Fair Work Commission denies permit to Queensland CFMEU organiser

Commission not confident Queensland organiser, whose coercive conduct included stopping a concrete pour, would comply with the law if permit renewed.

The CFMEU was fined $100,800 after Dean Rielly refused to follow lawful directions and prevented a concrete pour. Picture: NCA NewsWire

A Queensland CFMEU organiser who engaged in threatening and coercive conduct, including stopping a concrete pour, has failed to convince the Fair Work Commission to renew his entry permit.

Commission deputy president Tony Saunders said he could not be confident that Dean Rielly would comply with the law despite undertaking training about his legal obligations.

The Australian Building and Construction Commission intervened in the case, citing Mr Rielly’s previous contraventions in 2019 as evidence of his unsuitability to be entrusted with the powers of a federal entry permit holder.

In the Coffs Harbour Hospital case Mr Rielly was ordered to pay a penalty of $10,000 and the union was ordered to pay $80,000. He had intended to coerce a company into employing union members.

CFMEU organiser Dean Rielly. Picture: Facebook

In the Pacific Highway Upgrade case Mr Rielly was penalised $8820 and the CFMEU $100,800 after he refused to follow lawful directions and prevented a concrete pour.

He and a second official entered an exclusion zone, positioned themselves behind a concrete truck and refused to move when requested.

The concrete pour was abandoned and six cubic metres of concrete wasted, with one and a half days of work lost.

Mr Rielly undertook one-on-one training with Brian Lacy, a barrister and former commission senior deputy president, to address his previous unlawful conduct.

In a written report, Mr Lacy said he was satisfied Mr Rielly had a “sound knowledge of what constitutes hindering or obstructing and coercion, and that he understands the rights and obligations of a permit holder in those regards and will comply with them”.

While Mr Saunders accepted Mr Rielly now has a better understanding of the scope of his legal obligations, the fact that he had deliberately broken the law in the past meant he “allowed his motivation to behave in what he considered to be in the best interests of workers to take priority over his obligations under the Act”.

“That causes me serious concern that Mr Rielly will act in a similar manner in the future when he faces difficult situations while exercising a right of entry on to a workplace,” he said.

He said he did not have confidence Mr Rielly would comply with his legal obligations if he was on a site and confronted by a difficult situation in which he believed employees had been treated adversely or unfairly.