Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1514
SLIP RULE – orders incomplete and contained a clerical error – orders republished – orders take effect from date of earlier publication. Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001 GREGORY CHARLES ALFRED v LES LANSCAR AND CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION ACD 15 OF 2006
BUCHANAN J
28 SEPTEMBER 2007
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY ACD 15 OF 2006
BETWEEN: GREGORY CHARLES ALFRED
Applicant
AND: LES LANSCAR
First Respondent
CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
Second Respondent
JUDGE: BUCHANAN J DATE OF ORDER: 28 SEPTEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
BY CONSENT THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1. a) By making a representation on 9 February 2005 to Paul Papas, a director of Papas Painting Contractors Pty Limited, to the effect that in order to work on the Avenue Apartments site (a site at the corner of Barry Drive and Northbourne Avenue, Turner in the Australian Capital City), painters were obliged to join the second respondent, and advising, encouraging or inciting Papas Painting Contractors Pty Limited via Mr Papas to refuse to make use of painting services offered by persons who were not members of the second respondent (whether they were or should have been employees or independent contractors), the first respondent contravened s 298S(2)(a) of the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). b) By making a representation on 9 February 2005 to Paul Papas, a director of Papas Painting Contractors Pty Limited, to the effect that in order to work on the Avenue Apartments site, (a site at the corner of Barry Drive and Northbourne Avenue, Turner in the Australian Capital City), painters were obliged to join the second respondent, and thereby intending to coerce Papas Painting Contractors Pty Limited via Mr Papas to refuse to make use of painting services offered by any of its employees who were not members of the second respondent, the first respondent contravened s 298S(2)(b) of the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). c) By the actions of the first respondent referred to in paragraph 1(a) and 1(b) above, the second respondent contravened s 298S(2)(a) and s 298S(2)(b) of the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 2. a) a penalty of $2,000 be imposed upon the first respondent in respect of the contraventions referred to in Declarations 1(a) and 1(b) above; b) a penalty of $10,000 be imposed upon the second respondent in respect of the contraventions referred to in Declaration 1(c) above; c) the penalties referred to in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) above be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund within 28 days of the date of these orders. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 3. The declarations and orders above take effect on and from 4 July 2007. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
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