Heyman v CFMEU
Case
•
[2011] FMCA 145
•8 March 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Heyman v CFMEU [2011] FMCA 145
[2011] FMCA 145
8 March 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Heyman v CFMEU was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from an industrial action at a construction site for the Royal Children's Hospital in Parkville, Victoria, where certain work was banned by union officials. The plaintiffs, represented by Mr. Heyman, sought penalties against the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and two of its officials for contravening section 38 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' actions in banning work on a tower crane on May 21, 2008, constituted an unlawful industrial action.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants had contravened section 38 of the Act and, if so, what penalties should be imposed. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the defendants' actions, the statutory provisions governing industrial activities in the building and construction industry, and the appropriate penalties for such contraventions. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' actions were unlawful as they constituted unprotected industrial action, while the defendants claimed the actions were protected by the Act.
In its judgment, the court found that the defendants had indeed contravened section 38 of the Act. The court held that the banning of work on the tower crane was not protected industrial action under the provisions of the Act. The court also determined that the first respondent, the CFMEU, was vicariously liable for the actions of its officials, the second and third respondents. The penalties were assessed based on the seriousness of the contraventions and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court imposed penalties of $6,000 on the second respondent, $5,000 on the third respondent, and $30,000 on the first respondent. The court further ordered that these penalties be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund within 28 days of the date of the order and dismissed the proceedings with no order as to costs.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants had contravened section 38 of the Act and, if so, what penalties should be imposed. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the defendants' actions, the statutory provisions governing industrial activities in the building and construction industry, and the appropriate penalties for such contraventions. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' actions were unlawful as they constituted unprotected industrial action, while the defendants claimed the actions were protected by the Act.
In its judgment, the court found that the defendants had indeed contravened section 38 of the Act. The court held that the banning of work on the tower crane was not protected industrial action under the provisions of the Act. The court also determined that the first respondent, the CFMEU, was vicariously liable for the actions of its officials, the second and third respondents. The penalties were assessed based on the seriousness of the contraventions and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court imposed penalties of $6,000 on the second respondent, $5,000 on the third respondent, and $30,000 on the first respondent. The court further ordered that these penalties be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund within 28 days of the date of the order and dismissed the proceedings with no order as to costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Civil Penalty
-
Jurisdiction
-
Vicarious Liability
-
Penalties
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Heyman v CFMEU [2011] FMCA 145
Most Recent Citation
DIRECTOR OF THE FAIR WORK BUILDING INDUSTRY INSPECTORATE v CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION & ANOR
[2012] FMCA 916
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
1
Stuart-Mahoney v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
[2008] FCA 1426
Fair Work Ombudsman v Lifestyle SA Pty Ltd
[2014] FCA 1151
Fair Work Ombudsman v Lifestyle SA Pty Ltd
[2014] FCA 1151