Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Hutchison Ports Appeal)
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] FCAFC 69 |
| Date | 02 May 2019 |
| Court | Full Federal Court (Australia) |
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Hutchison Ports Appeal) [2019] FCAFC 69
|
Appeal from: |
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union [2018] FCA 934 |
|
|
|
|
File number: |
NSD 1248 of 2018 |
|
|
|
|
Judges: |
FLICK, ROSS AND RANGIAH JJ |
|
|
|
|
Date of judgment: |
2 May 2019 |
|
|
|
|
Catchwords: |
INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from a single judge of the Federal Court – civil remedy provision – pecuniary penalties – meaning of s 557(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – course of conduct principle – appeal upheld |
|
|
|
|
Legislation: |
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AA Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) s 119(1A) Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) s 79 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 40A, 417, 539, 546, 556, 557, Pt 4-1 Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) s 178 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 494, 719 |
|
|
|
|
Cases cited: |
Accident Insurance Mutual Ltd v Sullivan (1986) 7 NSWLR 65 Accident Towing & Advisory Committee v Combined Motor Industries Pty Ltd [1987] VR 529 Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (Northern Territory) (2009) 239 CLR 27 Australian Building and Construction Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (The Kane Constructions Case) [2017] FCA 168 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2018] HCA 3; (2018) 351 ALR 190 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The Nine Brisbane Sites Appeal) [2019] FCAFC 59 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2017] FCAFC 53; (2017) 249 FCR 458 (Perth International Airport Case) Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (Queensland Children’s Hospital case) (2017) 271 IR 321 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Nine Brisbane Sites Appeal) [2019] FCAFC 59 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pauls [2017] FCA 843 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v Yazaki Corporation [2018] FCAFC 73; (2018) 357 ALR 55 Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v International Aviation Service Assistance Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 333; (2011) 193 FCR 526 Australian Mines and Metals Association Inc v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union [2018] FCAFC 223 Cahill v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (No 2) (2008) 170 FCR 357 Chevron Australia Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (No 2) [2016] FCA 768 Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd (2004) 139 FCR 147 CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194 Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1 Commonwealth v Anti-Discrimination Tribunal (Tasmania) (2008) 169 FCR 85 Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; (2015) 258 CLR 482 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v QR Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 652 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Cahill (2010) 269 ALR 1 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 727 Dix v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1993] 1 VR 297 DP World Sydney Limited v Maritime Union of Australia (No 2) [2014] FCA 596 Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union [2018] FCA 934 Fair Work Ombudsman v Grouped Property Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 557 Fair Work Ombudsman v Lohr (2018) 356 ALR 424 Fair Work Ombudsman v Maritime Union of Australia [2012] FCA 1232 Fair Work Ombudsman v Maritime Union of Australia [2017] FCA 1363 Fair Work Ombudsman v South Jin Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 832 Flavel v RailPro Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCCA 1449 Gardner v Jay (1885) 29 ChD 50 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 IW Applicant v The City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Fair Work Australia (2012) 201 FCR 297 JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Fair Work Australia [2012] FCAFC 53 Kennewell v MG & CG Atkins T/as Cardinia Waste & Recyclers [2015] FCA 716 Khoury v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1984) 165 CLR 622 Maritime Union of Australia v Fair Work Ombudsman and Skilled Offshore (Australia) Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 120 Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214 Nilant v Macchia (2000) 104 FCR 238 Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72 Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 Qantas Airways Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of Australia (No 2) [2011] FCA 816 R v L (1994) 49 FCR 534 Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Fair Work Australia [2012] FCAFC 53 Rocky Holdings Pty Limited v Fair Work Ombudsman (2014) 221 FCR 153 Royer v Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139 Secretary, Department of Social Security v Knight (1996) 72 FCR 115 Shizas v Commissioner of Police ([2017] FCA 61 SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (SZTAL) [2017] HCA 34 Thompson v Gould & Co [1910] AC 409 Tomlinson v Ramsay Food Processing Pty Limited (2015) 256 CLR 507 Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Registered Organisations Commissioner [No 2] [2018] FCAFC 203; 363 ALR 464 Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156 |
|
|
|
|
Date of hearing: |
14 November 2018 |
|
|
|
|
Registry: |
New South Wales |
|
|
|
|
Division: |
Fair Work Division |
|
|
|
|
National Practice Area: |
Employment & Industrial Relations |
|
|
|
|
Category: |
Catchwords |
|
|
|
|
Number of paragraphs: |
193 |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Appellant: |
Mr J Bourke QC with Mr M Seck |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Appellant: |
Fair Work Ombudsman |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Mr B Walker SC with Mr T Slevin |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Slater and Gordon |
ORDERS
|
|
NSD 1248 of 2018 |
|
|
|
||
|
BETWEEN: |
FAIR WORK OMBUDSMAN Appellant
|
|
|
AND: |
CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MARITIME, MINING AND ENERGY UNION Respondent
|
|
|
JUDGES: |
FLICK, ROSS AND RANGIAH JJ |
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
2 MAY 2019 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The orders of the primary judge are set aside.
3. The matter is remitted to the primary judge to determine the issue of penalty.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FLICK J:
1 In November 2017, the primary Judge published her reasons for concluding that the former Maritime Union of Australia (“MUA”) contravened s 417 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth): Fair Work Ombudsman v Maritime Union of Australia [2017] FCA 1363. In June 2018, her Honour published reasons for imposing penalties and for not ordering compensation: Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union [2018] FCA 934.
2 The Fair Work Ombudsman now appeals. An Amended Notice of Appeal set forth nine Grounds of...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
James Cook University v Ridd
...[1930] HCA 12; 43 CLR 472 Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Hutchison Ports Appeal) [2019] FCAFC 69 Geo A Bond and Co Ltd (in liq) v McKenzie [1929] AR 499 George A Bond & Co Ltd (in liq) v McKenzie [1929] AR(NSW) 498 Hancock Prospecting Pt......
-
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Ingham (The 180 Brisbane Construction Case) (No 2)
...(emphasis added) (see also Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Mining, Maritime and Energy Union (The Hutchinson Ports Appeal) [2019] FCAFC 69 at [181] per Rangiah The applicant submitted that common law course of conduct principles are not relevant to Mr Griffin’s contraventions ......
-
Roohizadegan v TechnologyOne Limited (No 2)
...Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8; 209 CLR 95 Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime Mining and Energy Union [2019] FCAFC 69 Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 53; 269 FCR 464 General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 12 ALR 605......
-
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The College Crescent Case)
...Buss JA dissenting). 107 In Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Hutchison Ports Appeal) [2019] FCAFC 69, Rangiah J (with whom Ross J agreed in the result, Flick J dissenting) made the following observations about the “course of conduct” princ......