Godfrey Hirst Australia Pty Ltd v AMWU

[2000] VSC 315

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
PRACTICE COURT	Not Restricted

No. 6623 of 2000

GODFREY HIRST AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD.	Plaintiff
v.
AUTOMOTIVE, FOODS, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION AND ANOR.	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	BEACH, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 AUGUST 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 AUGUST 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	GODFREY HIRST AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. v. AMWU & ANOR.
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 315

---

CATCHWORDS:      Industrial dispute – Peaceful picket line – Intimidatory use of video camera.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr. P. Burchardt	Middletons Moore & Bevins
For the Defendants	Mr. S. Rothman SC	Maurice Blackburn Cashman

HIS HONOUR:

1. I have before me an application by the plaintiff, Godfrey Hirst Australia Pty Ltd, for injunctive relief to restrain members of the defendant unions, the AMWU and the CEPU, from picketing the premises of the plaintiff at 7 Factories Road, Geelong South.

1. This is one of those unusual cases where, apart from a few isolated incidents, the picket is a comparatively peaceful picket without the violent confrontations which one so frequently encounters between those on the picket line and persons lawfully entering or leaving the premises in question.  I consider that the only aspect of the picket which is causing real concern at this stage is the actions of members the defendants who are taking part in the picket videoing the vehicles of persons making deliveries to the premises or picking up goods at the premises.

1. In her affidavit in opposition to the application, Anne Gooley has sworn that an organizer of the AMWU informed her that one person has attended the site with a video camera and that the use of the video equipment at the site is to ensure that those assembled at the site have evidence of the lawful nature of their assembly.

1. Whilst I accept that that may well be one purpose for taking video film, the evidence presented by the plaintiff clearly establishes that both vehicles entering the site and other employees of the plaintiff working at the site have been videoed, and in a manner which I consider could only be described as intimidatory.

1. During the course of his submissions, counsel for the defendants proffered the following undertaking on behalf of the defendants: 

"Until the trial of the proceeding or further order, the defendants, whether by themselves, their servants, officers, delegates, agents or howsoever, undertake that they will not threaten or encourage any other person to threaten any person who enters or leaves the premises at 7 Factories Road, Geelong South, or damage or threaten to damage any person or vehicle which enters or leaves the plaintiff's premises at 7 Factories Road, Geelong South."

1. In the circumstances, I propose to accept that undertaking in lieu of making any orders in the form sought by the plaintiff.  However, I propose to make one order, the effect of which will be to restrain any person on the picket line from filming, whether by way of video or otherwise, people entering or leaving the plaintiff's premises or whilst they are on the premises.

1. Counsel for the plaintiff having given the usual undertaking as to damages, and counsel for the defendants having given the undertaking to which I have referred, I order -

1.That until the hearing and determination of this proceeding or further order the defendants, whether by themselves, their servants, officers, delegates, agents or howsoever, be restrained from filming by way of video camera or otherwise vehicles and persons entering or leaving the premises of the plaintiff at 7 Factories Road, Geelong South, or filming by way of video or otherwise vehicles or persons on the said premises;

2.That the further hearing of this application be adjourned to 7 September 2000.  I am adjourning the hearing to that date to give the court an opportunity to reconsider the matter if it is satisfied there is good reason to do so;

3.        That there be liberty to the parties to apply;

4.        That the costs of the application be reserved;

5.That within 72 hours this order be prepared by the solicitors for the plaintiff and brought to me for authentication.

1. I should perhaps add in conclusion that I do not consider that the present proceeding is an action in tort barred by s.166A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. As I have pointed out on a number of occasions in recent years, I consider that it is simply a claim for equitable relief.

---