Qantas Airways Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of Australia (No 2)

In the case of Qantas Airways Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of Australia (No 2), the dispute centred around the enforcement of compliance with the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and the imposition of penalties for industrial action that contravened its provisions. The primary issue before the Court was whether the respondents, who were union officials, should be ordered to pay compensation to Qantas for the effects of their actions and whether multiple penalties should be imposed for actions occurring in different locations. The Court also had to determine the appropriate exercise of discretion in ordering costs against the applicant, Qantas, in the context of non-industrial federal claims within the proceedings.

The Court began by considering the statutory power to make orders to remedy the effects of proscribed industrial action, particularly in the context of ordering the payment of money. The Court held that to justify such an order, there must be an actual loss, expense, or foregone income resulting from the industrial action. The Court found that the salary paid to employees who worked on contingency teams, for example, was not an effect of the industrial action that could be remedied by an order to pay money. The Court emphasised that the statutory power must be exercised in accordance with its terms and purpose, and the constraints and limits those terms create. The Court then assessed the specific effects of the industrial action and whether the proposed orders would remedy those effects.

The Court determined that the industrial action resulted in certain effects, such as the need for salaried employees to work on contingency teams, but it was not convinced that these effects could be remedied by ordering the payment of money. The Court also addressed the issue of whether the contraventions should be treated as a single course of conduct or separate incidents warranting multiple penalties. The Court concluded that the actions should be treated as separate incidents and imposed penalties accordingly. The Court further dismissed the application for costs against Qantas, finding that the proceedings were not instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause.

The Court's final orders included the imposition of specific penalties on the respondents for their contraventions, the payment of compensation to Qantas, and the dismissal of the respondents' cross-claim. The Court also addressed the application for costs, finding that the applicant should pay the respondents' costs in the proceedings and dismissing the application for costs against Qantas.