Ian Neil SC
  • About
  • Selected Cases
  • Resources
    • Litigation Manual
    • The Style Guide
    • Recent Publications
    • Case Notes
  • Media
  • Contact
  • Menu Menu
  • LinkedIn

The meaning of CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 243

31 October, 2015/in Notes /by admin

Despite the best efforts of commentators to complicate the answer to this question, it is disarmingly straightforward.

The majority followed Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500 in recognizing the critical distinction between the characteristic protected by s.340 or s.346(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 or the act that constitutes participation in an industrial activity for the purposes of s.346(b) on the one hand, and on the other hand the thinking of the decision maker with respect to that act.

The protection given by s.346 is not against adverse action taken because an employee engaged in an act or omission that was a protected industrial activity, but instead it is protection against adverse action being taken by reason of that act or omission having the character of a protected industrial activity.  That is because ss.340 and 346 are not concerned with causal connections, but with the reasons for the decision maker’s actions.  So, an employer can lawfully dismiss an employee because the abusive content of a sign that he brandished on a picket contravenes the employer’s code of conduct, but if the dismissal had instead been substantially and operatively motivated by the fact that the picket was an industrial activity organised by a union, or by the fact that the views or interests represented or advanced by the abuse were those of a union, then the dismissal would be unlawful.

The same distinctions were recently applied to s.340 by a strong majority in CFMEU v Endeavour Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 76 at [30]-[35] (Jessup J) and [76], [77] and [91] (Perram J).  An application to the High Court for special leave to appeal is pending in Endeavour Coal.

https://ianneil.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/INSC-header-logo-rev.png 0 0 admin https://ianneil.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/INSC-header-logo-rev.png admin2015-10-31 04:58:532021-09-14 07:31:18The meaning of CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 243
  • An Uber Eats driver is not an employee12 April, 2021 - 3:28 am
  • ‘Ode to a Scab’22 September, 2016 - 3:35 am
  • A significant judgment about employers’ obligations of consultation29 August, 2016 - 4:56 am
  • What does Jones v Dunkel really mean?8 August, 2016 - 5:00 am
  • Workers in the ‘Gig Economy’22 July, 2016 - 5:02 am
  • The meaning of CFMEU v BHP Coal Pty Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 24331 October, 2015 - 4:58 am

6 St James Hall Chambers | 155 King St, Sydney | NSW 2000 | Australia

GPO Box 2685, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia

© 2021 IAN NEIL | Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation

Site designed & built by Gasoline Group
Wu v Li [2015] FCAFC 109 Workers in the ‘Gig Economy’
Scroll to top