TURC: Bill Shorten backs commission’s lawyers

Bill Shorten has backed findings by lawyers for the trade union royal commission.

Bill Shorten has backed findings by lawyers for the trade union royal commission that he ­engaged in no unlawful conduct in his deals while at the Australian Workers Union, and rejected any blame for the discredited Cleanevent workplace agreement, saying he “relied on” briefings from union organisers.

And in separate submissions, the AWU distanced itself from ­allegedly corrupt actions of Mr Shorten’s successor as Victorian secretary, Cesar Melhem, and ­rejected claims by counsel assisting the commission that it failed members.

The Opposition Leader’s lawyer, Leon Zwier, declared “counsel assisting the commission has properly submitted … Mr Shorten has not engaged in any criminal or unlawful conduct’’.

The inquiry heard of workplace deals struck by Mr Shorten’s former union, the AWU, and cleaning company Clean­event that paid below-award rates to cleaners. However, Mr Zwier stressed that his client “personally committed to finding the best way to create sustainable companies, which in turn provided job security and good ­remuneration for employees’’.

“Mr Shorten also gave ­evidence that as AWU state secretary he relied on monthly ­reports and summaries put forward by AWU organisers to form a view on the appropriateness of the EBAs he signed off during the time he was secretary,” the submissions added.

Mr Zwier, who complained to the inquiry earlier this month when counsel assisting’s submissions were released on a Friday night, also slammed testimony from Julian Rzesniowiecki, formerly of construction joint venture Thiess John Holland.

Mr Rzesniowiecki’s evidence that Mr Shorten had agreed the company would pay for a union organiser on the worksite was “implausible and disingenuous”, the submission said.

Mr Rzesniowiecki, who faces possible criminal charges for ­allegedly making corrupt payments, denied acting with any dishonesty or criminal “intent” in his own submissions yesterday.

The inquiry also heard that Mr Melhem negotiated an extension of a Work Choices-era deal with Cleanevent after Mr Shorten left the union, through a memorandum of understanding, and negotiated a deal in a side-letter for the company to divert members to the union and make $25,000 yearly payments.

The AWU also rejected counsel’s argument that it breached its fiduciary duties to members, claiming “the MOU did not in any way bind individual employees”. Furthermore, Mr Melhem “was not the directing mind and will of the union” when he issued allegedly fraudulent invoices to Cleanevent, Thiess John Holland and glassmaker ACI.

Mr Melhem’s barrister declined to comment.