Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v John Holland Pty Ltd
Citation: [2010] FCAFC 90
What happened
Unions (CFMEU, CEEWIU, AFMEPK) sought to enter an X50 expansion work site at Abbot Point Coal Terminal in Queensland operated by John Holland Pty Ltd. the Respondent claimed the expansion work was not covered by the workplace agreement (the Expansion Agreement). Union officials entered the site without providing proper entry notice and without an exemption certificate on 13 February 2009 and 5 March 2009. the Respondent sought to restrain future entry.
What was decided
The trial judge found the unions contravened section 767 of the Workplace Relations Act by hindering and obstructing access. The unions appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter. the court held that the trial judge had applied the wrong test. Whether entry was authorized depends on whether the prescribed purpose under section 760 was present. If section 760 is not engaged (no prescribed purpose), section 767 has no application. The precise scope of the relevant agreement needed redetermination.
What it means for employers
Employers can restrict union entry if the work is not covered by the relevant award or collective agreement. Entry rights depend on whether the work falls within the industrial agreement's scope, requiring careful analysis of agreement terms.
What it means for employees
Union officials' right to enter and hold discussions is limited to premises where work covered by relevant awards or agreements is performed. Officials must have the prescribed purpose and cannot simply assert coverage without proper basis.
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/full/2010/2010fcafc0090Want 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 →