Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

In the case of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the court was tasked with determining whether the permit holder intentionally hindered a WorkSafe inspector during a safety walk and whether they otherwise acted in an improper manner. The primary dispute arose from an incident on 13 June 2014, where the permit holder, Mr. Regan, was required to accompany a WorkSafe inspector on a safety walk at a construction site. The Commissioner alleged that Mr. Regan, along with Mr. Tadic, acted in an improper manner during the walk, including yelling, screaming, and swearing, which constituted a hindrance to the inspector's duties.

The legal issues before the court were whether the actions of Mr. Regan and Mr. Tadic during the safety walk amounted to intentionally hindering the inspector, as per section 500 of the Fair Work Act, and whether their conduct was otherwise improper. The court had to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence provided by Mr. Regan and other witnesses, including the inspector, Mr. Sharples. The court's task was to determine if the actions of the permit holder were consistent with the responsibilities and rights outlined in the Act.

The court found that the evidence presented by Mr. Regan was not reliable, particularly given the inconsistencies between his statements and his testimony. The court concluded that the actions of Mr. Regan and Mr. Tadic did not amount to intentionally hindering the inspector or otherwise acting improperly. The court held that the primary liability had not been established, and thus, it was not necessary to consider the liability of the CFMEU. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application is dismissed, and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.