The drastic measures CFMEU members took to avoid alleged coercion

Members of the CFMEU who alleged they were coerced into voting for industrial action took huge steps to protect themselves including insisting on anonymous statements.

Pictures of industrial action at Cross River Rail sites on April 30, 2024 submitted to the Federal Court against the CFMEU,

Members of the CFMEU who alleged they were coerced into voting for industrial action were so afraid of reprisals for speaking out they insisted on anonymous statements and even had concerns their handwriting would be recognised.

The allegations are contained in bombshell court documents obtained by The Courier-Mail in Cross River Rail contractor CPB’s case against the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union claiming damages for relentless industrial action by members.

A number of CFMEU members provided confidential statements to CPB when the company unsuccessfully applied to the Federal Court for an injunction preventing a vote taken for industrial action in April last year from being counted amid allegations of coercion.

In an affidavit filed by CPB’s lawyers, it was alleged members were concerned CFMEU organisers “would be able to find out which employees had provided the statements; which site the employees had worked on; and that they would recognise the employee’s handwriting”.

One of the members alleged two organisers told a number of CPB employees they would “find who had submitted these statements”.

“Voter C then told me that they were afraid the CFMEU would get a copy of the handwritten statements and post them on their Facebook page,” an industrial relations manager told the court.

CFMEU near the Cross River Rail, Roma St work site, Brisbane city – Photo Steve Pohlner

“I understood that the employee was concerned this would make it easier for the large number of member (sic) of that Facebook group to identify their handwritten statement, and would increase the risk they would be harassed and intimidated by persons in that Facebook group, once identified.

“That employee told me that they were aware that other workers on the Albert Street Station site had been subject to harassment and intimidation after videos were posted on the CFMEU Facebook page.”

For that reason, some typed and redacted copies of statements were prepared for the court.

The CFMEU successfully argued the statements from unnamed members were hearsay and inadmissable.

“The entirety of the evidence that the applicant moves on to establish a serious question to be tried consists of second-hand accounts from anonymous sources,” the CFMEU’s lawyers submitted.

“The respondents object to that evidence.”

The union also argued even if the hearsay evidence was admitted – it was of “very little weight”.

“The motivations behind making them (the statements) cannot be tested,” they said.

It was argued one worker suspected to be behind one of the statements “has an animus against the union”.

Justice Darryl Rangiah dismissed the statements as hearsay, saying they were from seven of a group of 212 eligible to vote.

Originally published as The drastic measures CFMEU members took to avoid alleged coercion