FH Transport Pty Ltd v Transport Workers Union of Australia - [1997] FCA 567

CATCHWORDS

TRADE PRACTICES - Boycotts - Secondary boycott for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage -Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 45D and 45DB - Union officials preventing entry of applicants’ trucks to terminals operated by others - Union a “negotiating party” with terminal operators with respect to proposed agreements within Division 2 and 3 of Part VIB the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) - whether union officials’ activities were “protected action” within the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s 170ML.

INTERPRETATION - “Protected action” - Action taken “directly” against an employer -“For the purpose of” - Whether there is a requirement of sole purpose - Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s 170ML.

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION - refused on the balance of convenience.

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) - ss 45D, 45DB
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) - ss 4, 170MI, 170ML, 170MT(2), 170NC.

Case Referred To

Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association Inc (1988) 19 FCR 10

F H TRANSPORT PTY LTD & ANOR v TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA & ORS
QG 79 OF 1997

DRUMMOND J
CANBERRA (HEARD IN BRISBANE)
24 JUNE 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No QG 79 of 1997
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:F H TRANSPORT PTY LTD

First Applicant

AND:F H WORKSHOPS PTY LTD

Second Applicant

AND:TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

AND:HUGHIE WILLIAMS

Second Respondent

AND:GRAHAM GARRETT

Third Respondent

AND:MARK WALKER

Fourth Respondent

AND:PETER PAULOS

Fifth Respondent

AND:STEVE JONES

Sixth Respondent

CORAM:Drummond J
DATE:24 June 1997
PLACE:Canberra (Heard in Brisbane)

MINUTES OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Upon the first respondent by its solicitor giving the undertaking in the form of exhibit 1, the application for an interlocutory injunction is refused.
General liberty to apply.
The costs of and incidental to the application for interlocutory relief are reserved.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No QG 79 of 1997
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:F H TRANSPORT PTY LTD

First Applicant

AND:F H WORKSHOPS PTY LTD

Second Applicant

AND:TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

AND:HUGHIE WILLIAMS

Second Respondent

AND:GRAHAM GARRETT

Third Respondent

AND:MARK WALKER

Fourth Respondent

AND:PETER PAULOS

Fifth Respondent

AND:STEVE JONES

Sixth Respondent

CORAM:Drummond J
DATE:24 June 1997
PLACE:Canberra (Heard in Brisbane)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application by two transport companies for interlocutory injunctions against the Transport Workers' Union (TWU) and a number of its officials to restrain boycott conduct by them with respect to the applicants' business activities. The claim for relief is grounded on ss 45D and 45DB the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and also in tort. It is alleged by the applicants that the respondents' conduct also amounts to the torts of intentionally interfering with the applicants' contractual relations with others and of conspiring to harm the applicants.
Mr Forsyth, a principal of the applicants, says that the first applicant is the entity within the FH group which…

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 FH Transport Pty Ltd v Transport Workers Union of Australia

Details

AGLC: FH Transport Pty Ltd v Transport Workers Union of Australia [1997] FCA 567
Case: [1997] FCA 567
Decision Date: 24 JUNE 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of FH Transport Pty Ltd v Transport Workers Union of Australia involved a dispute between two transport companies, FH Transport Pty Ltd and FH Workshops Pty Ltd, and the Transport Workers' Union of Australia, as well as several of its officials. The transport companies sought interlocutory injunctions to restrain the union and its officials from engaging in boycott conduct that was allegedly interfering with their business activities. The claim was grounded on sections 45D and 45DB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and also in tort. The central legal issues in the case were whether the union's actions constituted "protected action" under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and if not, whether the applicants had a strong arguable case that the union's actions were unlawful under the Trade Practices Act and constituted the torts of intentionally interfering with contractual relations and conspiring to harm the applicants. The court found that the union's actions were not protected under the Workplace Relations Act, as they were not taken for the sole purpose of advancing claims with respect to proposed agreements with the major transport operators. The union's actions were also found to be potentially unlawful under the Trade Practices Act and to constitute the mentioned torts. However, the court refused to grant the interlocutory injunctions, as it found that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, and because the union had offered an undertaking to avoid singling out the applicants for disruptive action.

Orders