Skip to main content
FCAFederal Court of Australia · 17 November 2014

Quirk and Miller; 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

the Applicant and a co-worker, 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. the Applicant and the co-worker 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 Commissioner 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.

general-protectionsunfair-dismissalenterprise-agreementsham-contracting

Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2014/2014fca1254

Want 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

All cases