FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Southcorp Australia Pty Limited v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union (No 2) [2000] FCA 1481 INDUSTRIAL LAW – picketing activities – injunction granted restraining picketing activities – further picketing by identified and unidentified people – further picketing not at suit of respondent union – joinder of unidentified people – use of photographs to identify parties. Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth): s 170NC SOUTHCORP AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED v AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION & ORS (No 2) V 788 of 2000 GOLDBERG J 13 OCTOBER 2000 MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 788 of 2000 BETWEEN: SOUTHCORP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 004 213 665) Applicant AND: AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION and OTHERS (as per attached Schedules) Respondents JUDGE: GOLDBERG J DATE OF ORDER: 13 OCTOBER 2000 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE UPON the applicant by its counsel undertaking: A. to submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to be just for the payment of compensation, to be assessed by the Court or as it may direct, to any person, whether or not a party, adversely affected by the operation of the interlocutory order made hereunder or any continuation, with or without variation, thereof; and B. to pay the compensation referred to in (a) to the person there referred to. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Leave be granted to the applicant to add Shane Strahan, Ivan Kremlic, Deyan Javanovic, Scott Findlay, John Schembri, Jude Francis, Mark Johnson and Pat Cutropia as the second to ninth respondents. 2. Leave be granted to the applicant to add the persons identified by the letters "A" to "H" respectively in the photograph which is Schedule B to this order (which is a copy of the exhibit MP26 of the affidavit of Michael Arnoldus Maria Pennings sworn 13 October 2000) as the tenth to seventeenth respondents. 3. Leave be granted to the applicant to add the persons identified by the letters "I" and "J" respectively in the photograph which is Schedule C to this order (which is a copy of the exhibit GW5 of the affidavit of Gavin Michael Welch sworn 13 October 2000) as the eighteenth to nineteenth respondents. 4. The applicant have leave to amend the application consequently upon such additions. 5. Until 4.00pm on 27 October 2000 or further order, the second to ninth and eighteenth and nineteenth respondents be restrained from: (a) preventing, hindering or interfering with free access to and egress from the premises of the applicant at 127 Cherry Lane, Laverton, Victoria ("the Laverton premises"); (b) abusing, threatening, besetting, harassing or intimidating any person, entering or leaving or about to enter or leave or who has entered or left the Laverton premises; (c) abusing, threatening, besetting, harassing or intimidating any person who is at the Laverton premises. 6. Until 4.00pm on 27 October 2000 or further order, the tenth to seventeenth respondents be restrained from: (a) preventing, hindering or interfering with free access to and egress from the premises of the applicant at 17 McNaughton Road, Clayton, Victoria ("the Clayton premises"); (b) abusing, threatening, besetting, harassing or intimidating any person, entering or leaving or about to enter or leave or who has entered or left the Clayton premises; (c) abusing, threatening, besetting, harassing or intimidating any person who is at the Clayton premises; 7. The directions hearing and any application for a continuation of the order made in paragraphs 5 and 6 after 4.00pm on 27 October 2000 be adjourned to 9.30am on 25 October 2000. 8. The applicant, where practicable, serve a copy of this order on all added respondents. TAKE NOTICE that SHANE STRAHAN, IVAN KREMLIC, DEYAN JAVANOVIC, SCOTT FINDLAY, JOHN SCHEMBRI, JUDE FRANCIS, MARK JOHNSON and PAT CUTROPIA and the persons who are identified by the letters "A" to "H" respectively in the photograph which is Schedule B to this order and the persons who are identified by the letters "I" and "J" respectively in the photograph which is Schedule C to this order, are liable to imprisonment or sequestration of property if they disobey this order. SCHEDULE A LIST OF RESPONDENTS SHANE STRAHAN Second Respondent IVAN KREMLIC Third Respondent DEYAN JAVANOVIC Fourth Respondent SCOTT FINDLAY Fifth Respondent JOHN SCHEMBRI Sixth Respondent JUDE FRANCIS Seventh Respondent MARK JOHNSON Eighth Respondent PAT CUTROPIA Ninth Respondent Persons identified as "A" to "H" in photo schedule B to this order which is exhibit MP26 of Michael Arnoldus Maria Pennings sworn 13 October 2000. Tenth to Seventeenth Respondents Persons identified as "I" and "J" in photo schedule C to this order which is exhibit GW5 to the affidavit of Gavin Michael Welch sworn 13 October 2000. Eighteenth to Nineteenth Respondents SCHEDULE B SCHEDULE C IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 788 of 2000 BETWEEN: SOUTHCORP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 004 213 665) Applicant AND: AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION and OTHERS (as per attached Schedules) Respondents JUDGE: GOLDBERG J DATE: 13 OCTOBER 2000 PLACE: MELBOURNE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Yesterday I granted injunctive relief at the suit of the applicant against the respondent union in respect of what I will loosely describe as picketing activities being carried on at the applicant's premises at 17 McNaughton Road, Clayton, and 127 Sherry Lane, Laverton North. The applicant comes before me today with evidence that there are still picketing activities being undertaken at these premises, but not suggesting that that picketing activity is carried on by or at the suit of the respondent union. It is not put to me at this stage that the union is not acting otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the order made yesterday. 2 On the basis of the evidence as to the nature of picketing activities which continue this day, I have given the applicant leave to join eight identified employees of the applicant as parties to the proceeding and a number of persons who can only be identified by reference to photographs. They cannot be identified by name. It seems to me that by so identifying them as parties by reference to a nominated photograph or photographs I am not joining parties for the purpose making orders against the world. 3 There is evidence that picketing activities are still having an effect on the business of the applicant but the evidence does not suggest that there is active harassment or active abuse or threats or intimidation of persons seeking to enter or leave the premises. Nevertheless as it is apparent that there is a continuation, albeit by other persons, of the picketing activities which were the subject of my order yesterday, I should infer that the intention of the picket line is the same as the intention of the picket line which existed until yesterday, thereby raising a serious question as to whether or not there is a contravention of s 170NC(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). 4 Although the evidence is not as strong as the evidence which led me to grant the injunction yesterday, I am satisfied that an injunction ought to run, having regard to the effect which the picketing activities are still having on the applicant's business and the fact that it is viewed in the context of earlier picketing activities, which have already been the subject of an injunction. As against a number of the added respondents, the evidence is relatively slim, as to their specific picketing activities other than their presence at the picketing area. 5 It is with some hesitation that I am disposed to grant the relief which is sought against the added respondents in the same terms as the order I made yesterday. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Goldberg. Associate: Dated: 18 October 2000 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr NJD Green QC and Mr T Angelopoulos Solicitor for the Applicant: Harmers Workplace Lawyers Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms S L Bingham Solicitor for the First Respondent: Maurice Blackburn Cashman Date of Hearing: 13 October 2000 Date of Judgment: 13 October 2000