Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
Citation: [2019] FCA 451
What happened
A union organized industrial action at Port Botany stevedoring terminals in April-May 2017, including work bans in the rail yard and a general stoppage of work across three shifts. The action involved approximately 90% unionised employees at two related companies. The parties disagreed on whether the action was protected and whether it related to a genuine dispute about alleged contract breaches. The union maintained there was insufficient investigation before the industrial action.
What was decided
The Federal Court found the union contravened ss.417(1) and 421(1) of the Fair Work Act by organizing unprotected industrial action before satisfying enterprise agreement dispute resolution procedures. The Court rejected the union's argument that a suspected breach of contract was sufficient to engage protection. The action lacked reasonable basis for belief that a breach had occurred. Contraventions of s.340(1) (adverse action) were not established as the employer did not take adverse action against employees for refusing to work.
What it means for employers
When unions organize industrial action, they must follow enterprise agreement dispute resolution procedures in good faith. A suspected or alleged breach of contract may not be sufficient ground for protected action—there must be a reasonable basis for belief that a breach actually occurred. Employers should document compliance with collective agreements to defend against union claims of breach.
What it means for employees
Industrial action organized by unions may not be protected if it occurs before dispute resolution procedures are exhausted. Even if employees have concerns about contract interpretation, the union must follow prescribed steps and establish genuine grounds for believing a breach exists. Employees engaged in unprotected action may face non-payment under s.474 of the Fair Work Act.
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/2019/2019fca0451Want 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