Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, Victoria-Tasmania Divisional Branch (Re Mark Alan Travers)
[2023] FWC 410
•22 FEBRUARY 2023
| [2023] FWC 410 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.512—Application for a right of entry permit
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, Victoria-Tasmania Divisional Branch (Re Mark Alan Travers)
(RE2022/1031)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 22 FEBRUARY 2023 |
Application for a right of entry permit for Mark Alan Travers – whether fit and proper person to hold an entry permit under the Act – satisfied Mr Travers is a fit and proper person to hold a permit – permit issued
Background
The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) has applied to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) under s 512 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for the issue of an entry permit to its official Mark Alan Travers. Mr Travers is employed as an organiser by the CFMMEU in its Victoria-Tasmania Branch of the Construction and General Division of the CFMMEU (Branch).
Mr Travers has been employed as an official in the Branch for some 20 years. Mr Travers has contravened an industrial law on three occasions,[1] most recently some 6 years ago. The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABC Commissioner) made submissions pursuant to s 110 of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 (Cth). In short compass, the ABC Commissioner contends that the Commission cannot be satisfied that Mr Travers is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit and one should not issue. Since filing those submissions, the office of the ABC Commissioner was abolished under Schedule 1 Part 3 of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth). The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has assumed some of the functions of that office and the submissions made by the ABC Commissioner have effect as if they were made by the FWO.[2] The FWO has not sought to amend nor withdraw the submissions. I will hereafter refer to those submissions as though made by the FWO.
The applicable principles for determining right of entry permit applications under s 512 are well settled and not controversial. Shortly stated, the fitness and propriety of a proposed permit holder the subject of an application for a permit is assessed taking into account the permit qualification matters set out in s 513(1) having regard to the rights a permit holder can exercise under Part 3-4 of the Act, the limitations on and conditions attaching to the exercise of those rights, and responsibilities that are exercised in relation to those rights. The focus of the Commission’s inquiry is not whether the proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person in some abstract sense. The inquiry is whether a proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit, and to exercise the powers, functions and responsibilities attached to holding a permit.[3] The Commission is required to ascertain, at the time the application is determined, whether the proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.
The permit qualification matters contained in s.513(1) are mandatory considerations which must be taken into account, and each given appropriate weight. A statutory requirement that a matter be taken into account means that the matter is a ‘relevant consideration’ which the decision maker is bound to take into account.[4] The obligation to take into account the matters set out at s.513 means that each of the matters must be treated as a matter of significance in the decision-making process,[5] which must be evaluated and accorded appropriate weight.[6]
The weight given to a particular matter is ultimately a matter for the Commission, however in ascribing weight to each matter care should be taken to ensure that a relevant factor of great importance is given adequate weight and that excessive weight to a relevant factor of no great importance is not ascribed.[7]
Therefore, in deciding whether a proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit, each of the permit qualification matters identified in s.513(1) of the Act must be taken into account. The absence of, for example, a conviction of an official of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth relating to or involving fraud or dishonesty, is relevant in the assessment, just as a conviction of the official for such an offence would be. The absence of such a conviction must be accorded appropriate weight.
Section 513(1)(g) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account any other matter it considers relevant. A matter will be relevant if it can rationally affect the assessment of whether the proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. Matters that may be relevant and therefore fall to be considered under s.513(1)(g) are matters that relate to the personal characteristics of the proposed permit holder and are pertinent to the discharge of the functions and exercise of the rights and privileges associated with holding a permit.
I turn then to consider the permit qualification matters in the context of the application to issue Mr Travers a right of entry permit.
Section 513(1)(a)
Mr Travers completed training with the Australian Council of Trade Union (ACTU) online on 15 August 2022,[8] which is Commission approved. I accept that the training undertaken is ‘appropriate training’ for the purposes of s 512(1)(a) of the FW Act. The FWO submits that minimal weight should attach to the matter of training because the training undertaken by Mr Travers has not ensured compliance with industrial laws in the course of exercising his responsibilities as a permit holder.[9] Presumably, this is a reference to training previously undertaken by Mr Travers, since the most recent training noted above was undertaken some six years after any contravening conduct. The submission ignores the fact that Mr Travers also undertook two training sessions conducted by Mr Brian Lacy AO, who is a Minister and formerly was a Senior Deputy President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The first session of training was conducted on 15 March 2021 with the aim of ensuring that CFMMEU officials had a good understanding of the rights and obligations under industrial and occupational health and safety laws.[10]
Further training that was specific to Mr Travers was also undertaken on 2 August 2022. The purpose of conducting one-on-one training for Mr Travers was to ensure that he gained a greater understanding of why his past conduct was wrong and what he could do to avoid a repeat of such conduct in the future.[11] Having regard to Mr Lacy’s report[12] of the training and instruction he provided, I also consider the training sessions conducted to be appropriate training undertaken by Mr Travers.
In these circumstances, I do not accept that minimal weight should be assigned to the training permit qualification matter. The fact that training was undertaken, the nature and the purpose of the training delivered, all plainly suggest that this permit qualification matter weigh in favour of a conclusion that Mr Travers is a fit and proper person to be issued a right of entry permit.
Section 513(1)(b)
Mr Travers has not been convicted of any offence against industrial law.[13]
The FWO submits that the absence of conviction should be given some weight in favour of the application, however it should be considered a norm or the minimal expectation of an official afforded the role of being a permit holder and does not warrant attribution of “significant weight” in favour[14] as the CFMMEU contend.[15] I agree that compliance with industrial laws, particularly those which concern conduct the engagement of which would constitute an offence, is to be regarded the rule rather than the exception for persons seeking to obtain an entry permit. I also accept as relevant in assessing weight, that Mr Travers has had a career in the building industry for 35 years and as an organiser for the CFMMEU for approximately 20 years. The absence of any conviction in Mr Travers’ case plainly weighs more favourable than in a case of a proposed permit holder fresh into industrial relations and into the workforce. This permit qualification matter weighs in favour of a conclusion that Mr Travers is a fit and proper person to be issued a right of entry permit.
Section 513(1)I
Mr Travers has never been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, State, Territory or a foreign country, involving conduct described in s.513(1)(c) of the Act.[16]
The FWO submits, as with the previous matter, that the absence of a conviction should be considered a norm or a minimal expectation, and therefore should only entitle Mr Travers to some weight in favour of the application.[17] The first proposition is accepted, but the suggestion that the attributable weight to the absence of any conviction is somehow thereby diminished, is not. A similar analogy based on age and experience, to that made in relation to the previous permit qualification matter, may also be made here. Having regard to his age (57 years) and his time in the workforce, I agree with the CFMMEU’s contention[18] that this permit qualification matter weighs squarely in favour of a conclusion that Mr Travers is a fit and proper person to be issued an entry permit.
Section 513(1)(d)
Mr Travers has been found to have contravened industrial laws on three occasions and penalties have been imposed in relation to his contravening conduct.[19]
In Gregor v CFMEU,[20] Riethmuller FM imposed penalties of $1,000 on Mr Travers and $5,000 on the CFMEU for a contravention of s 767(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (WR Act) by Mr Travers on 24 February 2009. Mr Travers attended a Melbourne Tullamarine construction project and entered the site without authorisation. He participated in a stop work meeting with workers at the site, refused to leave despite requests to do so and swore at management. Mr Travers’ contravening conduct occurred over a period of approximately 25 minutes.[21]
The Court noted that the conduct caused very little loss and damage, but perceived that Mr Travers’ actions and language caused offence.[22] The Court held that the contravention was a ‘relatively minor’ one which occurred over a short period of time and involved a relatively small number of workers.[23]
The CFMMEU submits that little, if any, weight should be accorded to this contravention, which occurred nearly 14 years ago, because:[24]
a.Mr Travers regrets his conduct and is committed to not acting in the manner that he did on 24 February 2009 again;
b.the contravention was, as the Court observed, a relatively minor one;
c.the contravention is historical in nature and says nothing of significance about Mr Travers’ present proclivity to comply with his obligations as an entry permit holder;
d.Mr Travers has undertaken training with Mr Lacy AO directed at this contravention. He understands why his conduct contravened s 767(1) of the WR Act (being the predecessor to s 500 to the Act) and has told Mr Lacy that he is committed to not engaging in similar future conduct;
e.Mr Travers’ admitted his contravening and thus accepted responsibility for it, and cooperated with the applicant in resolving the proceedings; and
f.the contravening conduct was considered in prior proceedings for the issue of an entry permit to Mr Travers in 2013,[25] 2016[26] and 2019.[27]
In John Holland Pty Ltd v CFMEU,[28] the CFMEU, by the conduct of Mr Travers and two other officials, admitted contravening s 38 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) (BCII Act) twice on 24 March 2009. Mr Travers and two other officials entered a bus assembly area where persons engaged to perform construction work at the Melbourne Tullamarine Airport were present and sought to conduct a meeting with workers who were members of the CFMEU. Mr Travers and the other officials encouraged workers to refuse to perform work that day. Following the meeting, workers engaged to perform work on the site failed and/or refused to attend for work and left site. A further meeting was held at a lunchroom in another area of the site where Mr Travers announced to the workers present that a meeting was to be held outside. Workers who were present in the lunchroom then left the lunchroom and proceeded to a car park area to attend a stop work meeting conducted by Mr Travers. During this meeting, Mr Travers encouraged or directed the workers present to cease work. Following the meeting, 92 workers left site and did not return.[29]
The Court concluded that the conduct was serious in nature. The parties reached agreement on penalties, a total of $23,000, and a statement of agreed facts.
The CFMMEU submits that the contraventions in John Holland should be accorded minimal weight for the following reasons:
a. they occurred a considerable time ago;
b. Mr Travers regrets his conduct and has engaged in training with Mr Lacy AO directed to these contraventions. He is committed to not engaging in similar conduct again;
c. Mr Travers was cooperative with the applicant in the proceedings and contrite; and
d. they were considered by the Commission in applications for the issue of an entry permit to Mr Travers in 2013,[30] 2016[31] and 2019.[32]
In ABCC v CFMMEU (The College Crescent Case),[33] the Court imposed a penalty of $6,000 on Mr Travers for contravening s 348 of the Act on 26 May 2016. The Court also ordered that such penalty be paid personally by him and that he not receive nor accept any financial assistance from the CFMMEU in paying the penalty. The contravention arose when Mr Travers told a representative of a subcontractor that it was required to pay its employees ‘union rates.’ This statement was intended as a threat to indicate that unless the subcontractor agreed to pay its employees at ‘union rates’, Mr Travers or the CFMMEU would exercise a degree of influence over whether the subcontractor could continue to perform work at the site.[34] Snaden J characterised Mr Travers’ conduct as an aggressive overreaction to the mistaken belief that the subcontractor was covered by an enterprise agreement.[35]
While the CFMMEU accepts that this contravention weighs against Mr Travers, it submits that it does not weigh appreciably against a finding of present fitness and propriety given that:
a. it occurred over 6 years ago and there has been no repeat of the conduct;
b. Mr Travers expresses regret for his conduct, understands why it was unlawful and inappropriate and has insight into his contravening;
c. Mr Travers has undertaken training focused on this contravening; and
d. Mr Travers is committed to not engaging in like conduct again and has demonstrated in the past 6 years that he is well capable of adhering to that commitment.
In relation to the three contraventions, the FWO submits:
the contravening conduct reveals serious misconduct on the part of Mr Travers, being conduct “which is typical of the Union of which he is an official, and for which he was not genuinely remorseful.”[36] Such conduct, it is contended, weighs strongly against Mr Travers being found to be a fit and proper person to hold a permit;
there is no evidence that Mr Travers has personally paid either of the penalties he was ordered to pay, including ordered to pay personally in The College Crescent Case.[37] The FWO says that absent evidence to the contrary, it should be inferred that he did not pay the penalties personally and that, further, this weighs against the conclusion that he has taken genuine responsibility for his contravening conduct or “felt the sting of having to pay his own money”;[38]
Mr Travers’ lack of genuine remorse and failure to recognise the serious and unlawful nature of his conduct continues. It says that the recent evidence of regret on the part of Mr Travers should be given little to no weight in light of his failure to express contrition and remorse to the Court in The College Crescent Case;[39] and
Mr Lacy’s training report should not be given any weight in light of Mr Travers’ recidivism which illustrates that training has not worked in the past and is unlikely to prevent more unlawful conduct in the future.[40]
The FWO also relies on two Commission decisions to underscore its contention that Mr Travers is not a fit and proper person to hold and entry permit. In Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union – The Maritime Union of Australia Division,[41] Saunders DP concluded that repeated unlawful behaviour could not be reconciled with the powers and responsibilities entrusted to a permit holder.[42] Past conduct in that case was deemed relevant to the assessment of fitness and propriety.[43] Saunders DP observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the proposed permit holder would conduct himself differently in the future. Similarly, in Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, Queensland Northern Territory Divisional Branch,[44] Richards SDP refused to grant an entry permit on the basis that the proposed permit holder did not show any genuine remorse or contrition for his prior unlawful conduct, notwithstanding the permit holder’s training and his assertion that he was a changed man.[45] The FWO contends that in the present matter, Mr Travers’ unwillingness to comply with the law has been clearly exposed and that there is no cogent or compelling evidence that he is a different person from the one who has previously engaged in unlawful conduct.[46]
In Application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union for a right of entry permit to be issued to Mr Mark Alan Travers,[47] I considered the import of Gregor and John Holland Pty Ltd on the permit qualification matter in s 513(1)(d) in connection with an application to issue an entry permit to Mr Travers. I accepted the CFMMEU’s submissions that when considered in their context, significant weight against a finding that Mr Travers was then a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit should not be assigned for the following reasons:
·They occurred over ten years ago;
·The contraventions were relatively minor in nature;
·The conduct was admitted, thereby acknowledging wrongdoing;
·The respondents cooperated by making admissions, agreed on statements of fact and appropriate penalties;
·The two previous times the matters were considered by the Commission they did not prevent a conclusion that Mr Travers was a fit and proper person; and
·There has been no repetition of this conduct by Mr Travers and thus the contravening conduct is ‘an uncharacteristic aberration in a lengthy career as a union organiser’.[48]
At that time, the ABC Commissioner did not dispute this nor did he make any submissions about the weight these matters should be given in determining whether Mr Travers is a fit and proper person.[49]
The further passage of time and the additional training undertaken serves to reinforce that this assessment remains apt. The contravening conduct, the subject of the imposed penalties in The College Crescent Case does not change the assessment given it occurred three and a half years earlier.
I accept as the CFMMEU contend, that the extended period of compliance since the contravening conduct, taken in combination with the training that has been undertaken, and Mr Travers evidence (which the ABC Commissioner chose not to challenge through cross-examination), that he takes responsibility for his conduct and his expressions of regret for his past contravening conduct[50] show that he is presently a fit and proper person to be issued an entry permit. I accept that Mr Travers is currently remorseful for his past conduct and has insight into it is significant, and that he is now (following the additional training) better armed with skills to avoid situations which might lead to further contravention.
The decisions in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy–Union - The Maritime Union of Australia Division and in Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, Queensland Northern Territory Divisional Branch are simply not analogous. As is evident from those decisions the proposed permit holder in each case had not expressed any regret for the earlier contravening conduct, nor was any remedial training undertaken. Both factors are present here.
While I accept there is no evidence that Mr Travers paid penalties imposed on him, I accept the CFMMEU’s submission that the order made by Snaden J required him to not seek reimbursement from the CFMMEU and that he complied with that order. The more relevant factor is his conduct since the contravention more than 6 years ago. During that time Mr Travers has not engaged in further conduct, he has held an entry permit throughout that time, and he has undertaken remedial training and expressed regret for his past contravening conduct.
In all of these circumstances, this permit qualification matter only weighs slightly against a conclusion that Mr Travers is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.
Section 513(1)(e)
The CFMMEU submits that none of the permits issued to Mr Travers under the WR Act or the Act have ever been revoked or suspended and that this points in favour of Mr Travers being a fit and proper person to be a permit holder.[51] The FWO submits that the applicant is entitle to a limited degree of favour on this point.[52] I agree with the CFMMEU.
Mr Travers discloses that his 2016 permit was subject to a condition imposed by Watson VP that he report any adverse findings relevant to any of the permit qualification matters under s 513(1)(a)-(f) of the Act or the commencement of proceedings that may lead to findings or penalties relevant to these permit qualification matters or action under s 510.[53] The CFMMEU submits that this historical condition should not be given any weight in the present matter for the following reasons:
a. it was beyond power because no deficiency was found in respect to Mr Travers’ present fitness or propriety that could be attended to by such a condition;
b. further and relatedly, it was beyond power as it was not responsive to (nor could rationally or reasonably be said to be responsive to) a concern about Mr Travers’ present fitness and propriety to hold an entry permit;
c. the condition was inspired by unreasonable and baseless accusations of contraventions levelled against Mr Travers in a seriously defective proceeding brought by the then Director; and
d. the condition was, in any event, taken into account by the Commission in issuing Mr Travers’ 2019 permit.[54]
The FWO submits that the fact that the applicant was made subject to a condition weighs some degree against the present application.[55] Whilst this is not the appropriate forum in which to engage in an attack on the power reposed in Watson VP to have imposed the condition, the last matter raised by the CFMMEU noted above is valid. It did not then present a barrier to concluding that Mr Travers was then a fit and proper person; nor does it now present such a barrier. The passage of time, absent any subsequent conduct, serves only to lessen such weight as was then attached for the purpose of now considering his fitness an propriety.
Section 513(1)(f)
Mr Travers has held permits issued under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) consistently since 2005 and has been issued a permit under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). No suspension or revocation of these permits has occurred, nor have any conditions been imposed on them or other adverse action taken against them. The CFMMEU and FWO both submit that these matters point in favour of a conclusion that Mr Travers is a fit and proper person to be issued an entry permit.[56] And I agree.
Section 513(1)(g)
Mr Travers failed to comply with the condition imposed on his permit by Watson VP by not notifying the Commission of proceedings commenced against him in 2017. The CFMMEU submits that this does not weigh against the issue of a permit because the matter occurred some time ago, Mr Travers has apologised and assured he would not repeat the omission, it was taken into account by the Commission in issuing Mr Travers a permit in 2019, and there has been no repeat of the omission by Mr Travers.[57]
The FWO’s submissions in respect of s 513(1)(d) are jointly relied on in respect of s 513(1)(g) to support its contention that Mr Travers is not a fit and proper person to hold a permit.[58]
I dealt with the failure to disclose in Application by the CFMMEU for a right of entry permit to be issued to Mr Mark Alan Travers.[59] I said that although his failure cannot be simply overlooked, Mr Travers’ declaration and witness statement display remorse and show that he accepts full responsibility for his failure to notify the Commission in accordance with the condition on his permit. I concluded that, in these circumstances and having regard to Mr Travers’ apology and reassurance that it will not happen again, the matter did not weigh so heavily as to prevent a conclusion that Mr Travers is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.[60] There has been no repetition of any non-disclosure in this application. Mr Travers has been good to his word. I do not in the circumstances consider the failure to be material in the assessment of his fitness and propriety to hold an entry permit.
Conclusion
There are no other matters, of which I am aware that are relevant, and which weigh against a conclusion that Mr Travers is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit under the Act. Taking into account the permit qualification matters discussed above, I consider that although the matter in s 513(1)(d) does not weigh in his favour, overall, the weight of permit qualification matters points squarely to a conclusion that Mr Travers is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.
I am therefore satisfied that Mark Alan Travers is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. A permit will be separately issued.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Hearing details:
Determined on the papers.
Final written submissions:
21 October 2022
11 November 2022
25 November 2022
[1] Gregor v CFMEU [2011] FMCA 562; John Holland Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2009] FMCA 1248; ABCC v CFMMEU (The College Crescent Case) [2020] FCA 757
[2] See Divisions 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 Part 3 of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth)
[3] Maritime Union of Australia [2014] FWCFB 1973 at [23]; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, [2015] FWC 1522 at [32]
[4] Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Another v Peko-Wallsend Limited and Others [1986] HCA 40, (1986) 162 CLR 24; see also Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372 at 379; Ho v Professional Services Review Committee No 295 [2007] FCA 388 at [23]-[26] and cited in Hasim v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth [2013] FCA 1433, (2013) 218 FCR 25 at [65]
[5] Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Minister for Environment (No 3) (1997) 77 FCR 153; Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission v Leelee Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1121; Edwards v Giudice [1999] FCA 1836 and National Retail
Association v Fair Work Commission [2014] FCAFC 118
[6] Nestle Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1987) 16 FCR 167 at 184; (cited with approval by Hely J in Elias v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2002) 123 FCR 499 at [62]
and by Katzmann J in Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hamberger and Another (2011) 195 FCR 74
at [103])
[7] Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Another v Peko-Wallsend Limited and Others [1986] HCA 40, (1986) 162 CLR 24 at [15], p 41
[8] Form F42, Declaration by proposed permit holder dated 24 August 2022 at (a) and ACTU Federal Right of Entry Training Certificate of Completion dated 15 August 2022.
[9] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions [21]
[10] Statement of Mark Travers (21 October 2022) at [46]
[11] Ibid at [47]
[12] Ibid at annexure MT-1
[13] Form F42, Declaration by proposed permit holder dated 24 August 2022 at (b)
[14] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions [22]-[23]
[15] Applicant’s Outline of Submissions at [13]-[14]
[16] Form F42, Declaration by proposed permit holder dated 24 August 2022 at (c)
[17] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions [24]
[18] Applicant’s Outline of Submissions at [16]
[19] Gregor v CFMEU [2011] FMCA 562; John Holland Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2009] FMCA 1248; ABCC v CFMMEU (The College Crescent Case) [2020] FCA 757
[20] [2011] FMCA 562
[21] Gregor v CFMEU [2011] FMCA 562 at [3].
[22] Gregor v CFMEU [2011] FMCA 562 at [19]
[23] Gregor v CFMEU [2011] FMCA 562 at [20]
[24] Applicant’s Outline of Submissions at [21]
[25] CFMEU [2013] FWCB 1822 at [16], [32]-[38] and [46]-[47]
[26] Application by the CFMMEU, Construction and General Division, Victoria-Tasmania Divisional Branch [2016] FWC 3110 at [21]-[24] and [33]
[27] Application by the CFMMEU for a right of entry permit to be issued to Mr Mark Alan Travers [2019] FWC 6166 at [15]-[17]
[28] [2009] FMCA 1248
[29] John Holland Pty Ltd v CFMEU [2009] FMCA 1248 at [33].
[30] CFMEU [2013] FWCB 1822 at [16], [32]-[38] and [46]-[47]
[31] Application by the CFMMEU, Construction and General Division, Victoria-Tasmania Divisional Branch [2016] FWC 3110 at [21]-[24] and [33]
[32] Application by the CFMMEU for a right of entry permit to be issued to Mr Mark Alan Travers [2019] FWC 6166 at [15]-[17]
[33] [2020] FCA 757
[34] ABCC v CFMMEU (The College Crescent Case) [2020] FCA 757 at [14] and [43]
[35] ABCC v CFMMEU (The College Crescent Case) [2020] FCA 757 at [66] and [94]
[36] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions at [33]
[37] ABCC v CFMMEU (The College Crescent Case) [2020] FCA 757 at [97]
[38] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions at [34](b)
[39] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions at [35]
[40] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions at [36]
[41] [2019] FWC 7850
[42] Commission in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union - The Maritime Union of Australia Division [2019] FWC 7850 at [40]; Respondent’s Outline of Submissions at [37]
[43] Commission in Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union - The Maritime Union of Australia Division [2019] FWC 7850 at [40]
[44] [2016] FWC 1984
[45] Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, Queensland Northern Territory Divisional Branch [2016] FWC 1984 at [39]-[46]
[46] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions at [39]
[47] [2019] FWC 6166
[48] Application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union for a right of entry permit to be issued to Mr Mark Alan Travers [2019] FWC 6166 at [16]-[17]
[49] Ibid
[50] Statement of Mark Travers (21 October 2022)
[51] Applicant’s Outline of Submissions at [32]
[52] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions at [26]
[53] Applicant’s Outline of Submissions at [33]
[54] Application by the CFMMEU for a right of entry permit to be issued to Mr Mark Alan Travers [2019] FWC 6166 at [21].
[55] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions at [26]
[56] Applicant’s Outline of Submissions at [35]-[36]; Respondent’s Outline of Submissions at [27]
[57] Applicant’s Outline of Submissions at [37]-[38]
[58] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions at [28]
[59] [2019] FWC 6166
[60] Application by the CFMMEU for a right of entry permit to be issued to Mr Mark Alan Travers [2019] FWC 6166 at [27]
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR750748>
3
22
0