Hands up all who have read transcripts
from the Cole Royal Commission into the
Building and Construction Industry. Bugger
all? Well that will suit Tony Abbott,
whose plan to write unions out of the
construction industry script is entirely
dependent on the average Aussie being
kept in the dark.
Much play has been made, by Abbott and
the media, of 392 Commission findings
of "unlawful conduct", the vast
majority against the CFMEU and its officers.
Well, let's go there, noting that Cole
and Abbott have been careful to use the
word "unlawful" rather than
"illegal". How do these findings
stack up against the claims on which the
Workplace Relations Minister and his Office
of the Employment Advocate justified the
Royal Commission, namely that the industry
was characterised by widespread standover
tactics and corruption?
Advertisement
Below are the essence of Cole's first
three findings against the CFMEU's NSW
branch and, believe me, they give an accurate
flavour of what follows …
- "Murphy, in that capacity, entered
the Whitehaus Apartments site on 24
April 2002 and did not notify the occupier
of the premises of his presence as soon
as was reasonably practicable;
"on the material before me, I am
satisfied that Daniel Murphy, an organiser
for the Construction, Forestry, Mining
and Engergy Union, engaged in unlawful
conduct".
- "Fryer, in that capacity, entered
the Whitehaus Apartments site on 24
April 2002 and did not notify the occupier
of the premises of his presence as soon
as was reasonably practicable;
"on the material before me, I am
satisfied that Lincoln Fryer, … engaged
in unlawful conduct".
- "Smith, in that capacity, attended
the Whitehaus Apartments site on 28
May 2001, stopped work on the site and
held discussions with employees during
working hours outside of meal-time,
or other break times;
"on the material before me, I am
satisfied that Phillip Smith … engaged
in unlawful conduct".
Fair dinkum, Cole has uncovered the industrial
equivalent of jay walking and recommended
the equivalent of the death penalty.
He has come up with 212 recommendations
designed to ensure that building workers
have no effective voice in their industry.
This is not just an argument that Cole's
"unlawful" findings are so far
from the Abbott-Hamberger predictions
that they should be overlooked, however.
Far from it, his Commission was so flawed,
so inherently biased, that its findings
and recommendations should be rejected
in their entirety.
Alan Jones, hardly a trade union activist,
was on the money when he advised Abbott
to use the report as a door stop on a
Canberra garage.
Advertisement
The Commission process was highlighted
when it opened its Sydney hearings in
June last year. Its investigators had
been trawling NSW for three months looking
for rorts and had prepared around 110
witness statements. Four or five were
overviews from peak bodies, the rest,
without exception, were allegations of
wrong doing against trade unionists. It
beggars belief that a $60 million Commission
couldn't discover one misdemeanour by
any employer right across the state.
Since then, about a dozen individuals
have revealed they made serious allegations
against non-union parties only to be told
their testimonies would not be needed.
The result was a parade of rip-off artists
making accusations against the CFMEU and
its members.
They made lurid claims. Many which hogged
the headlines have since been shown to
have been false. Others were accepted
by Cole, in the face of outright denials,
and evidence that the accusers, themselves,
were engaged in unlawful and even, downright
illegal, activities.
But this Commission wasn't established
to shine a torch into their worlds. How
else can you explain the fact that both
the ATO and, eventually, Cole accept there
is widespread tax evasion by employers
but the Commissioner's report does not
make one finding of tax evasion against
a single employer, anywhere in Australia?
Cole's report opens its section on "Bricklaying
and Masonry" with a classic example
of its modus operandi…
"Mr Andrew Clifford Ball is a sole
trader trading as Ingleside Bricklaying,"
Cole writes.
"Ball engages his employees on a
casual basis. He has individual employment
contracts with his workers. Ball pays
no Construction & Building Unions
Superannuation Fund (or any other superannuation),
Australian Construction Industry Redundancy
Trust or Coverforce Top-Up Accident Scheme
contributions for his workers. The evidence
of Ball would support the conclusion that
he has little or no regard for complying
with statutory obligations with respect
to his employees."
Against that background, Cole accepts
every allegation Ball has made and, on
that basis, finds 15 separate inappropriate
actions by union officials.
This was the Commission in a nutshell.
A shonk would drop a bucket, on the way
through he would reveal himself as a tax
cheat, super defaulter, exploiter of illegal
immigrants, or worse, an operator of unsafe
sites.
It never appears to cross Cole's mind
that these "inappropriate" or
"illegal" actions might just
explain the union responses he finds so
offensive.
The CFMEU contends it must take an active
interest in tax fraud, super rip-offs
and safety issues in an industry built
on lowest-tender contracts. That to do
otherwise would expose the workforce,
its members, to plumetting living standards,
insecurity, serious injury and even death.
Cole, and those who assisted him at the
Commission, simply reject this. The reaction
of Counsel Assisting to a Queensland dispute
in which unionists defend their actions
by tendering evidence of a worker falling
down a lift shaft; dozens of photos of
safety problems; and a video highlighting
more than 100 safety issues, is most instructive.
"In our submission" Counsel
Assisting tell Cole, "for every practical
purpose it is meaningless to ask whether
any workplace, in particular a large building
site is safe … We therefore do not proposed
to consider whether the Nambour site was
safe."
There you go, that small matter out of
the way, they ask for dozens of adverse
findings against unionists who had based
the whole of their defence on safety concerns.
In Cole's view compliance is none of
the union's business. In fact, very little
is.
The industrial landscape, redrawn by
Cole, would limit unions to negotiating
contracts once every two or three years
and only then after being invited by a
majority ballot on every site. Other than
that, they can get back in their boxes
and keep their sticky beaks out of the
proper functioning of the market.
If they don't they will face a range
of fines and the possibility of imprisonment,
or alternatively, deregistration of their
organisation. All of these options to
be policed and prosecuted by a special
Building Industry Commission.
There may well be suggestions of merit
buried amongst Cole's 6900 pages. After
all, a strong bias and a demonstrable
lack of understanding of industrial relations
do not mean the man is thick.
Unfortunately, though, we will never
know because the process was so wretched
that each and every result is questionable.
Your average building worker could have
told the Commissioner that sloppy foundations
and poor raw materials make for an ordinary
outcome. Then again, all the evidence
suggests, they would have been the last
people he would have asked.