Furlong v AWU & Ors

Case [2007] FMCA 443


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FURLONG v AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION & ORS [2007] FMCA 443
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application for imposition of penalties – unlawful strike – agreed facts – contrition and early co-operation of respondents – consideration of matters relevant to penalty.
Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005, s.38
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), Part XA
CPSU v Telstra Corporation (2001) 108 IR 228
CFMEU v Coal and Allied Operations Pty Limited Number 2 (1999) 94 IR 231
TPC v CSR Limited (1991) ATPR 52
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Limited (2004) FCAFC 72
NW Frozen Foods Pty Limited v ACCC (1996) 71 FCR 285.
Applicant: MURRAY FURLONG
First Respondent: AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION
Second Respondent: TERRY LEE
Third Respondent: DOUGLAS BROWN
Fourth Respondent: PETER LAMBE
Fifth Respondent: GREG WATKINS
File number: MLG 1320 of 2006
Judgment of: Burchardt FM
Hearing date: 19 March 2007
Date of last submission: 19 March 2007
Delivered at: Melbourne
Delivered on: 19 April 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P. O’Grady
Solicitors for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr C. Dowling
Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms S. Hodgers, Australian Workers’ Union

ORDERS

  1. That the following penalties be imposed:

    (a)on the AWU,

    (i)subject to the following sub-paragraph, a penalty of $40,000.00 in respect of the contraventions of s.38 of the BCII Act and s.178 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

    (ii)the AWU is not obliged to pay one half of the said penalty if for a period of 6 months from the date of trial in this proceeding, it has not been adjudged to have breached any provision of the BCII Act or the WR Act in so far that those breaches relate to the building and construction industry;

    (b)on Mr Lee,

    (i)a penalty of $4,000.00 in respect of the contraventions of s.38 of the BCII Act, such penalty to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

    (c)on Mr Brown,

    (i)a penalty of $4,000.00 in respect of the contraventions of s.38 of the BCII Act and s.178 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

    (d)on Mr Lambe,

    (i)a penalty of $4,000.00 in respect of the contraventions of s.38 of the BCII Act and s.178 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

    (e)on Mr Watkins,

    (i)a penalty of $4,000.00 in respect of the contraventions of s.38 of the BCII Act and s.178 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.



FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MLG1320 of 2006

MURRAY FURLONG

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION

First Respondent

TERRY LEE

Second Respondent

DOUGLAS BROWN

Third Respondent

PETER LAMBE

Fourth Respondent

GREG WATKINS

Fifth Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. By an application filed on 20 October 2006 the Applicant seeks orders imposing penalties upon the Five Respondents.  The First…

Continue reading Furlong v AWU & Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Furlong v AWU & Ors [2007] FMCA 443
Case
[2007] FMCA 443
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Furlong v AWU & Ors involved the plaintiff, Furlong, bringing action against the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) and several individuals associated with it, alleging breaches of specific sections of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (BCII Act) and the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WR Act). The proceedings were heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought penalties and declarations in relation to the alleged contraventions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants had indeed contravened sections 38 of the BCII Act and section 178 of the WR Act and, if so, what penalties should be imposed. The court had to consider the evidence presented regarding the actions of the AWU and the individuals, including their roles and the nature of their involvement in the alleged contraventions. Additionally, the court examined the relevant provisions of the BCII Act and the WR Act to determine the appropriate sanctions.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the AWU and the individuals had contravened the specified sections of the Acts. The court concluded that the penalties should be proportionate to the severity and impact of the contraventions. The AWU was subjected to a penalty of $40,000, with the condition that it would not need to pay half of this amount if it did not commit further breaches within six months. Each of the individuals was fined $4,000, with the specific provisions they contravened taken into account. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to deter future breaches and to ensure compliance with the regulatory framework governing the building and construction industry.

The final orders of the court mandated the payment of the specified penalties into the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the AWU and the individuals, with the conditions and timelines as outlined in the judgment. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to statutory provisions within the building and construction industry and the court's role in enforcing these laws to maintain regulatory standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the following penalties be imposed:

(a) on the AWU,

(i) subject to the following sub-paragraph, a penalty of $40,000.00 in respect of the contraventions of s.38 of the BCII Act and s.178 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

(ii) the AWU is not obliged to pay one half of the said penalty if for a period of 6 months from the date of trial in this proceeding, it has not been adjudged to have breached any provision of the BCII Act or the WR Act in so far that those breaches relate to the building and construction industry;

(b) on Mr Lee,

(i) a penalty of $4,000.00 in respect of the contraventions of s.38 of the BCII Act, such penalty to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

(c) on Mr Brown,

(i) a penalty of $4,000.00 in respect of the contraventions of s.38 of the BCII Act and s.178 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

(d) on Mr Lambe,

(i) a penalty of $4,000.00 in respect of the contraventions of s.38 of the BCII Act and s.178 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

(e) on Mr Watkins,

(i) a penalty of $4,000.00 in respect of the contraventions of s.38 of the BCII Act and s.178 of the WR Act, such penalty to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

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.