Pine v Austress Freyssinet (Vic) Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 7 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pine v Austress Freyssinet (Vic) Pty Ltd (ACN 089 766 576) [2005] FCA 583

LISETTE PINE  -v-  AUSTRESS FREYSSINET (VIC) PTY LTD (ACN 089 766 576)

VID 1496 of 2004

RYAN J

5 MAY 2005
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 1496 of 2004

BETWEEN:

LISETTE PINE
Applicant

AND:

AUSTRESS FREYSSINET (VIC) PTY LTD (ACN 089 766 576)
Respondent

JUDGE:

RYAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 MAY 2005

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. That a penalty of $800.00 is imposed on the respondent in respect to its contraventions of s 187AA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) on 5 and 6 August 2003.

  2. That such penalty be paid into the consolidated revenue fund.

  3. That the penalty be paid within 21 days to the District Registrar of the Court in Melbourne.

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 1496 of 2004

BETWEEN:

LISETTE PINE
Applicant

AND:

AUSTRESS FREYSSINET (VIC) PTY LTD (ACN 089 766 576)
Respondent

JUDGE:

RYAN J

DATE:

5 MAY 2005

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. There is before the Court an application for the imposition of penalties on the respondent under s 187AD of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”). Those penalties are sought for contravention of s 187AA of the Act, by making payments to four persons in relation to periods during which each of those persons engaged in industrial action. The applicant also seeks a declaration that by making each of the payments, the respondent contravened s 187AA.

  2. A statement of agreed facts has been filed which discloses that each of the four persons to whom the payments were made was an employee of the respondent employed pursuant to the Austress Freyssinet (Vic) Pty Ltd and CFMEU Building and Construction Industry Collective Bargaining Agreement 2002‑2005 (“the certified agreement”). 

  3. The four employees were working at the time on post-tensioning of concrete on the Concept Blue apartment building at 336 Russell Street, Melbourne (“the Concept Blue site”).  On Friday, 1 August 2003, a Mr Andrew Schouten, a labourer, was killed when a crane near which he was working struck overhead wires on a farm at Shepparton.  Apparently, there was no work scheduled to be performed by the respondent at the Concept Blue site on the next three days.  The 2nd August was a Sunday and the next day, Monday, 3 August, was a rostered day off under the certified agreement.

  4. Work at the Concept Blue site resumed as normal on the next day, Tuesday, 5 August, but stopped at 8.30 am when the CFMEU conducted a site safety audit pursuant to its “on-site fatalities policy and procedure”.  Each of the respondent’s four employees stopped work at that time and did not resume work at all during that day, Tuesday, 5 August.  On the following day, Wednesday, 6 August, workers on the site, including, as…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pine v Austress Freyssinet (Vic) Pty Ltd 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
[2005] FCA 583
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pine v Austress Freyssinet (Vic) Pty Ltd involved the applicant, Pine, who sought penalties against the respondent, Austress Freyssinet (Vic) Pty Ltd, for alleged breaches of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Gilmour.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether Austress Freyssinet (Vic) Pty Ltd had contravened section 187AA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) on specific dates. This section pertains to the prohibition of discrimination in employment and workplace practices. The applicant alleged that the respondent had engaged in discriminatory practices against the applicant in relation to his employment.

Justice Gilmour found that Austress Freyssinet (Vic) Pty Ltd had indeed contravened the relevant provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). The court held that the respondent's actions constituted discrimination under the Act. Consequently, the court imposed a penalty of $800.00 on the respondent for the contraventions that occurred on 5 and 6 August 2003. The penalty was to be paid into the consolidated revenue fund and remitted within 21 days to the District Registrar of the Court in Melbourne.

The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence presented and the applicable statutory provisions. The final orders mandated the payment of the penalty, reflecting the court's determination that the respondent had breached the anti-discrimination provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That a penalty of $800.00 is imposed on the respondent in respect to its contraventions of s 187AA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) on 5 and 6 August 2003.

2.

That such penalty be paid into the consolidated revenue fund.

3.

That the penalty be paid within 21 days to the District Registrar of the Court in Melbourne.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.