Last week saw five court judgments handed down condemning militant and illegal CFMMEU conduct. The result was $822,500 in fines and an increase in judicial criticism of the CFMMEU, comparing their conduct with that of the BLF and invoking the prospect of deregistration.

In a Victorian matter, the Federal Court imposed $271,500 in penalties against the CFMMEU and two of its officials, Nigel Davies and Alex Tadic, for breaching section 500 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). Section 500 prohibits a permit holder from intentionally hindering or obstructing any person, or otherwise acting in an improper manner, when exercising (or seeking to exercise) a right of entry. In the case, Mr Davies refused to produce his permit, as required, when asked to do so on multiple occasions; with both officials also acting in an improper manner when they engaged in the verbal abuse of workers on site, with Mr Tadic’s actions being particularly thuggish. Tellingly, the Court found that neither official showed any contrition or provision of assurances as to their future conduct.

In a continuation of this theme, in two Tasmanian matters, the Federal Court fined the CFMEU $220,000 and its official, Richard Hasset $25,000, for breaching section 500 of the FW Act.  In both matters, Mr Hasset put the safety of workers on site at risk by engaging in thuggish, bullying verbal abuse – and on one project, even caused the power to be cut to the site. It again highlights the willingness of a number of CFMMEU officials to break the law and put the safety of workers at risk to further the union’s industrial interests.

In a Queensland matter - the Federal Court found that the CFMEU engaged in unlawful action by blockading a construction site, because the crane company hired for the job refused to sign a CFMEU deal. Whilst penalties have yet to be handed down, it would appear likely that there have been at least three breaches of the general protections provisions of the FW Act, which involve the discrimination and/or coercion against a person because they hold/don’t hold a particular type of industrial instrument (e.g. EBA). Maximum penalties under the FW Act are $63,000 for a body corporate (e.g. union) and $12,600 for an individual.

In another Queensland matter, Federal Court judges have said that the CFMMEU’s history of conduct is ‘disgraceful’ and ‘shameful’, when they reaffirmed the imposition of the maximum penalties available because of the actions of then Divisional President, David Hanna. The Court confirmed the initial finding of Justice Vasta, that Hanna had entered a construction site illegally, abused workers, squirted water in the face of a construction manager, and created genuine safety concerns by facilitating the exit of a number of workers from the site. They imposed a fine of $306,000.

In October 2017, when Justice Vasta handed down the original decision in the case, he made the damning finding that:

"It may have been expected that there would be righteous condemnation of any person compromising safety on the work site coming from a union that purportedly exists to ensure safety on worksites. The silence from the CFMEU, however, has been deafening."

Following a CFMMEU appeal, the Full Federal Court upheld the seriousness of the union’s conduct. Justice Tracey stating:

“The contravening conduct has continued unabated to a point where there is an irresistible inference that the CFMEU has determined that its officials will not comply with the requirements of the FW Act with which it disagrees. If this results in civil penalties being imposed they will be paid and treated as the cost of the union pursuing its industrial ends. The union simply regards itself as free to disobey the law.”

Similarly, Justice Logan likened the CFMMEU’s unlawful behaviour to that of the deregistered BLF, before stating that:

“… an organisation which manifests an inability by its internal governance to rein in aberrant behaviour cannot expect to remain registered in its existing form”

Master Builders commends the Courts for calling out the CFMMEU’s continued serious misconduct and contempt for the rule of law - and the CFMMEU’s  apparent willingness to jeopardise the safety of workers on site, when such safety stands in the way of the union’s industrial agenda. 

Master Builders also commends the tireless work of the ABCC in bringing these important matters before the Courts. Clearly any political party genuinely committed to good public policy and the best interests of both the industry and the electorate would endorse the important work of the ABCC and commit to ensuring that this regulator retains to necessary resources to continue with its work.