Maritime Union of Australia v Fair Work Ombudsman

In the case of Maritime Union of Australia v Fair Work Ombudsman, the respondents sought to appeal against a decision of the primary judge who found that the appellants had contravened s 346(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The primary judge found that the appellants had published a poster naming five employees as "scabs" during strike action, which had prejudiced the employees, directly or indirectly, in their employment. The appeal centred around whether the primary judge's findings provided adequate support for the conclusion that the employees were prejudiced, whether the compensation awarded was appropriate, and whether the penalties imposed were excessive.

The court examined the primary judge's findings and determined that they provided more than adequate support for the conclusion that the employees were prejudiced. The court found that the primary judge's findings made it clear that the employees had experienced emotional distress and fear, and that this was sufficient to support the conclusion that they had been prejudiced in their employment. The court also found that the compensation awarded by the primary judge was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate, and that the penalties imposed were not excessive or involving "double punishment".

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the primary judge. The court found that the primary judge's findings provided more than adequate support for the conclusion that the employees were prejudiced, that the compensation awarded was appropriate, and that the penalties imposed were not excessive. The court did not find any error in the primary judge's decision.