Maritime Union of Australia v CSL Australia Pty Limited [2002] FCA 513

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Maritime Union of Australia v CSL Australia Pty Limited [2002] FCA 513 INDUSTRIAL LAW – whether employer threatened to dismiss employees for a prohibited reason, or for reasons that include a prohibited reason – whether employer's conduct was carried out because employees were entitled to the benefit of an industrial instrument – employer had agreed to sell and reflag the vessel CSL Yarra to a related company which would operate it with a foreign crew - distinction between the cause (or proximate) reason/s for the conduct and the operative (or immediate) reason/s for the conduct

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – onus of proof – reversal of onus where allegation that conduct carried out for a prohibited reason, or for reasons that include a prohibited reason –Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 298V –when reverse onus discharged Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 298A, 298D(c), 298F(2), 298K(1), 298L(1), 298T, 298(U), 298(V), 349 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 Federal Court Rules O13 r 2(7), O13 r 2(8)

Greater Dandenong City Council v Australian Municipal Clerical and Services Union (2001) 184 ALR 641 discussed Heidt v Chrysler Australia Ltd (1976) 26 FLR 257 cited Davids Distribution Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers (1999) 165 ALR 550 cited Maritime Union of Australia v Geraldton Port Authority (1999) 93 FCR 34 followed General Motors-Holden's Pty Ltd v Bowling (1977) 51 ALJR 235 referred to Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1 referred to

MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MARINE AND POWER ENGINEERS v CSL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 080 378 614) N1638 OF 2001

BRANSON J 26 APRIL 2002 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1638 OF 2001

BETWEEN: MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA