DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Limited v United Workers' Union (No 2)
Citation: [2021] FCA 1401
What happened
DHL Supply Chain engaged in industrial relations discussions with employees via a union-designed form. The United Workers' Union distributed these forms to collect employee information about DHL's business operations. DHL obtained interlocutory orders requiring the union to deliver up and destroy all completed forms and materials derived from them by specific deadlines. the Respondents took steps to comply but technical non-compliance occurred: some materials were delivered 12 minutes late, and some derivative materials were not fully identified for destruction within the prescribed timeframe.
What was decided
The court varied the original orders nunc pro tunc to regularise the non-compliance, extending deadlines and clarifying which materials needed to be delivered or destroyed. The variations treated the non-compliance as though it had never occurred. The court found the non-compliance resulted from inadvertence or oversight rather than contempt, and that the interests of justice favoured the variation given the consequences for the union's ability to organise protected industrial action.
What it means for employers
Employers may obtain interlocutory relief to restrict unions from collecting employee information, but must ensure orders are carefully crafted with realistic timeframes. Courts may grant relief even after technical non-compliance if the breach was inadvertent and the consequences are significant. Precise definition of what constitutes compliance (e.g., electronic vs. hard copy formats) is important.
What it means for employees
Employees' participation in union information-gathering can be restricted by court orders if employers seek interlocutory relief. The scope of restrictions depends on what the court considers necessary to protect the employer's interests.
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/2021/2021fca1401Want 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 →