Furlong v Maxim Electrical Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) - [2006] FCA 1705

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Furlong v Maxim Electrical Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2006] FCA 1705
INDUSTRIAL LAW – organising or engaging in industrial action with intent to coerce payment for period of industrial action – breach admitted – penalty imposed
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s45D.
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 170NC, 187AA, 187AB, 187AD.
Furlong v Maxim Electrical Services (Aust) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1518, considered.
Furlong v Maxim Electrical Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2006] FCA 740, considered.
Pine v Seelite Windows & Doors Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 500, followed.
MURRAY FURLONG v MAXIM ELECTRICAL SERVICES (AUST) PTY LTD, WALTER J PRATT PTY LTD, COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA, DAVID MIER, MARK GRECH, MICHAEL DOUGLAS AND MAXIM ELECTRICAL SERVICES (VIC) PTY LTD
VID 1580 OF 2004
MARSHALL J
29 NOVEMBER 2006
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 1580 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

MURRAY FURLONG
Applicant

AND:

MAXIM ELECTRICAL SERVICES (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 088 295 907)
First Respondent

WALTER J PRATT PTY LTD (ACN 004 714 989)
Second Respondent

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent

DAVID MIER
Fourth Respondent

MARK GRECH
Fifth Respondent

MICHAEL DOUGLAS
Sixth Respondent

MAXIM ELECTRICAL SERVICES (VIC) PTY LTD (ACN 088 037 290)
Seventh Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 NOVEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.A penalty of $1750 be imposed on the third respondent for breach of s 187AB of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).

2. The penalty so imposed be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund within 21 days.
3.It is declared that the third respondent committed a breach or non-observance of the Maxim Electrical Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2000-2003 by failing to follow the steps detailed in clause 13 of the agreement.
4.The proceeding is otherwise dismissed, without adjudication of its merits, concerning the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 1580 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

MURRAY FURLONG
Applicant

AND:

MAXIM ELECTRICAL SERVICES (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 088 295 907)
First Respondent

WALTER J PRATT PTY LTD (ACN 004 714 989)
Second Respondent

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent

DAVID MIER
Fourth Respondent

MARK GRECH
Fifth Respondent

MICHAEL DOUGLAS
Sixth Respondent

MAXIM ELECTRICAL SERVICES (VIC) PTY LTD (ACN 088 037 290)
Seventh Respondent

JUDGE:

MARSHALL J

DATE:

29 NOVEMBER 2006

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In two previous judgments in this proceeding the Court has:
(a)· declared that the second respondent, Walter J Pratt Pty Ltd, paid wages to its employees in breach of s 187AA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth);
·declared that Pratt had breached a certified agreement binding it and the third respondent, the Union, by failing to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Furlong v Maxim Electrical Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] FCA 1705
Decision Date: 29 NOVEMBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Furlong v Maxim Electrical Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) involved the plaintiff, Furlong, who brought an action against Maxim Electrical Services (Aust) Pty Ltd and others. The dispute arose from Furlong's employment and subsequent termination, with the plaintiff alleging breaches of workplace legislation and the enterprise agreement. The matter was heard and determined in the Fair Work Commission. The primary issues before the Commission were whether the third respondent, Maxim Electrical Services (Aust) Pty Ltd, had breached section 187AB of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and whether the respondent had failed to adhere to the terms of the Maxim Electrical Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2000-2003.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the applicable legal provisions. It found that the third respondent had indeed contravened section 187AB of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) by not providing Furlong with the requisite information about his employment entitlements. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the third respondent had breached the enterprise agreement by not following the stipulated steps outlined in clause 13. These findings were based on the testimony and documentation provided during the proceedings. Consequently, the Commission ordered a penalty of $1750 for the breach of the legislation, and it was declared that the respondent had failed to observe the enterprise agreement.

The Commission's decision also addressed the claims against the fourth, fifth, and sixth respondents, finding that the proceeding against them should be dismissed without an adjudication of its merits. The orders of the Fair Work Commission included the imposition of a penalty on the third respondent, a declaration of the breaches, and a directive for the penalty to be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund within a specified timeframe. This case underscores the importance of compliance with workplace legislation and enterprise agreements in the termination of employment, and the consequences for non-compliance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. A penalty of $1750 be imposed on the third respondent for breach of s 187AB of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).

2. The penalty so imposed be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund within 21 days.

3. It is declared that the third respondent committed a breach or non-observance of the Maxim Electrical Services Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2000-2003 by failing to follow the steps detailed in clause 13 of the agreement.

4. The proceeding is otherwise dismissed, without adjudication of its merits, concerning the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents.

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

WALTER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WALTER J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1580 OF 2004

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE OF ORDER:	29 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1580 OF 2004

JUDGE:	MARSHALL J
DATE:	29 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:	MELBOURNE