Fair Work Ombudsman v Maritime Union of Australia

In the Federal Court of Australia, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) filed a claim against the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), alleging that the union organized and was involved in unlawful industrial action, in breach of section 417 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The MUA argued that the employees' cessation of work was based on a reasonable concern about an imminent risk to health or safety under section 19(2)(c) of the Act. The court was required to determine whether the FWO had to prove that each and every employee in the identified group engaged in the employee action and if there was sufficient evidence to support the FWO's claim that the MUA organized and was involved in the unlawful industrial action.

The court found that the FWO did not need to prove that each and every employee in the identified group engaged in the employee action. The evidence presented was overwhelming, and the MUA's objections to the admissibility of evidence of representations made by individuals not called to give evidence were dismissed. The court ruled that the evidence was relevant for a non-hearsay purpose. The standard of proof in civil proceedings was also considered, and it was concluded that the FWO had proved its case. The court found that the MUA organized and was involved in the industrial action of employees of SICT and BCT at the Sydney and Brisbane Terminals between 7 and 14 August 2015 and, thereby, itself contravened section 417(1) of the Fair Work Act.

The court ordered that the FWO file and serve proposed orders consistent with these reasons for judgment and a timetable for the finalization of the matter within seven days. The MUA was given seven days to respond to the proposed orders and timetable. The matter was then to be listed for the making of orders and a case management hearing if necessary.