1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content

Freedom of Association an important workplace right


VIC , Statement 

Release date: 30 March 2009 

The Federal Magistrates Court in Melbourne has penalised Mr Michael Dempster and Mr Richard Henry $1,000 each for contravening the freedom of association provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WR Act).

Mr Dempster admitted that in July 2007 he advised the employees of AAA Passive Fire Services Pty Ltd they must have union membership before they could commence work on the World Trade Centre refurbishment project. The court declared that Mr Dempster’s action was taken with the intent to coerce employees of AAA Passive Fire Services to become members of the CFMEU in contravention of s.789 of the WR Act Mr Henry admitted that in August 2007 he advised an employee of AAA Passive Fire Services that he had to be a member of the CFMEU in order to commence work on the project. The court declared that Mr Henry had made false and misleading representations to the employee, contravening s.790 of the WR Act.

In handing down his judgement, O’Sullivan FM recognised the need for general deterrence in respect of freedom of association contraventions. O’Sullivan FM took the early admission and full cooperation of both respondents into account when making penalty orders in accordance with the amount agreed by the parties.

ABC Commissioner John Lloyd said the ABCC will continue to advise the building industry about their rights and responsibilities.

“Freedom of association is an intrinsic industrial right that must be respected. Every Australian employee is free to choose whether or not to be a union member” Mr Lloyd said.

“It is unfortunate that some in the building and construction industry believe this right can be abused.

“The old concept of ‘no ticket, no start’ is unlawful. An employee who is not a union member is lawfully entitled to work on every building site and construction project in Australia. The ABCC will continue to prosecute any infringement of this important industrial right.”

    Download

     Print friendly version - 27KB

      

    Related case

Cozadinos v Dempster and Henry