Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, WA Divisional Branch
[2022] FWC 41
•11 JANUARY 2022
| [2022] FWC 41 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.512—Right of entry
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, WA Divisional Branch
(RE2021/1217)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT BINET | PERTH, 11 JANUARY 2022 |
Application for a right of entry permit for Stephen Barry Parker – Application granted
On 5 November 2021, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union – Construction and General Division, Western Australian Divisional Branch (CFMMEU) filed an application (Permit Application) pursuant to section 512 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for a right of entry permit for Mr Stephen Barry Parker (Mr Parker).
On 7 December 2021, the CFMMEU filed an application, pursuant to section 516 of the FW Act, to extend Mr Parker’s current right of entry permit (Old Permit) until the Permit Application is determined (Extension Application). The Old Permit was issued on 13 December 2018 (RE2018/1163) and was due to expire on 13 December 2021.[1]
The Permit Application was allocated to my Chambers on 7 December 2021. The Extension Application was allocated to my Chambers on 8 December 2021.
On 7 December 2021, the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) notified the FWC that the ABCC Commissioner did not intend to make submissions in respect of, and/or intervene pursuant to section 110 of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 (Cth) in the Permit Application.
On 9 December 2021 an order (PR736575) was issued granting an extension of the Old Permit until 14 January 2022 or such earlier time as the Permit Application is heard and determined.
Directions were sent to the parties on 15 December 2021 (Directions) requiring the CFMMEU to file submissions, witness statements and evidence in support of the Permit Application by 4pm, Tuesday 21 December 2021. The Directions indicated that a conclusion about the Permit Application may be made on the written materials filed by the CFMMEU.
The CFMMEU filed submissions, a witness statement and evidence in support of the Permit Application on 21 December 2021.
Background
Mr Parker joined the construction industry as a qualified bricklayer about 20 years ago. He has worked as a bricklayer across many worksites on commercial and domestic construction projects and in other roles in the resources industry and civil construction.[2]
Mr Parker has been employed by the CFMMEU as an Organiser since September 2018.[3] Prior to commencing employment with the CFMMEU Mr Parker held two representative roles. Between 2012 and 2015 he was a health and safety representative and between 2017 and 2018 he was a union delegate.[4]
Mr Parker presently holds the Old Permit numbered RE2018/1163. The Old Permit was granted without any conditions.[5]
Mr Parker estimates that he exercised his right of entry under the Old Permit around 15 times per week and more than 2000 times overall since it was granted. He estimates that approximately two thirds of those entries are for the purpose of holding discussions with workers (including discussions relating to agreement negotiation and renewal), and one third of those entries are for the purpose of investigating safety hazards.[6]
Relevant Statutory Provisions
The provisions concerning entry permits are found in Part 3-4 of the FW Act. The object of Part 3-4 is set out in section 480 of the FW Act:
“480 Object of this Part
The object of this Part is to establish a framework for officials of organisations to enter premises that balances:
(a) the right of organisations to represent their members in the workplace, hold discussions with potential members and investigate suspected contraventions of:
(i)this Act and fair work instruments; and
(ii)State or Territory OHS laws; and
(b) the right of employees and TCF award workers to receive, at work, information and representation from officials of organisations; and
(c) the right of occupiers of premises and employers to go about their business without undue inconvenience.”
In Maritime Union of Australia v Fair Work Commission,[7] the Full Court of the Federal Court (North, Flick and Bromberg JJ) observed that:
“[15] Section 480 … sets out that the object of Part 3-4 is to establish a framework that balances the right of organisations to represent their members, the right of employees to receive information and representation, and the right of occupiers of premises and employers to go about their business without undue inconvenience. The rights conferred by Part 3-4, including to enter premises and interview persons about suspected contraventions and to hold discussions with employees, have thus been assessed by the legislature as an appropriate balance between the rights of organisations, employees and occupiers. The rights conferred, however, are not “untrammelled” and are subject to both express and implied constraints: Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union v Fair Work Australia [2012] FCAFC 85 at [56], (2012) 203 FCR 389 at 405 per Flick J (Tracey J agreeing). The exercise of rights conferred upon a “permit holder” renders lawful that which would otherwise be unlawful: cf. Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (1979) 143 CLR 499 at 540 per Mason J.”[8]
Section 512 of the FW Act states that:
“512 FWC may issue entry permits
The FWC may, on application by an organisation, issue a permit (an entry permit) to an official of the organisation if the FWC is satisfied that the official is a fit and proper person to hold the entry permit.”
In The Maritime Union of Australia[9] a Full Bench of the FWC (Deputy President Gostencnik, Deputy President Wells and Commissioner Blair) considered the question of whether a person is a fit and proper person in the context of the right of entry regime established by Part 3–4 of the FW Act and observed that:
“[23] …the relevant question, in determining whether the Commission is permitted to exercise the discretion to issue an entry permit to an official of an organisation under s 512, is whether the official “is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit”. The description “fit and proper person” in s.512 is not defined and standing alone, it carries no precise meaning. Generally, though, the description is used as a measure of suitability to perform or carry out a particular function, to be appointed to a particular position or to be given a particular right or privilege. However, the description will take its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person to be assessed is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. Taking into account context, the structure of s.512 and the activities to be engaged in by an official if an entry permit will issue, it seems to us clear that that description is to be applied by reference to the suitability of the official “to hold the entry permit”.[10]
The focus of the FWC’s inquiry is therefore not whether the proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person per se. Rather, it is whether the proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.[11]
Whether a proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit will require consideration of the rights the holder of an entry permit may exercise, the limitations on and conditions attached to the exercise of those rights and the responsibilities that must be discharged in the exercise of those rights.[12]
Section 513(1) of the FW Act sets out the matters that are to be taken into account in determining whether a proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold a right of entry permit (Permanent Qualification Matters) as follows:
“513 Considering application
(1)In deciding whether the official is a fit and proper person, the FWC must take into account the following permit qualification matters:
(a) whether the official has received appropriate training about the rights and responsibilities of a permit holder;
(b) whether the official has ever been convicted of an offence against an industrial law;
(c)whether the official has ever been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or a foreign country, involving:
(i) entry onto premises; or
(ii) fraud or dishonesty; or
(iii)intentional use of violence against another person or intentional damage or destruction of property;
(d) whether the official, or any other person, has ever been ordered to pay a penalty under this Act or any other industrial law in relation to action taken by the official;
(e) whether a permit issued to the official under this Part, or under a similar law of the Commonwealth (no matter when in force), has been revoked or suspended or made subject to conditions;
(f) whether a court, or other person or body, under a State or Territory industrial law or a State or Territory OHS law, has:
(i)cancelled, suspended or imposed conditions on a right of entry for industrial or occupational health and safety purposes that the official had under that law; or
(ii)disqualified the official from exercising, or applying for, a right of entry for industrial or occupational health and safety purposes under that law
(g) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.”
The Permit Qualification Matters delineated by section 513(1) of the FW Act are mandatory considerations. Each of the Permit Qualification Matters must be considered and given appropriate weight. There is no statutory indication that any particular Permit Qualification Matter should be given more weight than any other.[13]
The question of whether a proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit will require consideration of the rights the holder of an entry permit may exercise, the limitations on and conditions attached to the exercise of those rights and the responsibilities that must be discharged in the exercise of those rights.[14]
Consideration of Permit Qualification Matters is to be directed to the personal characteristics of the proposed permit holder pertinent to the discharge of the functions and the exercise of the rights associated with holding a permit.[15]
The permit qualification matters must be considered in the context of whether the proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit, not whether the proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person per se.[16]
Consideration
The FWC may issue a permit to a proposed permit holder if the FWC is satisfied that the proposed permit holder is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. In deciding whether the official is a fit and proper person, the FWC must take into account the Permit Qualification Matters.[17]
In relation to the Permit Qualification Matter set out in section 513(1)(a) of the FW Act, Mr Parker gave evidence that he had received training about the rights and obligations of a permit holder under the FW Act from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and from the CFMMEU’s lawyers.[18] He also gave evidence that he had received additional training from the CFMMEU about the systems established by the CFMMEU for preparing and delivering the appropriate notices to notify employers and occupiers of his intention to exercise his statutory rights of entry.[19]
I am satisfied that Mr Parker has completed training about the rights and responsibilities of a permit holder in accordance with s 512(2)(a) of the FW Act. This weighs in favour of his fitness and proprietary to hold an entry permit.
In relation to the Permit Qualification Matter set out in section 513(1)(b), Mr Parker has declared that he has not been convicted of any offence against an industrial law.[20] There is no evidence before me that Mr Parker has been convicted of an offence against an industrial law. This weighs in favour of his fitness and proprietary to hold an entry permit.
In relation to the Permit Qualification Matter set out in section 513(1)(c), Mr Parker declared that the only offences against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or a foreign country involving: entry onto premises, fraud or dishonesty or intentional use of violence against another person or intentional damage or destruction of property that he has been convicted of, are the following offences for which he received the penalties set out below:
| Date of Conviction | Offence | Penalty |
| 30 April 2010 | Give false details to police contrary to section 16(8) of the Criminal Investigation (Identifying People) Act 2002 (WA). | Spent conviction Fine: $300 |
| 30 April 2009 | Disorderly behaviour in public contrary to section 74A(2)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA). | Spent conviction Fine: $300 |
| 21 November 2012 | Stealing contrary to section 378 of the Criminal Code (WA). | Fine: $300 Compensation $8.68 |
These matters were disclosed in the material filed in support of the application for the Old Permit and I evaluated those matters in the course of dealing with that application.
The offences of which Mr Parker was convicted on 30 April 2010 arise from an incident which occurred on 5 November 2009. In support of his application for the Old Permit Mr Parker described the incident as follows:[21]
“The incident took place at Warwick train station in Perth, Western Australia on 5 November 2009. I had been out drinking in the city with friends and was returning home by train when I was approached by a transit officer at the station. I had been intoxicated at the time and had consumed a lot of alcohol after I broke up with a girlfriend.
The transit officer asked for my name and I responded that my name was “Donald Duck”. The transit officer then asked for my address and gave him a false address.
The transit officer then asked to see my train ticket. I responded by twisting my ticket in front of the officer so he could not see it.
I pleaded guilty to the charges as soon as I could. At sentencing, the Magistrate took into account the minor nature of the offences, my previous good character and that I was unlikely to commit a similar offence again. I was granted a spent conviction and ordered to pay a fine of $300.00, plus $119.20 in court costs, for each offence.”
At the time of sentencing, Magistrate Flynn made a Spent Conviction Order (SPO) pursuant to section 45 of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) (Sentencing Act). Pursuant to section 45(1) of the Sentencing Act, a SPO can only be made if the court considers the offender is unlikely to commit such an offence again and that the offence is trivial and/or the previous good character of the offender is such that the offender should be relieved of the adverse effect that the conviction might have on the offender.[22]
The offence of which Mr Parker was convicted on 21 November 2012 occurred on 7 November 2012. In support of his application for the Old Permit Mr Parker described the incident as follows:[23]
“The incident had occurred on 7 November 2012, when I went to the Beaumaris Shopping Centre IGA in Perth. I had been intoxicated and hungry but did not have any money on me. I took a frozen packaged lasagne from the freezers and tried to steal it from the shop. I was stopped by a security guard leaving the shop and I was charged with stealing.
Again, I pleaded guilty to the charges as soon as I could. At sentencing, the Magistrate took into account that I was not likely to reoffend. I was granted a conditional release order for 6 months and ordered to pay a fine of $300.00, plus $8.68 in compensation and $66.00 in court costs.”
At the time of sentencing, Magistrate Gluestein made a Conditional Release Order pursuant to section 47 of the Sentencing Act (CRO). A CRO can only be imposed if the relevant magistrate is satisfied that the offender will not reoffend during the term of the CRO.[24]
Mr Parker says that both of these incidents occurred when he was intoxicated. He says he has since acknowledged the undesirable effect consuming alcohol has on his behaviour. He says he has learned from his mistakes and is adamant that he will not reoffend.[25]
In determining to grant the Old Permit I was satisfied that this historical misconduct was not a reason to conclude that Mr Parker was not a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. In the intervening 3 years, Mr Parker has not encountered any further trouble with police arising from the use of alcohol and in these circumstances, I am satisfied that his historical misconduct is not of itself a reason to conclude that he is not a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.
In relation to the Permit Qualification Matter set out in section 513(1)(d) of the FW Act, the CFMMEU declared that it has not been ordered to pay a penalty under the FW Act or any other industrial law in relation to action taken by Mr Parker, other than being ordered to pay a penalty of $23,000 for contravention of section 500 of the FW Act in relation to events which occurred on 15 February 2019 (DoubleTree Case).[26]
The penalty was imposed in the following circumstances. On 15 February 2019 Mr Parker attended a work site in the company of another more senior organiser. Mr Parker and the other organiser failed to follow the directions of the Site Safety Manager to move directly to the area they had identified as the area they wished to inspect. The other organiser was also found to have engaged in a conversation with the Site Safety Manager which was disrespectful.[27]
The CFMMEU accepted that the conduct of its officials on this particular occasion was improper, and the CFMMEU submitted to the imposition of a penalty by the Court in respect of that conduct. In determining the penalty the Court gave credit to the CFMMEU for its cooperation at the earliest reasonably available time. [28]
The ABCC Commissioner chose not to continue proceedings individually against Mr Parker or the other organiser in relation to the conduct and only pressed a penalty against the CFMMEU.[29]
The conduct of Mr Parker and his colleague was characterized by the Court in the penalty judgement as follows:[30]
“The conduct which gave rise to the admitted contravention was of short duration and is undoubtedly at the lower or less serious end of the spectrum of conceivable contraventions of the statutory norm.”
Mr Parker says that at the time the events occurred he had only recently commenced his employment as an organiser with the CFMMEU. He says he had been directed to attend worksites with the more senior organiser, to observe him and learn how to perform the duties of an organiser. Mr Parker says that in accordance with this direction on the day in question he was shadowing the more experienced official and following his lead.[31]
The extent of Mr Parker’s involvement in the improper conduct was limited to failing to comply with the Site Supervisor’s direction as to which route he should take through the worksite. Mr Parker was not involved in any of the other improper conduct.
Mr Parker admits that he followed the more senior organiser’s lead on that occasion. Mr Parker says that he understands and accepts that the CFMMEU and the ABCC agreed that his conduct was improper, and that the Court accepted the submission that his conduct was improper on that occasion.[32]
These events weigh against a finding that Mr Parker is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit but are not of themselves a reason to conclude that he is not a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.
In relation to the Permit Qualification Matter set out in section 513(1)(e), Mr Parker has declared that he has not had an entry permit under the FW Act, or under a similar law of the Commonwealth, revoked, suspended or made subject to conditions.[33] This weighs in favour of his fitness and proprietary to hold an entry permit.
With respect to the Permit Qualification Matters set out in section 513(1)(f) Mr Parker has declared that he has not:[34]
a. had an entry permit for industrial or occupational health and safety purposes cancelled or suspended or had conditions imposed by any court, or other person or body, under a State or Territory industrial law or a State or Territory occupational health and safety law; or
b. been disqualified, by any court, or other person or body, under a State or Territory industrial law or a State or Territory OHS law, from exercising, or applying for, a right of entry for industrial or OHS purposes under such law.
This weighs in favour of his fitness and proprietary to hold an entry permit.
The final Permit Qualification Matter set out in section 513(1)(g) provides that the FWC may take into account any other matters that the FWC considers relevant. The materials supporting the Permit Application identify one such matter, that being the statement of agreed facts filed in and declaration of contravention made by the Federal Court of Australia in proceeding WAD197/2020 (Next DC P2 Project Case).[35]
These proceedings arise from events which occurred on 5 December 2019. Mr Parker was found by the Court to have acted in an improper manner by remaining on a worksite on that date without an escort and by not complying with requests to move from where he was standing when employees were unloading doorframes from a truck.[36]
By making the statement of agreed facts and submitting to the making of a declaration of contravention, the CFMMEU has accepted that Mr Parker’s conduct on that date was improper in the particular circumstances. The Court is yet to impose a penalty on the CFMMEU in relation to the conduct of Mr Parker.[37]
Mr Parker’s conduct in the Next DC P2 Case was considered by the Court in the context of determining an appropriate penalty for the conduct which occurred in the Double Tree Case. At [69] of the penalty judgement the Court stated:[38]
“It is apparent from the statement of agreed facts that Mr Parker’s improper conduct was not planned or premeditated but was the result of an unusual and unlikely to be repeated concatenation of events. Mr Parker had previously exercised right of entry at the NEXT DC P2 Project on more than 20 occasions which were not complained about by the Commissioner, and Mr Parker’s improper conduct on 5 December 2019 was, in the context of those entries, said to be a deviation from the norm, which was explained and contextualised.
Mr Parker points out that the events which occurred on 5 December 2019 occurred when he had occupied his position as an organiser and held an entry permit for only a year. He explained the context in which the conduct occurred as follows:[39]
“On 5 December 2019 the weather in Perth was very hot. That morning, the forecast for the day's maximum temperature was 37c. Most employers in the industry in Perth, including the employers at the Multiplex NextDC project, have enterprise agreements which include terms to the effect that work should not continue if the weather is that hot. In my experience, it is dangerous for construction work to continue in heat of that kind. Hard physical work outside in that heat raises risk of dehydration and heatstroke, and interferes with concentration and attention to safety hazards. On days that hot, everyone at a workplace is under stress; if employers are pressing for some or all work to continue, notwithstanding the prohibition in the enterprise agreements, then the site managers, supervisors and workers alike are often experiencing stress, anxiety and urgency. That stress and anxiety can be an additional source of safety hazard, in addition to the objective weather conditions.
I attended the site on that day because I had received messages from workers at the site complaining that, while some had been sent home, some workers were being directed to continue work in the heat. I attended and entered the site. While I was at the site, I observed some workers unloading prefabricated materials from a truck and I formed the view that that work was being performed unsafely. Workers were unloading materials, including materials with dangerous sharp metal edges, without wearing gloves. That work method, in combination with the harsh weather conditions and the atmosphere of stress and urgency, appeared dangerous to me. I sought to engage workers and supervisors in conversation to draw attention to the safety hazard, and to impress upon people the importance to wear gloves and to adhere to the terms of the agreements concerning working in heat.
It appears from the following extract of his evidence that Mr Parker accepts that his conduct was improper, that he is contrite and that he has taken steps to ensure such conduct is not repeated:[40]
“I understand and accept that the CFMMEU and the ABCC have entered into a statement of agreed facts which records their agreement that my conduct while on the premises on 5 December 2019 was 'improper'. One kind of impropriety was agreed to be that I remained on the premises without an escort. The other kind of impropriety was that I remained in the vicinity of the workers unloading materials from a truck when the site supervisors wanted me to move away from that place. Overall, I understand that my conduct was understood to be improper because I was somewhat too assertive in entering the premises and addressing my concerns about the unloading of materials from the truck. I think that my judgement was affected by the heat and also by my concerns about the immediacy of the risk to workers who were being directed to continue working in that heat. I have reflected on that assessment of that incident from 2 years ago. Over the intervening 2 years, I believe that I have developed skills to address urgent safety concerns and be properly assertive in the interests of workers, without crossing the line into impropriety, and over the intervening 2 years I have been the subject of no similar complaint or allegation.”
These events weigh against a finding that Mr Parker is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit but are not of themselves a reason to conclude that he is not a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.
Conclusion
Mr Parker has had three criminal convictions recorded against him in relation to two separate incidents three years apart. On both occasions he was charged, Mr Parker pleaded guilty as soon as he could. The penalties imposed upon him indicate that the relevant magistrate was satisfied that Mr Parker was otherwise of good character and unlikely to reoffend.
Both incidents occurred when Mr Parker was intoxicated. Mr Parker has acknowledged the adverse impact alcohol has on his behaviour. Mr Parker has not been changed or convicted of any criminal offences since that time.
Since I granted the Old Permit there are two new matters which are relevant to the assessment of whether Mr Parker is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. Those matters are his conduct in February 2019 and his conduct in December 2019. His conduct on these two dates has led to Federal Court proceedings brought by the ABCC. His conduct on these two dates has resulted in the penalisation of the CFMMEU (in the first instance) and the likelihood of penalisation of the CFMMEU (in the second instance).
The conduct in February 2019 arose at the outset of his employment as an organiser when he had been directed to follow and observe a more senior official. The official in question is no longer employed by the CFMMEU.
The conduct in December 2019 occurred when he had occupied his position and held an entry permit for about a year. He has explained the context in which his conduct occurred.
No penalty has been imposed on Mr Parker individually in relation to the conduct in February 2019 or December 2019. The conduct which occurred in February 2019 was assessed as being at the less serious end of the spectrum.
The conduct on both occasions was characterised by the Court as not being planned or premeditated but as the result of an ‘unusual and unlikely to be repeated concatenation of events’.
Importantly Mr Parker has explained in his own words why he now understands that the conduct was inappropriate, has expressed contrition for his conduct and has identified steps he has taken to ensure the conduct is not repeated.
These two transgressions must be considered in the context of the balance of his conduct during the last three years. Having exercised his right of entry in excess of 2000 times in often adversarial and challenging circumstances he has done otherwise without incident or complaint.
I note that the ABCC Commissioner has chosen not to make submissions opposing the Permit Application.
I have considered the Permit Qualification Matters and have given weight to each. Taking into account the totality of the material and for the reasons already given, I am satisfied that Mr Parker is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.
Pursuant to section 512 of the FW Act, the application for a right of entry permit is granted. An order,[41] to this effect will be issued separately.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
[1] Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, WA Divisional Branch [2018] FWC 7586
[2] Witness Statement, Stephen Barry Parker dated 21 December 2021 at [2].
[3] Ibid at [4].
[4] Ibid at [2].
[5] Order PR703139.
[6] Witness Statement, Stephen Barry Parker dated 21 December 2021 at [11].
[7] [2015] FCAFC 56.
[8] Maritime Union of Australia v Fair Work Commission [2015] FCAFC 56 at [15].
[9] [2014] FWCFB 1973.
[10] The Maritime Union of Australia [2014] FWCFB 1973 at [23].
[11] Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union – Construction and General Division, Victoria and Tasmanian Divisional Branch [2018] FWC 1325 at [27].
[12] Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union – Construction and General Division [2018] FWC 3525 at [12].
[13] Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union – Construction and General Division, Victoria and Tasmanian Divisional Branch [2018] FWC 1325 at [27]; Construction, Forestry, Mining, Maritime and Energy Union for a right of entry permit to be issued to Mr Michael Kenneth Robinson [2018] FWC 1777 at [39].
[14] Re Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation[2017] FWC 3282 at [11] citing Re Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia[2015] FWC 1522 at [32].
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation [2017] FWC 3282 at [12].
[18] Witness Statement, Stephen Barry Parker dated 21 December at [12].
[19] Ibid.
[20] Form F42 – Application for an entry permit dated 4 November 2021.
[21] Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, WA Divisional Branch [2018] FWC 7586 at [13].
[22] Ibid at [14].
[23] Ibid at [15].
[24] Ibid at [16].
[25] Ibid at [17].
[26] Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The DoubleTree Hilton Case) [2021] FCA 146
[27] Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The DoubleTree Hilton Case) [2021] FCA 146
[28] Ibid at [71]
[29] Ibid at [70]
[30] Ibid at [30].
[31] Witness Statement, Stephen Barry Parker dated [insert] at [15]
[32] Witness Statement, Stephen Barry Parker dated [insert] at [15]
[33] Form F42 – Application for an entry permit dated 4 November 2021
[34] Form F42 – Application for an entry permit dated 4 November 2021
[35] Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union WAD197/2020.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The DoubleTree Hilton Case) [2021] FCA 146 at [69]
[39] Witness Statement of Stephen Barry Parker dated 21 December 2021 at [17]-[18].
[40] Witness Statement of Stephen Barry Parker dated 21 December 2021 at [19].
[41] PR737412.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR737411>
0
11
0