Skip to navigation
Skip to content
Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner
Contact
|
Enquire
|
Subscribe
Search
Print
RSS
smaller
larger
Home
>
Media and news centre
>
Latest news and media
Your legal rights and responsibilities
Right of entry for permit holders
Union membership - your right to free choice
Unlawful pressure and coercion prohibited
Unlawful industrial action (e.g. strikes)
Strike Pay
Occupational health and safety
Wages and Entitlements
Building and Construction General On-site Award 2010
Independent contractors
Insolvency and phoenix activities
Running a successful business
How to win Government work - National Code
Which Guidelines apply?
About the National Code and Guidelines
When the National Code applies
Becoming National Code Compliant
Monitoring the National Code
Breaches and sanctions
Publications and Other Resources
Fact sheets
Rights and responsibilities
The National Code and Guidelines
Independent contractors
Reforming the industry
Issues in focus
Legal action and information
Legislation
Notifications to the ABCC
Section 67 reports
Delegations and appointments
Guidance notes
Court cases
Taskforce cases
Interventions and submissions
Compliance powers
ABCC compulsory examination power FAQs
Media and news centre
Latest news and media
Newsletters
Performance and reports
Performance snapshots
Investigations
National Code
Court cases
Reports
Use of compliance powers
Sham Contracting Inquiry Report
Allocation of resources
Annual reports
Working at the ABCC
Opportunities
Work Environment
Working Together
Employee Benefits
Your Development
Frequently Asked Questions
About us
Statement of Strategic Intent 2011-2014
Role
Service
Our history
Leadership and structure
Leigh Johns
Freedom of Information
Information Publication Scheme
Disclosure Log
Operational information
Optional information
Accountability
Client satisfaction survey
Statement of legal expenditure
Contract listing
File listing
People and leadership statement
Reconciliation action plan
Workplace diversity plan
Occupational health and safety
Requesting a review
Current campaigns
Concreting and Finishing Trades Audits
Sham Contracting Inquiry
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