Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Fair Work Ombudsman v Roach (The Melbourne Quarter Case) [2023] FCA 156 File number: VID 23 of 2021
Judgment of: WHEELAHAN J
Date of judgment: 3 March 2023
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – alleged contraventions of ss 348 and 349 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) by union and union representative at the site of the Melbourne Quarter project – applicant claimed that the representative told a caulking subcontractor during a site induction that the subcontractor could not work on the site unless he paid outstanding union fees – where evidence of key witnesses differed as to what was said during the induction – examination of contested evidence – evidence of the employees of the subcontractor generally accepted – contraventions established
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 64(4), 97, 140 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 336, 343, 345 347, 348, 349, 361, 361, 701, 793 Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth), Schedule 1, Part 3, item 323
Cases cited: Adcock v Blackmores Ltd [2016] FCCA 265; 259 IR 209 Adcock v Blackmores Ltd [2016] FCA 893 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (The Quest Apartments Case) [2017] FCA 1398 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (The Syme Library Case) [2018] FCA 1142 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Hall [2018] FCAFC 83; 261 FCR 347 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Molina [2020] FCAFC 97; 277 FCR 223 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Ravbar [2018] FCA 1196 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Roach (The Melbourne Quarter Case) (Ruling No 1) [2021] FCA 1153 Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Roach (The Melbourne Quarter Case) (Ruling No 2) [2021] FCA 1210 Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Regional Express Holdings Ltd [2021] FCAFC 226; 290 FCR 239 Australian Red Cross Society v Queensland Nurses' Union of Employees [2019] FCAFC 215; 273 FCR 332 Auimatagi v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner [2018] FCAFC 191; 267 FCR 268 Banditt v The Queen [2005] HCA 80; 224 CLR 262 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336 Broadhurst v The Queen [1964] AC 441 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2007] FCAFC 132; 162 FCR 466 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 25; 230 FCR 298 Esso v Australian Workers' Union [2017] HCA 54; 263 CLR 551 Forrest v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] HCA 39; 247 CLR 486 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Harris v Warre (1879) 4 CPD 125 Newton v Australian Postal Corporation (No 2) [2019] FCA 2192; 292 IR 396 R v Jovanovich (1997) 42 NSWLR 520 R v Uhrig (unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, 24 October 1996) Seltsam v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; 49 NSWLR 262 Société d'Avances Commerciales (Société Anonyme Egyptienne) v Merchants' Marine Insurance Co (The Palitana) (1924) 20 Ll L Rep 140 State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Ltd (in liq) [1999] HCA 3; 160 ALR 588 Swain v Waverley Municipal Council [2005] HCA 4; 220 CLR 517 Tomvald v Toll Transport Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1208 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
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