The Australian Workers Union v Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd

The Australian Workers Union (the Union) brought proceedings against Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd (the Company) in the Federal Court of Australia. The Union alleged that the Company had engaged in conduct that contravened various sections of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). The alleged conduct included the dismissal and threatened dismissal of employees who were members of the Union and who had engaged in protected industrial action. The Union also alleged that the Company had offered inducements to employees to resign from the Union. The Union sought declarations that the Company had contravened sections 170MU, 298K and 298M of the Act. The court was required to determine whether the actions of the Company amounted to dismissals or threatened dismissals for reasons that contravened the Act. The court also had to decide whether the Company had offered inducements to employees to resign from the Union in contravention of the Act.

The court found that the Company had contravened sections 170MU, 298K and 298M of the Act. The court found that the dismissal of two employees, Mr Mrmacoski and Mr Naumovski, and the threatened dismissal of another employee, Mr Scicluna, were unlawful. The court found that the dismissals and threatened dismissals were because the employees had engaged in protected industrial action and because they were members of the Union. The court also found that the Company had offered inducements to employees to resign from the Union in contravention of section 298M of the Act. The court found that the Company had offered Mr Scicluna a payment of $500 if he resigned from the Union. The court found that this offer was an unlawful inducement. The court dismissed the application in all other respects.

The court made various declarations in favour of the Union. The court declared that the Company had contravened section 170MU(1)(a) of the Act by dismissing Mr Mrmacoski and Mr Naumovski, injuring them in their employment and altering their positions to their prejudice. The court declared that the Company had contravened section 298K(1) of the Act by dismissing Mr Mrmacoski and Mr Naumovski, injuring them in their employment and altering their positions to their prejudice. The court also declared that the Company had contravened section 298K(1) of the Act by threatening to dismiss Mr Scicluna. The court adjourned the application to allow the parties to make submissions regarding compensation and penalty.