Australian Building & Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union
Citation: [2009] FCA 1587
What happened
The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABCC) sought an interlocutory injunction against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and union officials over unlawful industrial action. Employees of contractors at a building site at 915 Hay Street, Perth (controlled by Diploma Constructions) took strike action on multiple dates in June 2009. The strikes caused significant disruption. The ABCC alleged the union engaged in unlawful industrial action in contravention of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005.
What was decided
the Commissioner granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from engaging in unlawful industrial action. The court ordered restraint from failing or refusing to perform building work or placing bans on such work, and from attending or organising attendance within 100 metres of the site, subject to limited exceptions including those based on genuine health and safety concerns. The court applied the principle that relief should be the minimum necessary to do justice between the parties, but considered the ABCC's statutory role in improving the building and construction industry as a relevant factor.
What it means for employers
Employers in the building and construction industry should be aware that the ABCC has statutory powers to seek interlocutory injunctions to restrain unlawful industrial action. The court recognises the ABCC's important regulatory role and will grant relief proportionate to achieving fair outcomes in the industry. Employers should report suspected unlawful industrial action to the ABCC.
What it means for employees
Employees who undertake industrial action must ensure it complies with the Fair Work Act and other applicable legislation. The court recognises limited exceptions where employees have genuine concerns about imminent health and safety risks. Unauthorised stoppages can be subject to court orders restraining the conduct, which may limit negotiating leverage.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2009/2009fca1587Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →