Fair Work Ombudsman v Roach (The Melbourne Quarter Case)

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWA) sought declarations and penalties against the Construction and General Division of the Union (the Union) and one of its representatives, Mr Roach, for alleged contraventions of sections 348 and 349 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dispute centred on an incident at the Melbourne Quarter project site where it was claimed that Mr Roach told a caulking subcontractor that he could not work on the site unless he paid outstanding union fees. The Union denied the allegations and argued that if any contraventions occurred, they were not attributable to it. The court had to determine whether the Union and Mr Roach contravened the specified sections of the FW Act and, if so, whether the contraventions were attributable to the Union.

The court examined the evidence of the key witnesses and found discrepancies in their accounts of what transpired during the site induction. The evidence of the employees of the subcontractor was generally accepted as more reliable. The court concluded that Mr Roach did threaten and prevent Mr Watterston from working on the site until he paid a union fee, thereby contravening section 348 of the FW Act. The court further found that the contraventions were attributable to the Union under sections 363 or 793 of the FW Act due to the attribution of Mr Roach's conduct and state of mind to the Union. The court also found that Mr Roach acted with the intent to coerce Mr Watterston to pay membership fees to the Union, fulfilling the intent requirement under section 348 of the FW Act.

The court ordered that by a specified date, the parties' practitioners were to confer and submit proposed draft orders to the court. If the parties could not agree on a single form of draft orders, each party was to submit their respective proposed draft orders by the same date. The final orders were to be entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.