Valley Power Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2002] FCA 17 (16 January 2002)

Last Updated: 22 January 2002

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Valley Power Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2002] FCA 17

INDUSTRIAL LAW - application for interlocutory injunction - subsequent return to work - whether application should be adjourned or dismissed

VALLEY POWER PTY LTD v AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION & ORS

NO V 25 OF 2002

HEEREY J

16 JANUARY 2002

MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 25 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	VALLEY POWER PTY LTD APPLICANT
AND:	AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION ("AMWU") FIRST RESPONDENT THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION ("AWU") SECOND RESPONDENT PETER RAYNER THIRD RESPONDENT GEORGE MERCER FOURTH RESPONDENT GEORGE TSOKOS FIFTH RESPONDENT MERVYN LOWE SIXTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 JANUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed

2. The directions hearing be adjourned to a date to be fixed before a judge of the Industrial Panel.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 25 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	VALLEY POWER PTY LTD APPLICANT
AND:	AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION ("AMWU") FIRST RESPONDENT THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION ("AWU") SECOND RESPONDENT PETER RAYNER THIRD RESPONDENT GEORGE MERCER FOURTH RESPONDENT GEORGE TSOKOS FIFTH RESPONDENT MERVYN LOWE SIXTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE:	16 JANUARY 2002
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This matter came on before me today as an urgent application for an interlocutory injunction, effectively seeking orders which would require a return to work. The matter was stood down and I am now informed by counsel for the two union respondents that there has been a return to work. The question is what course should the proceeding take now. Counsel for the applicant urges that I should adjourn the application for a few days because, he says, there is, these are not his words, but in essence a history of unreliability on the part of the union and the workforce representatives. Counsel says that various issues still remain to be worked out.

2 However, I think it would not be correct to take that course.

3 The application itself, that is, the substantive application, seeks permanent relief including, amongst other things, declarations and an order for payment of penalties. I cannot dispose of that today and that will remain on foot. However, what is before me today is an urgent application for an interlocutory injunction premised on the fact that the workforce at the site in question remainings. Once that state of affairs has ceased the basis for any interlocutory intervention by the Court disappears.

4 I do not think it would be right for the Court to adjourn the interlocutory injunction application so as to adopt some kind of supervisory role with a view to assisting in the solution of problems which may arise in the future. That function is one for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and not for the Court. I think the appropriate course is simply to dismiss the application for an interlocutory injunction. The substantive application, as I have said, remains on foot. I think this should return to a Judge of the Industrial Panel and I will adjourn the directions hearing to a date to be fixed, as to which the parties can speak to the District Registrar.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey.

Associate:

Dated: 18 January 2002

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr S Wood
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms S L Bingham
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Maurice Blackburn Cashman
Date of Hearing:	16 January 2002
Date of Judgment:	16 January 2002