Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commission
[2021] FWCFB 6061
•10 DECEMBER 2021
| [2021] FWCFB 6061 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Australian Building and Construction Commission
(C2021/6200)
VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER | SYDNEY, 10 DECEMBER 2021 |
Appeal against decision [2021] FWC 3419 and order PR731336 of Deputy President Binet at Perth on 18 August 2021 in matter number RE2021/485
Introduction and background
[1] The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) has lodged an appeal, for which permission is required, against a decision of Deputy President Binet made on 18 August 2021 1 concerning an application made by the CFMMEU pursuant to s 512 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) for an entry permit to be issued to Mr Walter Molina. Mr Molina is employed by the CFMMEU as an organiser, and previously held the position of President of the Western Australian Divisional Branch of the Construction and General Division of the CFMMEU. In her decision, the Deputy President concluded that she was not satisfied that Mr Molina was a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit, and refused Mr Molina’s application. The CFMMEU contends, by way of six appeal grounds, that the Deputy President was in error, and seeks that the decision be quashed and that its application be granted or remitted for redetermination.
[2] Division 2 of Pt 3-4 of the FW Act confers rights on holders of entry permits to enter the premises of employers in prescribed circumstances. Under s 512, the Commission is empowered, on application by a registered organisation, to issue an entry permit to an official of that organisation if the Commission is satisfied that the official is a fit and proper person to hold the entry permit. Section 513 provides that the Commission must, in considering whether an official is a fit and proper person for the purpose of s 512, take into account a number of specified matters (“permit qualification matters”):
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.
[3] Section 515 relevantly provides that the Commission may, taking into account the permit qualification matters, impose conditions on an entry permit when it is issued. Section 516(1) provides that, unless earlier revoked, an entry permit expires 3 years after the date it was issued or earlier if the permit holder ceases to be an official of the relevant organisation. Under s 516(2) and (3), if an application has been made for a new entry permit to be issued to an official at least one month before the official’s existing permit expires, the Commission may extend the period of the existing permit if it is likely to expire before the Commission can determine the application for the new permit for a specified period that is not longer than is necessary for the Commission to determine the application.
[4] Mr Molina has been employed by the CFMMEU for over 20 years and has previously been issued with a number of entry permits. His most recent entry permit was issued to him in 2018 by virtue of a decision of the Deputy President made on 25 May 2018. 2 In that decision, the Deputy President found, in respect of the permit qualification matter in s 513(1)(d), that Mr Molina had been ordered to pay a penalty in respect of three matters which she referred to as the Perth Airport Case, the Mundaring Water Treatment Case and the Broad Airport Case. In respect of s 513(1)(e) and (f), the Deputy President found that a previous permit held by Mr Molina had been suspended for a period of 2 months (Permit Suspension Case). The Deputy President recorded in her decision that Mr Molina had given sworn evidence to the effect that, among other things, he intended to comply with the law and instruct those he led to do the same, he was committed to discharging his duties in a professional manner, and he apologised for his conduct in the past and that he had learnt from the previous incidents which had caused him to be fined.3 The Deputy President also noted that a number of senior representatives of leading construction companies in Western Australia had given character references in support of Mr Molina indicating that he complied with his obligations as a permit holder and behaved appropriately and professionally when on their worksites, and expressing confidence in his suitability to be issued with a new permit.4 The Deputy President found that almost all of Mr Molina’s previous contraventions of relevant law resulted from him being “highly emotionally agitated about matters which he believed constituted a grave injustice”. She noted that the CFMMEU had proposed a condition on Mr Molina’s permit to the effect that he should undergo training in relation to emotion management, and concluded:
“[65]Following the successful completion of training above I do not anticipate Mr Molina being involved in future contraventions of the relevant industrial laws. However, to ensure prompt consequences if an infraction were to occur, I will also impose the following condition:
If any findings are made or penalties imposed that are relevant to matters mentioned in section 510(1) of the FW Act then Mr Molina must notify the FWC within two weeks of the finding being made or penalty imposed.
[66] 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 Molina is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit subject to the conditions outlined above.” (footnote omitted)
[5] Mr Molina was issued with his entry permit by order dated 25 May 2018, so that it was due to expire pursuant to s 516(1)(a) on 25 May 2021. The CFMMEU applied for Mr Molina to be issued with a new entry permit on 23 April 2021. The application was accompanied by a declaration made by Mr Molina which, among other things, disclosed that on 18 November 2020 he had been ordered by the Federal Court 5 to pay a penalty of $20,000 for a contravention of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 (Cth) (BCIIP Act) (Salini Case). The conduct which was found to contravene the BCIIP Act occurred on 10 December 2018.
[6] The application was allocated to the Deputy President for determination. The Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) intervened in the matter to oppose the issue of a new entry permit to Mr Molina. The Deputy President, on application by the CFMMEU, extended the operation of Mr Molina’s existing entry permit until 25 September 2021 or such earlier time as the CFMMEU’s application was heard and determined. 6
[7] The application was the subject of a hearing before the Deputy President on 17 June 2021. The CFMMEU did not call evidence from Mr Molina or any other witness in support of its application and, at the hearing, declined an invitation from the Deputy President for Mr Molina to give evidence. The only evidentiary material before the Deputy President, apart from the declaration made by Mr Molina which accompanied the application, was a statement of agreed facts provided by the CFMMEU and the ABCC which attached a number of relevant documents.
[8] On 15 July 2021, the Associate to the Deputy President sent an email to the parties which referred to her having foreshadowed at the hearing that she held the preliminary view that the application should be refused, but indicated that she was considering whether to grant Mr Molina an entry permit “subject to a condition that for a period of 12 months from the date any new permit is issued that Mr Molina must inform the ABCC in writing 24 hours in advance of each occasion he seeks to exercise a right of entry pursuant to the permit.” The Deputy President invited submissions about this proposed condition or any other conditions and proposals for drafting wording of the condition(s). On 21 July 2021, the CFMMEU filed a draft of a condition consistent with the Deputy President’s proposal. On the same day, the ABCC filed submissions opposing the grant of an entry permit subject to the proposed condition.
[9] As earlier stated, the Deputy President published her decision rejecting the CFMMEU’s application on 18 August 2021.
The decision
[10] In her decision, the Deputy President summarised the background to the matter and the applicable principles derived from the case authorities, and then made findings about each of the permit qualification matters specified in s 513(1). In relation to s 513(1)(d), the Deputy President found that Mr Molina had been ordered to pay a penalty for contravention on four occasions, of which three were the same matters identified in her 2018 decision (Perth Airport Case, the Mundaring Water Treatment Case and the Broad Airport Case) and the fourth was the Salini Case. In respect of the Salini Case, the Deputy President summarised the facts of the matter and said:
“[46] The CFMMEU submit that Mr Molina’s contravening conduct in the Salini Case was not of a nature or quality which directly concerns his fitness or propriety of his holding an entry permit. Rather the CFMMEU try to rely on the events which occurred as evidence of his suitability to be a permit holder.
[47] The conduct which the CFMMEU identify is the type of professional and courteous behaviour that is expected of industrial parties. Such conduct should not be viewed as exceptional or surprising. In any event it was tainted by conduct in contravention of industrial laws.
[48] The legislature has indicated by its inclusion of section 513(1)(d) among the Permit Qualification Matters that it takes the view that contraventions of ‘other industrial laws’ by an official is a matter relevant to an official’s fitness to hold and exercise the rights of a permit holder.
[49]Furthermore, the nature and quality of Mr Molina’s contravening conduct in the Salini Case was such that it must inevitably impact on his propriety to hold a permit.”
[11] The Deputy President then quoted from the findings of the Federal Court (Colvin J) in relation to the matter, including that the circumstances of the case manifested a willingness on the part of the CFMMEU to disobey the requirement of the relevant Act, and that the strike was plainly unlawful, was taken without any attempt to negotiate, and was encouraged by very senior officials of the CFMMEU, and said:
“[51] Judge Colvin [sic] noted that there was no indication that the admissions made by the CFMMEU or the officials including Mr Molina were indicative of contrition or recognition of wrongdoing on their part and there was otherwise no hint of remorse, regret or contrition, such as training or steps taken to avoid future conduct of a similar kind. In fact, he accepted the ABCC submission that the admission may have been made simply to spare the CFMMEU the cost and burden of a trial rather than as a demonstration of cooperation of a kind that indicates a likelihood of compliance in the future.”
[12] The Deputy President concluded that Mr Molina’s contraventions in the Perth Airport Case, the Mundaring Water Treatment Case, the Broad Airport Case and the Salini Case weighed against his fitness and propriety to hold an entry permit. In relation to s 513(1)(e), the Deputy President made reference to the Permit Suspension Case, as she had in her 2018 decision, and also referred to the condition she had attached to the entry permit she had issued to Mr Molina in 2018. The Deputy President expressed her satisfaction that Mr Molina had complied with this condition. In relation to s 513(1)(g), the Deputy President considered the ABCC’s submission that it was relevant that Mr Molina was susceptible to direction by the CFMMEU as his employer to be engaged in unlawful conduct, as demonstrated by the circumstances of the Broad Airport Case, the Mundaring Water Treatment Case and the Permit Suspension Case. The Deputy President did not accept that these matters were demonstrative of the alleged “susceptibility”, but said:
“[67] Mr Molina was appointed as President of the Western Australian Divisional Branch of the CFMMEU in January 2017. Mr Molina has previously given evidence that the role of President is the highest elected position within the branch structure. The CFMMEU in the proceedings for Mr Molina’s current permit submitted that Mr Molina’s subsequent elevation within the organisation from Convenor to President of the Western Australian Divisional Branch of the CFMMEU combined with the departure of Mr McDonald from the CFMMEU would remove any susceptibility on Mr Molina’s part to direction from Mr McDonald, Mr Buchan or the CFMMEU more broadly, to engage in future unlawful conduct. Sadly that has not proven to be the case.”
[13] Having dealt with each of the permit qualification matters, the Deputy President then considered and rejected the CFMMEU’s submission that, as Mr Molina’s previous permit had been granted and the Salini Case was the only new adverse matter, she should be satisfied that Mr Molina was a fit and proper person because the contravening conduct in the Salini Case was found only to be of moderate seriousness and did not directly relate to the exercise of rights as permit holder. 7 The Deputy President gave three reasons for her rejection of this submission. The first was that Mr Molina’s conduct was moderately serious, was not minor, and did not occur in the heat of the moment (unlike the previous contraventions).8 The second was that the legislature had indicated by its inclusion of s 513(1)(d) in the permit qualification matters that contraventions of other industrial laws by an official were relevant to an official’s fitness to hold and exercise the rights of a permit holder.9 The third reason, which the Deputy President elaborated at length, was that “the CFMMEU’s submission fails to properly understand the basis upon which I was satisfied that Mr Molina was a fit and proper to grant his existing permit”.10 The Deputy President said, in summary, that she was persuaded to issue a conditional permit to Mr Molina in 2018 because the previous contraventions appeared to have occurred because he had become highly emotionally agitated about matters which he believed constituted a grave injustice (unlike the Salini Case),11 he had conceded in his evidence that his past contraventions had been influenced by more senior officials, he had given an assurance that he would be capable of resisting direction which might result in further contraventions (which had clearly proven not to be the case),12 senior participants in the construction industry had attested as to his suitability to be issued with a new entry permit (which had not occurred in the present hearing),13 and Mr Molina had given evidence in which he apologised for his past conduct and committed to comply with the law and instruct others to do so in future (which he did not do in the present proceedings). The Deputy President then concluded:
“[81] On this occasion Mr Molina did not give oral testimony. In fact he did not even provide a witness statement. When warned that I was considering refusing to grant his permit and given the opportunity to adjourn the proceedings so that Mr Molina might speak in support of the application the CFMMEU declined the opportunity for Mr Molina to do so.
[82] On this occasion the balance has tipped.
[83] I have considered the Permit Qualification Matters and have given weight to each.56 Taking into account the totality of the material and for the reasons already given, on this occasion I am not satisfied that Mr Molina is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit.
[84] I explored with the CFMMEU and the ABCC whether there might be a condition I could impose on Mr Molina’s permit which might assist in me reaching the requisite satisfaction that Mr Molina is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. Having considered the submissions made by both the CFMMEU and the ABCC I am not satisfied that the condition proposed might achieve that goal.”
CFMMEU’s appeal grounds and submissions
[14] As earlier stated, the CFMMEU’s appeal proceeded on 6 grounds. What the CFMMEU characterised as its “overarching” appeal ground (actually ground 5 in the notice of appeal) is that the Deputy President did not perform the essential task mandated by s 512 of making a reasoned assessment as to whether Mr Molina was a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. In this respect, it was submitted that, while the fact of contravention in the Salini Case (the only new matter since the 2018 decision) was relevant, this was only the starting point of the inquiry, and it was not sufficient and in error “to identify the mere fact of penalisation for contravention, skip over the task of consideration and assessment, and proceed to determine the application upon the identification of the fact alone”. The CFMMEU submitted that the Deputy President’s finding (at [49]) that the nature and quality of the contravening conduct in the Salini Case “was such that it must inevitably impact on his propriety to hold a permit” did not amount to the requisite consideration, nor did the Deputy President’s restatement of the reasons for her 2018 decision and the CFMMEU’s conduct of the present application or her conclusion (at [82]) that “the balance has tipped”. Nothing in the summation at [83], it was submitted, explains how any of the identified permit qualification matters bear upon whether Mr Molina is presently a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit, or in what way.
[15] Ground 1 of the appeal is that the Deputy President erred in giving excessive weight to Mr Molina’s contravention in the Salini case, in that the contravening conduct was not of a nature which demonstrated a propensity to or a likelihood of a misuse of an entry permit, the conduct was only of moderate seriousness, and there was no evidence or finding that the contravening conduct was premeditated or caused the relevant employees to stop work. The CFMMEU submitted that the Deputy President gave significant and perhaps determinative weight to the contravention in the Salini case, and this was excessive in all the circumstances. A critical feature of the Court’s assessment of the relatively moderate seriousness of Mr Molina’s contravening conduct was that Colvin J did not accept the ABCC’s submission that he should infer that the walk-off was premeditated or occurred because of steps taken by Mr Molina, and the contravening conduct involved “no colourable personal misconduct, in the sense of an affront to any person” nor any “confrontational or unruly behaviour”.
[16] Ground 2 of the appeal is that the Deputy President erred in giving no or no sufficient consideration to the evidence and findings in the Salini Case as to Mr Molina’s appropriate and professional conduct in the exercise of the statutory right of entry. It was submitted that evidence was received and findings made in the Salini Case which “were wholly and substantially to the effect that Mr Molina’s exercise of entry rights was conducted in an entirely proper, professional and cooperative way”, this was probative to the ultimate issue of whether Mr Molina was a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit, and the Deputy President did not give the relevant evidence and findings proper attention and the application of due weight.
[17] Ground 3 of the appeal is that the Deputy President erred in finding that (at [76]) that the circumstances of the Salini Case demonstrated that Mr Molina was susceptible to the direction of other officials of the union to engage in contravening conduct, when there was no evidence or finding that any such direction had been given. None of the material before the Court in the Salini Case, it was submitted, suggested that Mr Molina had failed to resist the direction of more senior officials of the CFMMEU or that he had been subject to any direction at all. Consequently, the Deputy President’s finding, which weighed on assessment as to the ultimate issue, was not open to be made and was in error.
[18] Ground 4 is that the Deputy President erred in having regard or giving weight to the fact that the CFMMEU had conducted its application in a different way than in 2018, when this fact did not bear upon the question of whether Mr Molina was at the relevant time a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. It was submitted that the CFMMEU ought not be criticised for not presenting Mr Molina as a witness at the hearing of an application for an entry permit, and making him available for cross examination, where there was no specific controversial allegation in relation to his personal conduct to be answered, and that the CFMMEU’s forensic choice to not present Mr Molina to give evidence was not a compelling obstacle to the grant of a permit. The CFMMEU submitted that absence of a particular expression of remorse in respect of the Salini Case, if it had significance, was far from the most compelling predictor of whether Mr Molina would exercise rights associated with an entry permit in a lawful and professional way in the future, and far more compelling bases to predict Mr Molina’s future conduct were that he had held an entry permit for many years and had been the subject of no finding of misuse of entry rights for more than 13 years and that he had not been the subject of any other finding of contravention of an industrial law for more than 8 years.
[19] Ground 6 is that the Deputy President erred by failing to give any or any proper consideration to whether the imposition of a permit condition of the type proposed by the Deputy President and the subject of a submission by the CFMMEU would support a conclusion that Mr Molina would be a fit and proper person to hold a permit subject to such a condition. The CFMMEU submitted that the proposed condition would be of significance because the provision of prior notice to the ABCC would put it in a position “to more conveniently, comprehensively and invasively scrutinise and monitor Mr Molina's exercise of entry rights for a period of time”. The condition having been proposed by the Deputy President and acquiesced to by the CFMMEU, the Deputy President was obliged to revisit her preliminary view to refuse to issue an entry permit and consider the permit qualification matters against a necessarily modified fit and proper person standard. It was submitted that the Deputy President did not address this modified task, and her reasons reveal that the Deputy President failed to address the distinction between reaching satisfaction that Mr Molina was a fit and proper person to hold a permit unencumbered by any condition and reaching satisfaction that Mr Molina was a fit and proper person to hold the permit comprehended by the proposed condition.
[20] The CFMMEU submitted that permission to appeal was required to be granted under s 604(2) because the appeal raises issues of importance and general application, the decision is attended with sufficient doubt to warrant its reconsideration and substantial injustice may result if leave is refused.
Consideration
[21] We are not satisfied that it would be in the public interest to grant permission to appeal such as to require the grant of permission under s 604(2) of the FW Act, nor are we satisfied that the grant of permission to appeal is justified on discretionary grounds. This is so for two reasons: first, we are not satisfied that the decision is attended by sufficient doubt as to warrant appellate reconsideration and, second, the appeal does not raise any issue of general legal principle or of broader practical application.
[22] As to the first reason, we do not consider that the CFMMEU has advanced any sufficiently arguable case of appealable error. The Commission’s power to issue an entry permit to an official organisation under s 512 is conditioned upon the Commission’s satisfaction as to the official’s fitness and propriety to hold such a permit. As such, it involves the exercise of a discretion, guided by the matters required to be taken into account under s 513(1), to which the House v The King 14 standard of appellate review applies.
[23] As earlier stated, the CFMMEU’s “overarching” appeal ground (ground 5) is that the Deputy President did not undertake the task of reasoned assessment required by s 512. We do not consider that this is a reasonably arguable proposition. The Deputy President had regard to each of the matters specified in s 513(1), made findings in relation to each of them, assigned them weight in her consideration, and came to the overall conclusion that Mr Molina was not a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. The process of reasoning by which the Deputy President reached this conclusion is, in our view, readily apparent.
[24] The CFMMEU’s key contention is that the Deputy President did not explain what precisely it was about the Salini Case contravention which caused her to conclude that Mr Molina was not a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. However, as we consider the Deputy President made sufficiently clear in her decision, it was the full context of that contravention, and not the mere fact that it occurred, which was determinative. Mr Molina obtained a conditional entry permit in 2018 largely because he persuaded the Commission, via his sworn evidence, that he had “learned his lesson” and was committed to compliance with the law in the future. Having obtained that entry permit on 25 May 2018, he then engaged in a “moderately serious” contravention of the BCIIP Act before seven months had passed. Beyond the contravention itself, which involved the organisation of unlawful industrial action 15 and was relevant to Mr Molina’s general integrity and willingness to comply with the law notwithstanding that it did not relate directly to the exercise of entry rights pursuant to Div 2 of Pt 3-4 of the FW Act,16 was the fact that the contravention was in breach of the commitment given to the Commission in the 2018 proceedings. This was a matter which, in the current proceedings, cried out for an explanation from Mr Molina. However, the CFMMEU chose not to call Mr Molina to give evidence for this purpose, notwithstanding the Deputy President’s express invitation to do so, and as a result the Deputy President was afforded no explanation or even any expression of remorse for what had occurred. Nor did Mr Molina renew his commitment to comply with the law in the future. The Deputy President’s conclusion, on the basis of these matters, that Mr Molina was not a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit was legally rational and reasonably available.
[25] As to the other appeal grounds:
(1) Ground 1 of the appeal is misconceived because, for the reasons already given, it proceeds upon a false premise as to the role of the Salini Case in the Deputy President’s reasoning. In any event, the weight to be assigned to the contravention in the Salini Case was a matter for the Deputy President. 17
(2) Ground 2 of the appeal is without merit since the Deputy President plainly gave consideration to the evidence and findings in the Salini Case.
(3) We consider that ground 3 is based upon an over-literal reading of paragraph [76] of the decision. Read fairly and in context, we consider that the point the Deputy President intended to make was that Mr Molina had engaged in a further contravention of the law notwithstanding the assurances he had given in 2018. There was no error in this proposition.
(4) In relation to ground 4, for the reasons we have earlier given, it was obviously relevant that Mr Molina did not give evidence in the proceedings, in contrast to the 2018 application. The weight to be given to the CFMMEU’s forensic choice in this respect was a matter for the Deputy President.
(5) Ground 6 is without merit since the Deputy President gave consideration to the issue of the proposed condition in paragraph [84]. We do not consider that, in considering the proposed condition, the Deputy President was in her reasons required to go through each of the permit qualification matters a second time and set out how her conclusion in respect of each of them might be affected by the proposed condition or otherwise. In any event, the CFMMEU did not identify or explain in its submissions how any individual permit qualification matter might be assigned different weight in light of the proposed condition.
[26] In summary, we do not consider that the CFMMEU has advanced any sufficiently meritorious contention of error of the type identified in House v The King.
[27] As to the second reason, we do not consider that the appeal grounds raise any issue that goes beyond the particular factual circumstances of Mr Molina’s case such as to justify appellate consideration.
Conclusion
[28] For the reasons given, permission to appeal is refused.
VICE PRESIDENT
Appearances:
T Borgeest of counsel for the appellant.
A Pollock of counsel for the respondent.
Hearing details:
2021.
Sydney and Melbourne (via video-link):
16 November.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR736385>
1 [2021] FWC 3419
2 [2018] FWC 2817
3 Ibid at [60]-[63]
4 Ibid at [59]
5 [2020] FCA 1662
6 [2021] FWC 2759; PR729842
7 [2021] FWC 3419 at [68]
8 Ibid at [69]
9 Ibid at [70]
10 Ibid at [71]
11 Ibid at [74]
12 Ibid at [76]
13 Ibid at [77]
14 [1936] HCA 45, 55 CLR 483 at 504-505
15 [2020] FCA 1662, declaration C
16 See MUA v Fair Work Commission [2015] FCAFC 56 at [21]
17 Ibid at [42]
0
6
0