Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Fair Work Ombudsman (The 250 East Terrace Case)
Citation: [2023] FCAFC 161
What happened
On the morning of 16 October 2019, a picket line formed at a construction site at 250 East Terrace, Adelaide. The picket was organized by a union official employed by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU). The apparent target was a developer who owed money to Core-Form Pty Ltd, a subcontractor engaged for concreting works. Core-Form's director participated in the picket. About 20 to 30 people protested, many wearing union clothing and holding union flags. Signs read 'PAY UR BILLS' and 'JOB DONE WHERE'S THE MONEY'. Protesters prevented a painter from accessing the site with his vehicle for approximately 19 minutes.
What was decided
The primary judge found the picket constituted unlawful picketing under section 47 of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, as it directly restricted access to the site and was motivated by supporting Core-Form's payment claims and advancing union industrial objectives. Pecuniary penalties were imposed. The appellants appealed the decision and penalties. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the conduct was objectively serious, premeditated, and not excused by the connection to employment claims.
What it means for employers
Construction site operators should be aware that picketing intended to pressure payment of debts or advance industrial objectives may constitute unlawful picketing under the BCIIP Act, particularly if it restricts access to the site. Union officials and contractors involved can face significant penalties.
What it means for employees
Union-organized picketing must comply with the law. Picketing that prevents workers from accessing work sites violates the Building and Construction Industry regime. Union officials can face personal penalties for organizing unlawful pickets.
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/full/2023/2023fcafc0161Want 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