[2014] FWC 4094 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.418 - Application for an order that industrial action by employees or employers stop etc.
DP World (Fremantle) Limited
(C2013/7801)
VICE PRESIDENT WATSON | MELBOUNRE, 7 JULY 2014 |
Application by DP World (Freemantle) Limited that industrial action by employees stop -alleged industrial action - alleged “go-slow” - whether industrial action happening - whether industrial action is threatened, impending or probable - whether industrial action being organised - Fair Work Act 2009 s.418.
Introduction
[1] This decision relates to an application by DP World (Fremantle) Limited (DP World) for orders under s.418 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) that alleged industrial action stop, not occur and not be organised at the DP World Fremantle container terminal.
[2] The application was initially made on 22 December 2013. At the conclusion of the hearing of the matter on 23 December 2013 Commissioner Cambridge refused the application.
[3] An appeal against that decision was lodged by DP World on 30 December 2013. The appeal was heard on 2 January 2014. At the hearing of the appeal DP World sought orders allowing the appeal and the making of an interim order in the terms sought in the application. While disputing the existence of industrial action the MUA did not oppose the making of these orders. By decision dated 3 January 2014 a Full Bench granted permission to appeal, allowed the appeal and made interim orders pending the determination of whether final orders should be made. The Full Bench remitted the matter to me for that purpose.
[4] Hearings on the matter were conducted in Perth on 12 and 13 February and 3 June 2014. At these hearings Mr D Perry, of counsel, appeared for DP World, and Mr L Edmonds appeared on behalf of the Maritime Union of Australia.
Background
[5] There is a history of industrial conflict at the DP World Fremantle terminal resulting in previous orders under s.418 of the Act. On 10 August 2010 Commissioner Cloghan found that industrial action in the form of a “go-slow” had occurred and made an order of limited duration that it stop and not be engaged in. On 2 April 2012 I made a similar finding and made a similar order. On 12 April 2013 Commissioner Cloghan again found the existence of a “go-slow” and made a further order under s.418 of the Act.
[6] Productivity at the Fremantle terminal is typically measured by ‘shift crane rate’ which is a measure of the total number of containers moved divided by the adjusted working hours multiplied by 8. The target shift crane rate across the Fremantle terminal is 172.5. This target was agreed in May 2012 as part of the negotiation of the current enterprise agreement and confirmed in September 2013 following discussions between senior site employee representation committee members, senior officials of the MUA, including its National Secretary, Paddy Crumlin, and Assistant Branch Secretary, Will Tracey, and then DP World Managing Director, Ganesh Raj.
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read DP World (Fremantle) Limited and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] FWC 4094
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the employees' actions constituted industrial action for the purposes of section 418 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to determine whether the employees' alleged go-slow amounted to industrial action and whether it was happening, threatened, impending, probable, or being organised. The court examined the conduct of the employees, the context in which it occurred, and whether it could be considered a form of industrial action as defined in the Act.
The court found that the employees' actions did not amount to industrial action as they were not taken in pursuit of an industrial claim or dispute. The court held that the go-slow was a method of protest rather than an action taken for an industrial purpose, and therefore did not fall within the definition of industrial action in the Act. As a result, the court refused to grant the injunction sought by DP World (Freemantle) Limited.
The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the application by DP World (Freemantle) Limited for an injunction to stop the alleged industrial action by its employees. The court held that the employees' actions did not constitute industrial action under section 418 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and therefore did not warrant an injunction.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.