Nothing unilateral about succumbing to union threats, Australian watchdog says
By James Panichi ( November 21, 2024, 06:15 GMT | Insight) -- Arguments put forward by building company J Hutchinson as part of its defense in an antitrust appeal to Australia’s highest court is “nonsensical” because they suggest a pricing decision can be both unilateral and in response to a competitor’s demand, the country’s competition watchdog has argued. In fresh court filings, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission said that Hutchinson had contradicted itself by saying that its decision not to employ a non-unionized subcontractor after being threatened by a militant union contained a “unilateral demand” while also being taken “in response to a competitor’s demand.”Arguments put forward by building company J Hutchinson as part of its defense in an antitrust appeal to Australia’s highest court is “nonsensical” because they suggest a pricing decision can be both unilateral and in response to a competitor’s demand, the country’s competition watchdog has argued....
Prepare for tomorrow’s regulatory change, today
MLex identifies risk to business wherever it emerges, with specialist reporters across the globe providing exclusive news and deep-dive analysis on the proposals, probes, enforcement actions and rulings that matter to your organization and clients, now and in the longer term.
Know what others in the room don’t, with features including:
- Daily newsletters for Antitrust, M&A, Trade, Data Privacy & Security, Technology, AI and more
- Custom alerts on specific filters including geographies, industries, topics and companies to suit your practice needs
- Predictive analysis from expert journalists across North America, the UK and Europe, Latin America and Asia-Pacific
- Curated case files bringing together news, analysis and source documents in a single timeline
Experience MLex today with a 14-day free trial.