INDUSTRIAL LAW – where the respondent employer was found liable for contravention of s 50 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA) by contravening a dispute resolution clause in the enterprise agreement – where the applicant seeks declaratory relief, compensation and pecuniary penalties – whether the maximum penalty under s 545 and s 546 of the FWA in respect of pecuniary penalties is ‘appropriate’ – where the overwhelming purpose of pecuniary penalties is deterrence Australian Building and Construction Commission v Pattinson (2022) 96 ALJR 426 considered – where the process of deciding a pecuniary penalty is one of ‘instinctive synthesis’ McAlary-Smith (2008) 165 FCR 560 applied – where mitigating factors relevant but respondent heedless to the rights of the employee QR Limited v Communications, Electrical, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union (2010) 204 IR 142 applied
Held: pecuniary penalty of $25,000 deemed appropriate
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where under s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (FCA Act) the Court has power to make orders to restrict the publication of court documents – where the parties jointly promote orders to protect the names of children – where grounds for order found at s 37AG FCA Act – where order does not prejudice open justice – where the Court restricts access to unredacted versions of affidavits where children are named if access is sought by non-party – where the Court orders that the reasons for judgment in respect of liability substitute pseudonyms for the children’s names
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2023/2023fca1039
For more information, see the original judgement.
