Resources: Blog

Penalties ordered against union that “charged” members who chose not to engage in industrial action


Fully charged

The Federal Court of Australia has ordered the Australian Workers Union (AWU) to pay $18,000 in penalties following its pursuit of disciplinary action against its own members.

The Federal Court of Australia has ordered the Australian Workers Union (AWU) to pay $18,000 in penalties following its pursuit of disciplinary action against its own members.

The AWU was in the throes of negotiating a new enterprise agreement with Orica Pty Ltd in 2015 when it began organising protected industrial action for its members.

The industrial action consisted of a number of two-hour work stoppages (at 5.00am, 7.00am and 3.00pm) on 3 March 2015. When the time for the work stoppages came, a number of Orica employees, who were members of the AWU, decided not to participate.
An AWU organiser noticed that two members in particular had decided not to participate and he petitioned the secretary of the AWU’s Victorian branch to bring “charges” against those individuals under the AWU’s Rules.

The secretary wrote formal letters to the two employees advising them that they had been “charged” with “gross misbehaviour” and “failing to comply with any resolution or direction passed or given under any Rule of the Union after having notice thereof”, in accordance with the AWU’s Rules. The employees were summoned to a meeting to defend the charges against them and to explain their actions. The letter went on to state that if the charges were sustained, the employees may be fined or suspended or expelled from the AWU.

The employees attended a meeting in April 2015 and the charges remained in place, although not officially sustained.

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) then commenced legal proceedings against the AWU in the Federal Court, alleging that the AWU had taken adverse action against the employees for exercising a workplace right and for choosing not to participate in the industrial action.

After the proceedings were commenced, the AWU formally withdrew the charges and apologised to the employees.

Once before the Court, the AWU conceded that it had contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) and had taken unlawful adverse action against its two members.

The Court agreed and held that the AWU sought to or threatened to penalise the employees for their decision not to engage in the industrial action organised by the AWU and this had caused the employees to become concerned and anxious. This conduct contravened ss340 and 346 of the FW Act.

The Court commented,

It is, to say the least, surprising that an experienced union official occupying a position as senior as that which [the secretary of the Victorian branch] occupied might genuinely believe that punitive action could lawfully be taken against a person because he or she opted not to participate in union-sponsored industrial activity. [at 38]

The Court ordered that the AWU pay $18,000 in penalties for its contraventions of the FW Act.

Lessons for employers

Under the FW Act, employees are protected from adverse action being taken against them for prohibited reasons. Two such reasons include the exercise of a workplace right and a person’s choice to engage or not engage in protected industrial action.

In most general protections cases, it is the employer that has allegedly committed unlawful adverse action. However, this case demonstrates that unions can also be held accountable for their treatment of employee members when that treatment infringes upon the protections afforded to employees under the FW Act.


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Full Bench quashes order to reinstate labour hire employee to host employer

Host with the most

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, where it is found by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) that an employee has been unfairly dismissed, the primary remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) is for the employee to be reinstated to the position they held immediately prior to their dismissal or another position on no less favourable terms.


Court finds rescinded job offer was not age discrimination

The rooster and the sunrise

Discrimination in the workplace is unlawful under a number of Australian laws, including state and federal anti-discrimination legislation (such as the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth)) as well as the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).


The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.


FWC finds sexually explicit Facebook post warranted dismissal, despite the employer’s ‘rather unusual’ workplace culture

Not so ‘funny’ meme

The workplace culture of an organisation should reflect the values that the business upholds and expects of its employees. It is becoming increasingly challenging for employers and employees to understand where a line is drawn between a relaxed and open workplace culture and a workplace culture that tolerates inappropriate behaviour.


Casual employee unfairly dismissed for Facebook recommendation

Halt before you post

Social media and employee’s conduct online has without doubt added a layer to the employer and employee relationship. While employees may think that their online activities done outside of work hours may be private, their conduct online may become relevant to their employment, for example, where it may disparage their employer, other employees or clients.


Vaccinations and the workplace

Shots fired

One of the most topical questions for employers during the COVID-19 pandemic has been whether they need to introduce policies that mandate vaccinations and, if so, what can be done to enforce them in the workplace.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.