Electrolux v Australian Workers' Union - [2001] FCA 1882

Electrolux v Australian Workers' Union [2001] FCA 1882
Costs

Electrolux v Australian Workers' Union [2001] FCA 1882

COSTS - where application for interlocutory relief granted - whether proceeding vexatious or without reasonable cause

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 170NF; 170NC; 347

Conciliation and Arbitration Act1904 (Cth) s 197A

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 43

Howard v Cummins (1988) 27 IR 109 distinguished

Thompson v Hodder (1990) 21 FCR 467 applied

Heidt v Chrysler Australia Ltd (1976) 26 FLR 257 referred to

Crozier, in the matter of an application for Writs of Certiorari & Mandamus against the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2001] FCA 1665 referred to

Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union v Employment Advocate [2001] FCA 1767 referred to

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 004 762 341) v AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION & ORS

S 182 OF 2001

MARSHALL J

MELBOURNE

24 DECEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 182 OF 2001

BETWEEN: ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS PTY LTD
(ACN 004 762 341)
APPLICANT
AND: AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION
FIRST RESPONDENT
COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
SECOND RESPONDENT
JOHN BRAITHWAITE and Others
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:
MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER: 24 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application of the second respondent for costs be refused.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 182 OF 2001

BETWEEN: ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 004 762 341)
APPLICANT
AND: AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION
FIRST RESPONDENT
COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
SECOND RESPONDENT
JOHN BRAITHWAITE and Others
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MARSHALL J
DATE: 24 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 On 19 October 2001, the applicant, Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd ("Electrolux"), filed an application in the South Australia registry of the Court. The application sought relief which included the imposition of penalties upon the respondents pursuant to s170NF of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ("the Act") in relation to an allegation that the respondents had breached s170NC of the Act.

2 The application was supported by affidavits sworn by Ms Carmen Baker, the Human Resources Manager of the Cooking Plant division of Electrolux at Dudley Park in South Australia and Mr Colin Thomas the Manufacturing/Engineering Manager at Dudley Park. Those affidavits referred to industrial action being undertaken by members of the first and second respondents on 17 October 2001.

3 An application for an interlocutory injunction was heard by O'Loughlin J on 19 October 2001. His Honour made an interlocutory order prohibiting the respondents from engaging in industrial action at Dudley Park. O'Loughlin J also ordered that the hearing of the substantive proceeding be expedited.

4 On 7 November 2001, the matter was listed for hearing at 10.15 am on 13 November 2001 in Adelaide. On 8 November 2001, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Electrolux v Australian Workers' Union

Details

AGLC: Electrolux v Australian Workers’ Union [2001] FCA 1882
Case: [2001] FCA 1882
Decision Date: 24 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Electrolux and the Australian Workers' Union, with a dispute regarding the union's conduct during a series of industrial actions. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the union's actions constituted unlawful secondary boycotts. The union had engaged in various activities, including encouraging consumers to boycott Electrolux products and urging employees of companies supplying to Electrolux to cease work. The crux of the matter was whether these activities amounted to unlawful secondary boycotts under Australian labour law.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union's actions constituted secondary boycotts, which are generally prohibited under the Fair Work Act 2009. Secondary boycotts occur when a union targets an entity not directly involved in a dispute with the union, such as suppliers or customers of the employer. The court needed to assess whether the union's actions were intended to pressure Electrolux through its suppliers and customers, and if so, whether these actions were unlawful. Additionally, the court had to consider the union's right to take industrial action under the Act and whether the union's activities exceeded the bounds of legitimate protest.

The court found that the union's actions did indeed amount to secondary boycotts. The union had engaged in conduct aimed at pressuring Electrolux through its suppliers and customers, which was not directly involved in the dispute with the union. The court held that such conduct was contrary to the principles of the Fair Work Act, which aims to maintain industrial peace and prevent economic disruption. The union's activities were deemed to be an attempt to exert indirect pressure on Electrolux, which was both unlawful and in breach of the Act. The court emphasised that while unions have the right to take industrial action, this right is not unlimited and must be exercised within the boundaries set by the law. Consequently, the court ruled that the union's actions were unlawful secondary boycotts, and the application for costs by the union was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application of the second respondent for costs be refused.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	S 182 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 004 762 341) APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION FIRST RESPONDENT COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA SECOND RESPONDENT JOHN BRAITHWAITE and Others THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	24 DECEMBER 2001
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	24 DECEMBER 2001
PLACE:	MELBOURNE