Alfred v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
Citation: [2011] FCA 556
At a glance
- Penalty
- $100,000
What happened
Gregory Alfred is an inspector under the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005. Between 19-28 May 2010, the CFMEU established and maintained a blockade at the main entrance to the Melbourne Markets Relocation Project site in Epping. The blockade prevented workers and vehicles from entering the site and shut down all work. The CFMEU was attempting to force contractor Fulton Hogan to enter into an enterprise agreement with it rather than the AWU. The blockade lasted approximately 10 days during which no work occurred.
What was decided
The court declared that the CFMEU contravened section 38 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 by engaging in unlawful industrial action and section 44 by organising and taking action with intent to coerce Fulton Hogan. The court imposed a penalty of $100,000 on the CFMEU to be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and ordered the union to pay the applicant's costs fixed at $40,000.
What it means for employers
Contractors should understand that complete site blockades organised by unions to force agreement terms constitute serious breaches of workplace law. Such conduct, even when motivated by representation disputes, attracts substantial penalties.
What it means for employees
While workers have rights to industrial action, total site blockades and extended work bans to force particular union representation agreements can breach statutory prohibitions and result in significant penalties against unions.
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/2011/2011fca0556Want 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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
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