Anthony Albanese faces claim of work-rights breach by Electrical Trades Union

The Electrical Trades Union has accused Anthony Albanese of potentially breaching workplace laws.

ETU NSW secretary Allen Hicks has accused Anthony Albanese of misrepresenting the rights of workers.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

The Electrical Trades Union has accused Anthony Albanese of ­potentially breaching workplace laws by allegedly misrepresenting the rights of workers participating in rallies protesting Labor’s decision to force the CFMEU’s construction division into administration.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, ETU NSW secretary Allen Hicks criticised Mr Albanese’s pre-rally warning that there could be “consequences” for workers if their participation in the capital city rallies constituted unprotected industrial action.

Mr Albanese’s comments followed a warning by the Fair Work Ombudsman that employees who failed to go to work or stopped work to attend the rallies without permission from their employer might be engaging in unprotected industrial action, and their boss had to dock their pay by at least four hours.

But Mr Hicks said the comments of Mr Albanese and the FWO “wholly misrepresented” the rights and obligations conferred on employees and employers under the Fair Work Act as the workers were engaged in a political protest.

He said the legislation, and a decision by the full bench of the then Australian Industrial Relations Commission, made it clear that action was not industrial in character if it stood completely outside of bargaining and disputation. “Here, participants were protesting the treatment of the CFMEU by the Australian government,” he said. “That cannot rationally be characterised as ­industrial in nature.”

He said Mr Albanese’s comments were likely to have prevented workers from participating in a legitimate political protest; undermined freedom of association; caused employers to misrepresent their legal obligations and unlawfully reduce their employees’ pay; and exposed employers to litigation and civil penalties.

Mr Hicks said the Prime Minister’s conduct appeared to contravene the Fair Work Act by knowingly, or at the least recklessly misrepresenting, the workplace rights of construction industry workers and employers.

He asked Mr Albanese to issue a statement by next week that clarified participation in political protests was not industrial action and it was unlawful for employers to deduct pay.

“If we don’t get a response from the Prime Minister we’ll be forced to look into all the legal ­options available to us,” Mr Hicks said. “We hope we don’t have to go down that line. Quite simply, the law has been misrepresented and that can have big consequences for both employees and employers. It needs to be cleared up.”

Responding to Mr Hicks’ letter, a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said: “A full transcript of the Prime Minister’s comments are available on his website. The Fair Work Ombudsman is an ­independent regulator. Any questions concerning the Ombudsman’s comments should be directed to the Ombudsman.”

In the wake of threats of a High Court challenge by the CFMEU to the administration, Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt said the legislation was designed as “best as possible” to withstand a legal challenge

ACTU secretary Sally McManus said accusations from union leaders at CFMEU rallies on Tuesday that she was a “sellout to working people” was a “whole lot of deflection”.

She said the CFMEU could have avoided the laws if it had consented to administration and officials Darren Greenfield and Derek Christopher had stood down.

After attacks from Labor ministers, Greens leader Adam Bandt defended MP Max Chandler-Mather’s appearance at the CFMEU rally in Brisbane which featured banners labelling Mr Albanese as a Nazi, and depicting him as Adolf Hitler.

“That sign … is offensive and I understand that [Mr Chandler-Mather] put out a statement saying the sign was offensive and not a sign that we did or shared or anything like that,” Mr Bandt told the National Press Club. “It’s a sign someone had at a rally but it was offensive.”