Topic 5: Q 2,3

2. DPP v Johnston [2004] VSCA 150 was decided prior to the current employment law legislation, the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). In that case, Mr Johnston and his associates protested their planned dismissal by destroying property and threatening to kill one of their managers.
   1. Did Mr Johnston and his associates engage in industrial action under the current definition? Why or why not?

2. Would Mr Johnston and his associates have suffered the legal penalties they did if the case had been decided under the current law? Why or why not?

3. Imagine that the Waterside Workers Federation, a union for dock workers, is unsatisfied with proposed working conditions for the members of the union employed by Victorian Stevedoring. The union writes a letter to Victorian Stevedoring setting out their grievances. The letter is lost in the mail. After waiting five days without a reply, a union representative telephones Victorian Stevedoring. As it is a Saturday, no one is at the office and the phone goes to voicemail. The union then applies for a ballot to commence industrial action. You are a legal advisor to the Fair Work Commission. Advise the Commission on whether the union has made a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute