Labor set to impose dictatorial powers over construction union
Any dictator would be proud.
Labor is set to ram through legislation to fast-track a court-ordered administration of the CFMEU, the main construction industry union. Court documents show that if the order takes effect, 268 elected office-bearers of the union, from state branch secretaries to branch committee members, would be dismissed and replaced by a single unelected administrator unaccountable to any of the union’s members.
In practice, the administrator would legally become the union—federally and in every state and territory except Western Australia and the ACT.
From Darwin to Hobart, all union property in the “possession, custody or power” of any of the 268 dismissed union office bearers would have to be handed over to the administrator. This includes “without limitation” items belonging to the union such as “cars, building/security passes, credit cards, devices such as mobile phones and laptops, passwords or other access requirements for email accounts, social media accounts or other communication channels”. The dismissed office bearers would also be ordered to give the administrator “any documents” related to “the affairs of the CFMEU”.
Large sections of the union’s rule book would be declared void, and the administrator could expel anyone for up to four years.
Union employees such as organisers and office staff would initially retain their jobs. However, the administrator would have the power to sack anyone at any point. Elected officials such as state secretaries and other executive members would have their paid positions terminated as soon as the administration starts.
Meanwhile, the administrator would draw a salary from the CFMEU “at the rate of remuneration payable to a Vice President of the Fair Work Commission”—$643,640 per year, plus travel and allowances. The administrator could appoint a limitless number of assistants, also paid for by union members. And the administrator is indemnified in advance for any claim arising from their conduct during the administration.
These are extraordinary powers. They go far beyond the measures taken by federal and state Labor governments to smash the Builders Labourers’ Federation in 1986, part of Labor’s strategy to impose class collaboration on the Australian trade union movement.
On that occasion, despite its deregistration, the Victorian branch of the BLF was able to maintain its structures, operate out of its building, hire organisers and pay officials. That continuity—and substantial support from labourers on the job—enabled the union to survive as an unregistered rebel union in Victoria. The BLF fought some major disputes until it eventually merged into the CFMEU in 1993. As the federal government and various media commentators have noted, the appointment of an administrator is designed to prevent any such possibility today.
At least as appalling as the powers given to the administrator are the purposes to which these powers would be put.
Any decent unionist should see the presence of organised criminal gangs (who operate as ruthless capitalists, after all) as a red line. As Red Flag has previously discussed, regular election of delegates, full accountability to the membership about any removal of organisers or other office bearers, and a revival of organising and industrial action are crucial to establishing the sort of union democracy that would empower the rank and file to clean house.
The proposed administration of the CFMEU does none of these things. In fact, it does the opposite. The way to renew democratic norms in the union is not to abolish democracy altogether and hand power to a state-appointed administrator. If we take the Fair Work Commission’s statements and legal documents at face value, administration will dramatically weaken the CFMEU’s industrial effectiveness.
This is all supposedly about ensuring that the CFMEU is “enabled to function effectively”. The court documents abound with platitudes about “efficient management”, “high standards of accountability of organisations and their office holders to their members”, and “democratic functioning and control of organisations”.
But the remit of the administrator goes far beyond weeding out corruption or organised criminal gangs. The administrator is empowered to “establish and implement policies” to ensure the union “will be able to operate lawfully and effectively”. We get a clue about what these policies might be by looking at the list of “important facts giving rise to the claim” laid out by the manager of the Fair Work Commission in their application to the Federal Court.
First on this list is that, since 2003, there have been 213 proceedings against the CFMEU for allegedly breaking federal workplace laws. Those proceedings have resulted in 2,600 “adverse findings” against the union and its members—and $28 million in penalties.
It’s a scandal that these fines were levied in the first place. Many of the charges stemmed from the union’s officials walking onto building sites without giving notice to the boss—and inspecting sites, not just sitting in whatever designated area a boss tried to confine them to.
Many fines were levied for routine industrial action that is part and parcel of winning and keeping any gains. For instance, $242,000 for disrupting a concrete pour in Melbourne in 2017, a disruption that lasted “about 10 minutes”, according to the Federal Court judgement. Contrast that with the $50,000 a Melbourne concrete pumping company was fined last year after neglecting proper equipment inspections, which resulted in a workplace death.
Further down the list of Fair Work’s “important facts giving rise to the claim” are these two allegations: “threatening that construction industry participants that did not have enterprise agreements with the CFMEU would be banned from building projects”, and “threatening to close down projects unless particular construction industry participants were removed from the project”.
In other words, the aim is to penalise the CFMEU for doing the absolute basics of unionism: ensuring the union rate on the whole job and preventing contractors who undermine this from getting the work.
“These sheep will be shorn union, or they won’t be shorn at all” is a line from one of the best-known celebrations of the 1891 shearers’ strike. The Fair Work Commission and the Labor Party seem to want to rewrite it: “These sheep might be shorn union, but heaven forbid that anyone actually tries to enforce the union rate”.
This might matter most in civil construction. The CFMEU in Victoria has long ignored the Australian Workers’ Union’s claim to exclusive coverage on roads, tunnels and rail projects. To the credit of the CFMEU in NSW and Queensland, the union is also fighting for coverage on civil projects in those states.
The stakes are high. A quick comparison of the enterprise agreement struck by the CFMEU Queensland branch with Lend Lease for civil construction in March, and the miserable deal that the AWU signed with the Brisbane Cross River Rail contractor CPB in 2019, shows a stark difference. Shift work gets double time in the CFMEU deal (versus a 50 percent loading in the AWU deal); there’s a 1:5 apprentice ratio (versus no enforceable commitment to apprentice employment); there must be women’s toilets on site (versus no commitment); union inductions (versus an explicit prohibition on union inductions); and a matter of life and death—a detailed heat policy (versus no enforceable procedure in the AWU/ CPB enterprise agreement).
That the Queensland branch of the CFMEU has been included in Albanese’s proposed administration is one indicator of what a vicious and undemocratic assault Labor is carrying out. The allegations of criminal gangs having influence in the CFMEU are centred overwhelmingly in Victoria and New South Wales. The main “crime” of the CFMEU in Queensland seems to be pursuing a vigorous industrial campaign of strikes and pickets, which should be supported by all unionists.
If anyone needed proof, the court documents show that the proposed administration of the CFMEU is the enemy of union democracy and industrial action. This means it can’t get to the root of the corruption and criminal activity that the administration claims to address. This attack is designed to deal a serious blow against the idea that unions should fight for their members’ interests through strikes, pickets, and, on occasion, defying unjust anti-union laws.
