Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (No 3)

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Neutral Citation2013-0529 FCA A
Year2013
Date2013
CourtFederal Court

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
10 cases
  • Flageul v WeDrive Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • 15 June 2021
    ...cross-examination: c.f. Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v. Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (No 3) (2013) 216 F.C.R. 70 at 120 [251]. The failure to observe the rule in Browne v. Dunn goes some way, in the particular circumstances of this case, to support ......
  • Australian Building & Construction Commissioner v Molina (No 2)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 2 July 2019
    ...v Parker [2017] FCA 564 Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (No 3) [2013] FCA 525 Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay [2012] HCA 32; (2012) 248 CLR 500 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [193......
  • Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre Inc v Shum (No 3)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 4 May 2022
    ...(2019) 273 FCR 332 Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (No 3) (2013) 216 FCR 70 Bale v Mills (2011) 81 NSWLR 498 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Brown v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Ene......
  • Flageul v WeDrive Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 18 November 2020
    ...cross-examination: c.f. Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v. Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (No 3) (2013) 216 F.C.R. 70 at 120 [251]. The failure to observe the rule in Browne v. Dunn goes some way, in the particular circumstances of this case, to support ......
  • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
  • Safety First: Adverse Action in the context of work health and safety
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 20 July 2013
    ...SUMMARY The recent Federal Court decision in AMWU v Visy Packaging Pty Ltd (No 3) [2013] FCA 525 demonstrates the careful balancing act an employer faces when disciplining an employee for misconduct where the employee has raised safety concerns. The case also highlights how a wide range of ......
  • Misconduct investigations: our top tips
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 27 March 2015
    ...overly influenced by the employer. In Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Visy Pty Ltd (No 3) [2013] FCA 525 the employer framed the questions for the investigation, required the HR Manager to sit in on the interview with the employee accused of mi......