Transfield Construction Pty Ltd v Automotive Food, Metal, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union

Transfield Construction Pty Ltd was the applicant in the Federal Court of Australia in a case against the Automotive Food, Metal, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, the Australian Workers Union, and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, as well as several individual union members. The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents from engaging in activities that disrupted the construction of a gas processing plant. This included actions such as encouraging employees to strike, maintaining pickets, and authorising or inciting employees to participate in such activities.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant could obtain an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from engaging in activities that disrupted the construction site and whether the applicant was required to compensate the respondents if the injunction was granted. The applicant argued that the respondents' actions constituted unlawful industrial action, which disrupted the construction of the gas processing plant, and that an injunction was necessary to prevent further disruption. The respondents contended that the applicant had not demonstrated a serious question to be tried and that the applicant was not entitled to an injunction.

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a serious question to be tried and that an interlocutory injunction was appropriate. The court noted that the applicant had suffered significant disruption to its construction activities, which had resulted in financial loss. The court also found that the applicant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the disruption, such as attempting to negotiate with the respondents and seeking orders from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents from engaging in activities that disrupted the construction site.

The court also found that the applicant was required to compensate the respondents if the injunction was granted. The court noted that the applicant had undertaken to submit to such Order (if any) as the Court may consider to be just for the payment of compensation, to be assessed by the Court or as it may direct, to any person, whether or not a party, adversely affected by the operation of the interlocutory order made hereunder or any continuation, with or without variation, thereof. The court considered this undertaking to be sufficient to ensure that the respondents would be compensated if the injunction was granted.