1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content

Helal v CFMEU & Mates


VIC , Backgrounder 

Release date: 7 June 2011 

ABCC alleges CFMEU and shop steward engaged in coercion and strike pay demands on Southbank One site

Background
Allegations outlined in the ABCC’s statement of claim
  • Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd was the principal contractor on a multi-storey apartment construction project known as Southbank One at 174-184 City Road, Southbank, Victoria.
  • Brookfield Multiplex Constructions employed Robert Mates as the CFMEU shop steward on the site.
  • In mid-2008 Brookfield Multiplex Constructions engaged Permark Group Pty Ltd to fit out the kitchen, wardrobes and laundries at the Southbank One project.
  • On 16 July 2009 Mr Mates had a conversation with Permark’s female general manager in which he demanded that Permark employ eight people who had previously worked for Sky High Carpentry Pty Ltd on the Southbank One site and said if they didn’t, he would disrupt or prevent Permark’s work on the site.
  • On 31 July 2009 Permark terminated two of the former Sky High Carpentry employees who had worked on the Southbank One site.
  • On 1 August 2009 Mr Mates telephoned the general manager and demanded that the two workers be re-employed or he would disrupt or prevent Permark’s work on the site.
  • Between early August and 20 August 2009, Mr Mates and a CFMEU organiser, Colin Flanagan, had conversations with the general manager in which they demanded that Permark credit any corresponding annual leave, sick leave and rostered day off entitlements that the eight workers accrued during their employment with Sky High Carpentry on the Southbank One project.
  • On 18 or 19 August 2009 Mr Mates told the general manager that he would disrupt or prevent Permark’s work on the site if it did not comply with this demand.
  • On 20 August 2009 between 10am and 11.20am Mr Mates convened an unauthorised meeting of the Permark employees in the union office at the site. The site manager instructed the employees not to attend.
  • Following the meeting at 11.20am, Mr Mates told the site manager that if Permark did not pay the employees for the work stoppage, he would disrupt or prevent Permark’s work on the Southbank One site.
  • Permark paid the employees for the period they stopped work to attend the unauthorised meeting.
Alleged contraventions
  • The ABCC alleges Mr Mates contravened:
    • s43(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (BCII Act)
    • for attempting to coerce Permark to employ certain people;
    • s43(1) of the BCII Act by attempting to coerce Permark to re-employ certain people;
    • s348 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) by threatening to disrupt or stop Permark’s work unless it credited entitlements to employees accrued during their employment with Sky High Carpentry;
    • s38 of the BCII Act by convening the unauthorised meeting in an attempt to coerce Permark to credit the employees’ entitlements;
    • s348 of the FW Act by making attempting to coerce Permark to pay strike pay;
    • s475(2) of the FW Act by demanding strike pay;
    • s471(1) of the FW Act by being involved in the payment of strike pay
  • The ABCC alleges that the CFMEU is liable for the contraventions of the BCII Act and FW Act referred to above.
ABCC Prosecution
  • The ABCC filed a statement of claim in the Federal Court at Melbourne on 16 June 2010.
  • A first directions hearing was scheduled for 23 July 2010.
Brookfield Multiplex removed from proceedings
  • In the statement of claim filed on 16 June 2010 the ABCC alleged that Brookfield Multiplex was liable for the contraventions of the BCII Act referred to above and for the contravention of sections 348 and 474(1) of the FW Act.
  • The ABCC filed a notice to remove Brookfield Multiplex as a respondent from the proceedings on 23 May 2011, after Brookfield Multiplex agreed to undertake corrective action according to the terms of a settlement reached with the ABCC.
Penalties
  • The maximum penalties for a contravention of the BCII Act are $22,000 for an individual and $110,000 for an organisation.
  • The maximum penalties for a contravention of the FW Act are $6600 for an individual and $33,000 for an organisation.

    Download

     Print friendly version - 83KB

Previous backgrounder

     24 June 2010 - 38KB

    Related case

Helal v CFMEU & Mates