Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers Union [2001] FCA 1840

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers Union [2001] FCA 1840 INDUSTRIAL LAW – appropriate declaratory relief Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 170NC(1) and 170ML Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 - ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS PTY LTD v AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION AND OTHERS - S157 OF 2001 JUDGE: MERKEL J DATE: 20 DECEMBER 2001 PLACE: MELBOURNE (HEARD IN ADELAIDE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S157 OF 2001

BETWEEN: ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS PTY LTD

(ACN 004 762 341)

APPLICANT

AND: AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION

FIRST RESPONDENT

COMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONIC, ENERGY, INFORMATION, POSTAL, PLUMBING AND ALLIED SERVICES UNION OF AUSTRALIA

SECOND RESPONDENT

AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METAL, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION

THIRD RESPONDENT

JIM WATSON

FOURTH RESPONDENT

DAVE OLIVER

FIFTH RESPONDENT

ROBERT JOHNSTON

SIXTH RESPONDENT

ROBERT GERAGHTY

SEVENTH RESPONDENT JUDGE: MERKEL J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 DECEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE (HEARD IN ADELAIDE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT IT BE DECLARED THAT: 1. The industrial action of the first respondent on 14, 21 and 22 September 2001, being action threatened in notices issued by the first respondent dated 5, 11, 13 and 14 September 2001: (a) was not protected action within the terms of s 170ML of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and; (b) breached s 170NC(1) of that Act. 2. The industrial action of the second respondent on 14, 21 and 22 September 2001, being action threatened in notices issued by the second respondent dated 5 and 14 September 2001: (a) was not protected action within the terms of s 170ML of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and; (b) breached s 170NC(1) of that Act. 3. The industrial action of the third respondent on 14, 21 and 22 September 2001, being action threatened in notices issued by the third respondent dated 6, 11, 13 and 14 September 2001: (a) was not protected action within the terms of s 170ML of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and; (b) breached s 170NC(1) of that Act.