Newton v Australian Postal Corporation (No 2)

The Federal Court was presented with a case brought by Michael Newton against the Australian Postal Corporation and the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union. Newton alleged that the Union representative, Metcher, made threats to coerce the Corporation into removing him from his position and cancelling a project. Newton further alleged that Metcher also threatened action to prevent the Corporation from assigning him duties. The case hinged on whether these threats constituted a contravention of sections 348 and 355 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and if the Corporation and the Union were liable for the actions of Metcher. Additionally, Newton claimed that his removal from his position and the cancellation of the project amounted to adverse action under section 340 of the Act. The court also needed to determine if the Corporation breached its contractual obligations by removing Newton from his position and excluding him from work.

The court examined the meaning of a "threat" and "intent to coerce" within the context of the Act, and considered the applicability of section 361(1) of the Act, which presumes action taken for a particular reason unless proven otherwise. The standard of proof necessary for a contravention of the Act was also debated, along with the admissibility of pleading admissions made by one party against another in a joint trial. The court assessed whether the threats, as alleged, were indeed made by Metcher, and if Newton sufficiently established the use of unlawful, illegitimate, or unconscionable means by the Union representative. Furthermore, the court deliberated on whether the Corporation and manager were accessorily liable under section 550 of the Act, and if the adverse actions taken were due to Newton's workplace right to a safe working environment.

In terms of contract law, the court considered whether removing Newton from his contracted position without providing a suitable alternative breached the employment contract. The meaning of a "suitable alternative position" and whether one was offered to Newton were also examined. The court assessed whether a direction excluding Newton from work pending medical clearance breached the contract.

Finally, the court discussed principles of damages for breach of contract, causation, loss of chance or loss of bargain, and remoteness of damage. The court considered whether intervening events broke the chain of causation, and if Newton's attempts to gain employment following termination involved a failure to mitigate loss. The court also determined if Newton was entitled to general damages.

The court found that Metcher's threats did not constitute a contravention of sections 348 and 355 of the Fair Work Act, and that Newton had not discharged his onus to establish the use of unlawful, illegitimate, or unconscionable means by the Union representative. The court also ruled that the Corporation and manager were not accessorily liable under section 550 of the Act, and that the adverse actions taken were not due to Newton's workplace right to a safe working environment.

In relation to the contract claims, the court held that removing Newton from his contracted position without placing him into a suitable alternative position was a breach of contract. However, it was determined that Newton was not entitled to general damages as he had failed to mitigate his loss. The court ordered the parties to file an outline of any witness evidence or a statement of agreed facts regarding Newton's earnings and employment circumstances post-November 2018, or a minute of the orders they proposed should be made. The proceeding was then listed for further hearing.