The Federal Court today published a decision on penalty against 2 respondents in Hadgkiss v Sunland Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] FCA 1566.
Dowsett J ordered that an employer, Sunland Constructions (Qld) Pty Limited, and one of its managers, Saeid Eshraghi, pay pecuniary penalties of $3,000 and $1,000 respectively for making false and misleading statements in breach of section 298SC of the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). Dowsett J also ordered the company to pay $12,000 in respect of the dismissal of an employee for a prohibited reason in breach of section 298K(1) of the Act. The penalties are to be paid to the Commonwealth.
Dowsett J’s judgment relates to the question of the appropriate relief only, as the employer and its manager had earlier conceded the breaches.
The ABCC alleged that a manager of a spray paint shop in a joinery factory at the Gold Coast and the site delegate of the CFMEU had told workers they were obliged to be in the union to work at the shop and that one of the workers was dismissed after he had resigned from the union. Proceedings were commenced by the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABCC) against the employer and the manager, as well as the CFMEU and one of its representatives, in December 2005.
The prosecution continued against the CFMEU which denies the allegations. Justice Keifel has reserved her decision on that part of the case.
In imposing penalties on the employer and its manager, the Court was told that the manager had told a worker that he was obliged to be in the union because the manager had misunderstood the relevant collective agreement and believed that for the collective agreement to apply to the worker, the worker had to be a member of the union. The Court also was told that the company had dismissed the employee – amongst other economic reasons – because of his resignation from the union and that the spray paint shop was ultimately shut down.
The Court also accepted that the company had no prior breaches of the Act, had ultimately cooperated with the ABCC and had commenced an extensive training program to alert its managers and staff to their obligations under the Act in respect of freedom of association.
The ABCC agreed that the Court should take into account these factors when determining the relevant penalty.
The maximum penalty applicable to each of the breaches was $33,000 for the company and $6,600 for its manager.