Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 1344 Citation: Helal v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 1344
Parties: LINDA HELAL v MCCONNELL DOWELL CONSTRUCTORS (AUST) PTY LTD (ACN 002 929 017)
File number: VID 632 of 2010
Judge: TRACEY J
Date of judgment: 25 November 2011
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – labour supplied by respondent to sub-contractor – building employees of sub-contractor not regulated by industrial agreement governing respondent – whether discriminatory action taken by respondent against employees of sub-contractor – whether such action was taken on ground that employees not covered by particular kind of industrial instrument – ground must be a "substantial and operative reason" for taking action – no discriminatory action found to have occurred
Legislation: Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) ss 3, 4, 45,49 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) s 5 Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Cth) s 5 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 191 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 21, 31A Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 49 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s 298K
Cases cited: Barclay v Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education (2011) 191 FCR 212 cited Cahill v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) (2008) 170 FCR 357 cited, compared Compaq Computer Australia Pty Ltd v Merry (1998) 157 ALR 1 cited General Motors Holden Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 12 ALR 605 Greater Dandenong City Council v Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (2001) 112 FCR 232 cited Maritime Union of Australia v CSL Australia Pty Ltd (2002) 113 IR 326 referred to Maritime Union of Australia v Geraldton Port Authority (1999) 93 FCR 34 cited O'Brien Glass Industries Limited v Cool & Sons Pty Ltd (1983) 48 ALR 625 cited Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1 cited Protean (Holdings) Limited v American Home Assurance Company [1985] VR 187 compared Purvis v The State of New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92 considered Rasomen Pty Ltd v Shell Company of Australia Limited (1997) 75 FCR 216 cited Seymour v Saint-Gobain Abrasives Pty Ltd (2006) 161 IR 9 cited Trade Practices Commission v George Weston Foods Limited (No 2) (1980) 43 FLR 55 compared Tru Floor Service Pty Ltd v Jenkins (No 2) (2006) 232 ALR 532 cited Wood v City of Melbourne Corporation (1979) 26 ALR 430 cited
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