EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

EnergyAustralia Yallourn Pty Ltd sought urgent interlocutory relief from the Federal Court against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) in relation to threatened industrial action by CFMEU members at the Yallourn Power Station. The applicant sought a stay of a Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision extending the period for protected industrial action and an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Union from taking industrial action on the basis that the FWC lacked jurisdiction to extend the period for protected industrial action after the initial 30 day period had expired. The urgency of the application related to two 24 hour work stoppages the Union threatened to occur on 18 and 19 April 2013. The Court heard the application on short notice and made orders without reasons on 17 April 2013. These are the reasons for the orders.
The key legal issues the Court had to decide were whether the FWC had jurisdiction to extend the period for protected industrial action beyond the initial 30 day period and whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify the grant of a stay or interlocutory injunction. The applicant argued that the FWC lacked jurisdiction to extend the period for protected industrial action beyond the initial 30 day period and that even if the Court quashed the FWC decision, the industrial action would remain "protected" and the applicant would be unable to recover losses. The Court found that while the applicant had an arguable case, it was not inclined to grant a stay or interlocutory injunction in the circumstances of this case.

The Court refused the applicant's application for a stay of the FWC decision and dismissed its application for an interlocutory injunction. The Court found that the FWC decision was not spent and had a continuing effect in allowing certain forms of protected industrial action. However, the Court was not inclined to grant a stay or interlocutory injunction due to the uncertain and preliminary nature of the applicant's substantive claim and the risk of irreparable harm to the Union if relief was granted. The Court emphasised that exceptional circumstances are necessary to justify the grant of such relief.