Finance Sector Union of Australia v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2002] FCA 631

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Finance Sector Union of Australia v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2002] FCA 631

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Alleged injury of employee in her employment or alteration of her position to her prejudice – Formal counselling and warning of employee – Whether this constitutes such an injury or alteration – Disciplinary action taken after stoppage of work in which employee participated – Whether stoppage was "protected action" – Whether employer has established that such participation was not a reason for the disciplinary action – Whether disciplinary action infringed the statutory freedom of association provisions – Media interviews given by employee in her capacity as National President of registered organisation – Whether earlier informal counselling about media interviews was an injury or alteration – Whether employer has established that employee's office was not a reason for the disciplinary action. Workplace Relations Act 1996: ss 170ML, 170MM, 170MU, 298K, 298L, 298V. General Motors Holden Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 12 ALR 605 considered and applied FINANCE SECTOR UNION OF AUSTRALIA v AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED N1512 OF 2001 WILCOX J 17 MAY 2002 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N1512 OF 2001

BETWEEN: FINANCE SECTOR UNION OF AUSTRALIA

APPLICANT

AND: AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER: 17 MAY 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. It be declared that: (a) the informal counselling given to Ms Joy Buckland by Mr Ian Johnston, on behalf of the respondent, Australia & New Zealand Banking Group, in March 2000, in relation to a Sun-Herald article naming Ms Buckland, did not constitute a contravention by the respondent of s 289K of the Workplace Relations Act 1996; (b) the formal counselling given to Ms Buckland by Mr Graeme James Inglis, on behalf of the respondent, on 25 September 2001 and the letter of warning given to Ms Buckland by Mr Inglis, on behalf of the respondent, on 5 October 2001 each constituted infringements by the respondent of both s 170MU(1) and s 298K(1) of the said Act; and (c) the conduct of the respondent did not contravene s 298M of the said Act. 2. The matter of imposition of penalties is reserved. 3. The parties file and serve written submissions in relation to penalties in accordance with the following timetable: (a) applicant's submissions not later than Tuesday, 28 May 2002; (b) respondent's submissions not later than Friday, 7 June 2002; (c) any submissions in reply by Monday, 17 June 2002. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.