Stuart v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

Stuart, an Australian Building and Construction Inspector, brought a civil penalty application against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and one of its shop stewards, alleging breaches of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth). The case pertains to incidents at a building site in Morwell in 2006 where the shop steward, employed by Hooker Cockram Projects Ltd, refused to induct employees of a subcontractor, Celltech Australia Pty Ltd, onto the site and asserted that they needed an enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) to work there. The shop steward also organised a stop-work meeting with the intent to pressure Celltech to agree to a building agreement. The CFMEU admitted to these contraventions.

The primary legal issue was whether the shop steward's actions constituted breaches of the Act, specifically sections 38 and 44(1). Section 38 prohibits organising stop-work meetings with intent to unduly influence a building agreement, while section 44(1) mandates the induction of workers onto a building site. The court had to determine if the shop steward's conduct fell within the scope of these provisions and if so, whether the penalties sought by Stuart were appropriate.

The court found that the shop steward's refusal to induct the Celltech employees and his insistence that they needed an EBA constituted a contravention of section 44(1). His organisation of a stop-work meeting with the intent to pressure Celltech into a building agreement contravened section 38. The court considered the seriousness of the breaches and the need for deterrence, and thus, ordered the CFMEU to pay penalties totalling $5,000. The court concluded that the penalties were appropriate given the admitted contraventions and the need to uphold the integrity of the building and construction industry.

In light of the findings, the court ordered the CFMEU to pay the penalties within 30 days or the application would be dismissed. The order specified the penalties related to the admitted contraventions of sections 38 and 44(1) of the Act. The parties consented to no order as to the costs of the proceeding.