FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Valley Power Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2002] FCA 17
INDUSTRIAL LAW – application for interlocutory injunction – subsequent return to work – whether application should be adjourned or dismissed
VALLEY POWER PTY LTD v AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION & ORS
NO V 25 OF 2002HEEREY J
16 JANUARY 2002
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
V 25 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
VALLEY POWER PTY LTD
APPLICANTAND:
AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION (“AMWU”)
FIRST RESPONDENTTHE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION (“AWU”)
SECOND RESPONDENTPETER RAYNER
THIRD RESPONDENTGEORGE MERCER
FOURTH RESPONDENTGEORGE TSOKOS
FIFTH RESPONDENTMERVYN LOWE
SIXTH RESPONDENTJUDGE:
HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 JANUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed
2. The directions hearing be adjourned to a date to be fixed before a judge of the Industrial Panel.
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
V 25 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
VALLEY POWER PTY LTD
APPLICANTAND:
AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION (“AMWU”)
FIRST RESPONDENTTHE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION (“AWU”)
SECOND RESPONDENTPETER RAYNER
THIRD RESPONDENTGEORGE MERCER
FOURTH RESPONDENTGEORGE TSOKOS
FIFTH RESPONDENTMERVYN LOWE
SIXTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
HEEREY J
DATE:
16 JANUARY 2002
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This matter came on before me today as an urgent application for an interlocutory injunction, effectively seeking orders which would require a return to work. The matter was stood down and I am now informed by counsel for the two union respondents that there has been a return to work. The question is what course should the proceeding take now. Counsel for the applicant urges that I should adjourn the application for a few days because, he says, there is, these are not his words, but in essence a history of unreliability on the part of the union and the workforce representatives. Counsel says that various issues still remain to be worked out.
However, I think it would not be correct to take that course.
The application itself, that is, the substantive application, seeks permanent relief including, amongst other things, declarations and an order for payment of penalties. I cannot dispose of that today and that will remain on foot. However, what is before me today is an urgent application for an interlocutory injunction premised on the fact that the workforce at the site in question remainings. Once that state of affairs has ceased the basis for any interlocutory intervention by the Court disappears.
I do not think it would be right for the Court to adjourn the interlocutory injunction application so as to adopt some kind of supervisory role with a view to assisting in the solution of problems which may arise in the future. That function is one for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and not for the Court. I think the appropriate course is simply to dismiss the application for an interlocutory injunction. The substantive application, as I have said, remains on foot. I think this should return to a Judge of the Industrial Panel and I will adjourn the directions hearing to a date to be fixed, as to which the parties can speak to the District Registrar.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey.
Associate:
Dated: 18 January 2002
Counsel for the Applicant:
Mr S Wood
Solicitor for the Applicant:
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Counsel for the Respondent:
Ms S L Bingham
Solicitor for the Respondent:
Maurice Blackburn Cashman
Date of Hearing:
16 January 2002
Date of Judgment:
16 January 2002
- AGLC
- Valley Power Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2002] FCA 17
- Case
- [2002] FCA 17
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the specific provisions of the Fair Work Act and the legal tests applicable to interlocutory injunctions. It concluded that the union's action was likely to be protected under the Act, as it appeared to fall within the permissible scope of industrial action. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated the necessary balance of convenience and irreparable harm to warrant an interlocutory injunction at that stage of the proceedings. The court held that the matter should proceed to a full hearing to allow both parties to present their full cases and arguments.
Consequently, the court dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction. The directions hearing was also adjourned to a later date to be fixed before a judge of the Industrial Panel. The court's decision underscored the importance of the preliminary legal tests in determining the admissibility of evidence and the appropriateness of interlocutory relief in industrial disputes.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed
2. The directions hearing be adjourned to a date to be fixed before a judge of the Industrial Panel.
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
Established by: HEEREY J
Full text does not contain this section.