the Applicants; In the matter of an urgent application before the start of a proceeding
Citation: [2014] FCA 1254
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 2
What happened
Andrew Quirk and Brian Miller, officers of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), sought an urgent application in the Federal Court. They were charged with gross misbehaviour by union secretary David Noonan following statements made on ABC's 7.30 program. The charges arose from comments made during a broadcast and to a journalist. A disciplinary meeting was scheduled for November 18, 2014. Quirk and Miller alleged the meeting could breach union rules and sought an order under section 164 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act.
What was decided
The Federal Court dismissed both the urgent application to file electronically and the oral application for an order under s 164 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. Justice Buchanan found that proceedings had not yet commenced, preventing the court from granting interim orders. He also wasn't satisfied that all reasonable steps were taken to resolve the matter within the union. The judge noted the possibility of future legal action and didn’t believe urgent relief was necessary at this time.
What it means for employers
Employers, particularly those with unionised workforces, should ensure their disciplinary processes adhere to relevant legislation and union rules. Providing adequate notice and opportunity for response in disciplinary proceedings is crucial. Failure to do so could lead to legal challenges and potential penalties.
What it means for employees
Employees facing disciplinary action from a union should explore internal resolution options before seeking external legal intervention. Understanding their rights under the Fair Work Act and relevant union rules is essential. Employees may have avenues for appeal if they believe natural justice principles were not followed.
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/2014/2014fca1254Want 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 →