Yallourn Energy Ltd v CFMEU

In the matter of Yallourn Energy Ltd v CFMEU, Yallourn Energy Ltd, a power generator, sought an injunction against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and its members in the Latrobe Valley branch for an illegal strike that took place on 2 November. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the responsibility of the CFMEU for the actions of its members and whether the union would take further industrial action in the Latrobe Valley. The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the CFMEU was liable for the actions of its members who participated in an unauthorised strike and whether the union had taken further industrial action in the Latrobe Valley. The court also had to determine whether the proceedings were actions in tort and whether they were prohibited in the absence of a certificate under section 166A of the relevant Act.

The court found that the CFMEU was not liable for the actions of its members who participated in the unauthorised strike, as the union had repudiated the actions of the members and there was no evidence of ratification or express authority. The court also found that the union did not pose a similar threat of further industrial action in the Latrobe Valley. The court held that the proceedings were not actions in tort but rather an application for injunctive relief that the Court exercise its equitable jurisdiction. The court was of the opinion that it was strongly arguable that the CFMEU was not liable for the unauthorised actions of the members of the Latrobe Valley Branch in striking on 2 November, but it made no concluded finding in relation to the matter as it was an interlocutory application. The court also noted that the members of the Latrobe Valley Branch may take further strike action, but there were grounds for apprehending that the union did not pose a similar threat.

The court granted an interlocutory injunction against the members of the Latrobe Valley Branch of the CFMEU but not against the union itself. The court held that the union was not liable for the actions of its members who participated in the unauthorised strike and that there was no threat that the union would take further industrial action in the Latrobe Valley. The court also found that the proceedings were not actions in tort but rather an application for injunctive relief that the Court exercise its equitable jurisdiction. The court's decision provides guidance on the liability of a union for the actions of its members who engage in unauthorised industrial action and the circumstances in which an injunction may be granted against union members but not the union itself.