CFMEU bosses banned from sites without management consent

SENIOR officials from Victoria’s rogue construction union will not be allowed on building sites without being invited by management following a court ruling handed down on Friday.

Some CFMEU officials, including John Setka, cannot enter worksites without being invited. Picture: Aaron Francis

SENIOR officials from Victoria’s rogue construction union will not be allowed on building sites without being invited by management following a court ruling handed down on Friday.

The Full Federal Court ruling will mean some of the CFMEU’s senior officials, including John Setka and Shaun Reardon, cannot enter worksites without being invited by the business.

The ruling, which overturned an earlier Federal Court decision, found union officials could not enter workplaces without a federal entry permit.

Mr Setka and Mr Reardon are among 17 Victorian CFMEU officials who do not have a federal entry permit, according to an Australian Building and Construction Commission register.

Friday’s ruling dealt with a 2014 claim in which CFMEU official Michael Powell entered a construction site numerous times without a permit, issued under the Fair Work Act.

At the time Mr Powell claimed he was allowed on site because the health and safety representative had invited him in, under the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Police were called to remove Mr Powell on two separate occasions, when the site bosses asked him to leave and he refused.

The Full Federal Court yesterday ruled even if Mr Powell was invited on site by the health and safety officer, he still needed a federal permit issued under the Fair Work Act to enter lawfully.

He does not have a permit.

The court found there was no commonsense reason why a condition in the Victorian laws would allow a union representative on site without a permit, when a Federal law required all union representatives to have a permit.

“To make such a distinction would lead to practical confusion at workplace sites in circumstances where such confusion may lead to allegations of trespass and the involvement of police, as occurred here,’ the court said.

[e-mail]