CFMEU evidence will be given to Boral despite ACCC objection

Confidential evidence from an investigation into the union will be made available after a landmark court decision.

Confidential evidence from a competition commission investigation into the militant construction union will be given to building products maker Boral, after a landmark decision by the Victorian Supreme Court today.

The Victorian Supreme Court overruled objections from the Australian Consumer and Competition commission and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union to award access to Boral of interview transcripts gathered under the regulator’s compulsory examination powers.

The CFMEU was given the transcripts during the ACCC’s federal court case against the union, alleging an illegal union black ban on Boral’s concrete products.

Although the ACCC’s action against the CFMEU is still underway, Boral made an interlocutory application for the CFMEU to hand over the transcripts during its own damages claim against the union.

Rejecting the ACCC’s arguments that the Victorian Supreme court should dismiss Boral’s application in the “public interest”, Justice Kevin Bell ordered the union to produce the evidence, adding the decision was made “not lightly”.

Justice Bell emphasised the importance of the documents to resolving the dispute between the CFMEU and Boral, and noted that the evidence would remain confidential.

Boral is seeking $23 million damages plus costs against the CFMEU for the union’s black ban on its concrete, which originally arose out of an industrial dispute with Grocon.

In announcing its case against the CFMEU in November, ACCC chairman Rod Sims said the regulator “has evidence that unions or individuals have engaged in conduct which goes beyond what is reasonable to protect workers, and is deliberately targeted at damaging business”.

The ACCC is seeking financial penalties, declarations and injunctions against the CFMEU and Victorian construction secretary John Setka.

Mr Sims today said the regulator was “carefully considering the reasons for His Honour’s judgment.”

“The ACCC made submissions to the court in relation to Boral’s application because it raised important policy implications regarding the ACCC’s compulsory information gathering powers and the ability for the ACCC to effectively prosecute its own court proceedings against respondents.”