  1. The applicants, Mr Dixon and Ms Minhas, move upon an originating application dated 27 November 2023 for interlocutory relief against the first respondent, by which they are presently employed.  That application has come before…

Continue reading Dixon v United Workers Union

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dixon v United Workers Union [2023] FCA 1526
Case
[2023] FCA 1526
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Dixon and others, sought an interlocutory injunction against the first respondent, United Workers Union, to prevent the termination of their employment, the imposition of a "show cause" process, and the continuation of their suspension. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants contended that the union had contravened section 340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by imposing the suspension and the "show cause" process without following the correct procedures.

The court was required to determine whether there was a prima facie case for injunctive relief and whether the balance of convenience favoured such relief. The applicants argued that they had a strong case for the injunction, given the alleged procedural breaches by the union. The union, however, maintained that the applicants had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their case, and that the balance of convenience did not favour injunctive relief.

The court found that the applicants had not established a prima facie case for injunctive relief, as they had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their case. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not favour injunctive relief, as the potential harm to the union and other employees outweighed the harm to the applicants if the injunction was not granted. Accordingly, the application for interlocutory relief was dismissed.

The court ordered that the applicants' application for interlocutory relief be dismissed. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants’ application for interlocutory relief be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.