Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Alfred [2011] FCAFC 13 Citation: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Alfred [2011] FCAFC 13
Appeal from: Alfred v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union & Ors [2009] FMCA 613; Alfred v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union & Ors (No 2) [2009] FCMA 1003
Parties: CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION, CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING & ENERGY UNION (NSW BRANCH) and SALVATORE MANNA v GREGORY CHARLES ALFRED
File number: NSD 1272 of 2009
Judges: BUCHANAN, Flick and Katzmann JJ
Date of judgment: 10 February 2011
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from Federal Magistrates Court of Australia – requirements under section 789 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) – meaning of intent to coerce – liability of state union branches under Part 16 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) EVIDENCE – appellate jurisdiction – findings of fact based on credibility assessment by court at first instance – review of evidence – appellable error – approach to be taken by appellate court
Legislation: Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) s 57 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24(1)(d) Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 779, 782, 783, 785, 789, 807, 809
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate