White v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

In the case of White v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the applicant, White, sought penalties against several respondents who were members of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) for contraventions of sections 38 and 43 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth). The contraventions related to unlawful industrial action and actions taken with intent to coerce Abigroup. The respondents admitted to the contraventions, and the court was tasked with determining whether the agreed penalties were within the permissible range.

The court considered several factors in assessing the penalties, including the lack of contrition, cooperation, deterrence, and the nature and extent of any loss or damage. The court found that the parties had agreed on an agreed statement of facts, the penalties to be imposed, and for the respondents to contribute to the applicant’s legal costs. The court noted that the cooperation of the respondents was a significant mitigating factor, and that deterrence was a relevant consideration in assessing penalty. The court further noted that the nature and extent of any loss or damage was not addressed in the statement of agreed facts and thus could not be given much weight.

After considering all the circumstances and the agreed facts, the court determined that the penalties agreed upon by the parties were within the permissible range. The court concluded that the agreed penalties sufficiently took into account the seriousness of the contraventions, the cooperation of the respondents, and the need for deterrence. The court made orders imposing specified penalties on each of the respondents, with each penalty to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund by a certain date.

The court dismissed the application in all other respects, and the case concluded with the court confirming the agreed penalties as appropriate in the circumstances.