Note: Appeals pursuant to s.604 (C2012/1042 and C2012/5202) were lodged against this decision.

[2012] FWA 7654

Download Word Document

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 5 September 2012.

The document has been amended to correct typographical errors.

Laura Vogler

Associate to SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS

Dated 6 September 2012

[2012] FWA 7654


FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.418 - Application for an order that industrial action by employees or employers stop etc.

Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd
v
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers' Federation (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees
(C2012/5149)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS

BRISBANE, 5 SEPTEMBER 2012

Alleged industrial action at the Queensland Children's Hospital and Queensland Children's Hospital Energy Plant Project (the QCH Project).

[1] On 3 September 2012, Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd (“the Company”) lodged an application under s.418 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) seeking a stop order in respect of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (“CFMEU”), the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders' Labourers' Federation (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees (“BLF”) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (“CEPU”), and employees of the various subcontractors on the Queensland Children’s Hospital project (“QCH”) (which includes a multi-storey energy plant).

[2] The QCH is a major Queensland public health asset project, valued at some $800 million. Little or no work has been performed on the site since around 6 August 2012, which was the time I made orders [PR527573] (“the previous decision”) pursuant to an application by the Company under s.418 of the Act. Access to the site through the congregation of workers is severely limited.

[3] I have also dealt with a large number of dispute notices lodged by subcontractors in relation to the stoppage of work at the site. I issued a Statement [PR528556] at that time (on 29 August 2012). The Statement dealt with some of the circumstances relevant to the stoppage, and the consequences of the stoppage for the subcontractors and a number of their employees. I also proposed a meeting between the Company and the CFMEU under the auspices of Fair Work Australia (“FWA”) to discuss the issues and seek a basis on which work would resume on the site. The Company agreed to such discussions. The CFMEU indicated it was having discussions directly with the Company and did not elect to attend FWA for those purposes.

[4] This decision is expedited for reason that the stoppage and the severe limitation on site access which have arisen is long running. The situation is heightened by that very fact, along with some of the conduct issues, which have led to one arrest so far. The communications made on the site and elsewhere are sometimes unashamedly abusive, and there are also media and other reports of threats and intimidation which only fuel the current tensions. It is said by the Company that the cost of the stoppage per day (excluding RDOs) is in the order of $300,000 plus any contractual damages that might be levied by the Queensland State Government.

[5] The current application has a number of elements to it, and I will discuss each and make findings as I go along.

FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE CEPU

[6] In the previous application, I made no finding that the CEPU was organising industrial action or that members of the CEPU (in either of its divisional guises) were themselves taking unprotected industrial action. The services trades do not appear to have been involved in the initial walk-out, and only appear to have been unable to access their work site since the following day. The evidence before me at that time did not travel so far, therefore, to support any other finding at that time.

[7] There is a claim in the current application that some of the employees of the subcontractors are taking industrial action that is not in all likelihood to be protected industrial action. I agree that there is evidence of employees of the services trades who are members of or are eligible to be members of the CEPU who have taken unprotected industrial action. They have left site on some occasions for meetings with CEPU officials. 1 They have left site and participated in activities in support of the wider industrial action that I have found to be happening (see further below). Mr Brian Gildea also provided evidence that they have participated in a demonstration in support of the industrial action around the site.2

[8] Generally, it further appears from Mr Gildea’s observations, a large gathering of workers across the structural and services trades assembles each morning (other than on rostered RDOs), and then disperse, with no work being performed. 3

[9] It is difficult, however, on the evidence and the precision of those claims as made to identify that group sufficiently for purposes of an order so that those employees are distinguishable from those employees who are not performing work for reason of concerns for their safety and the inability to access the site owing to the presence at the various gates. More is needed before such time as I would make a stop order in the general terms as sought against employees of the subcontractors who are members of the CEPU (in either of its divisional guises). But having found that industrial action is happening and is being carried out by employees of the services trades who are members of or are eligible to be members of the CEPU, the Act requires that I must make a stop order as consequence.

[10] I will make an order, therefore, in relation to the industrial action that is happening and will make that order so that it applies to those employees who are members of or are eligible to be members of the CEPU, and who are employees of the subcontractors to the Company who are taking industrial action that is not protected industrial action. The order is therefore somewhat self-limiting.

[11] I have not previously made an order against this class of employees in relation to this site in the current context. That encourages me to make an order of a shorter duration. However, the overall situation on the site has been long running, the employees concerned have been participants in that situation, and an order of some length is warranted to ensure the site has an opportunity to achieve some degree of industrial stability and for the relationships between the parties to normalise. I will make the order for a duration of six months as a consequence.

[12] The wider evidence, as it relates to the CEPU, which is now before me, if only in highlights, is as follows.

[13] On the first full day of the stoppage and when site access was denied, Mr Chris Lynch, a CEPU organiser, was observed standing at the main site entrance on Graham Street, along with Mr Gary O’Halloran, another CEPU official, along with a large body of workers. When the workers were asked why they were not working, no comment was made. 4

[14] Mr Lynch and Mr O’Halloran subsequently addressed a meeting of service trades employees on an adjacent parkland. It appears that employees were informed their safety could not be guaranteed if they crossed the picket line. 5

[15] At 6:30 am on 16 August 2012, the CEPU held a meeting with workers who are members of or eligible to be members of that union (and who were employed in some cases by a number of subcontractors) in a car park nearby to the QCH. The operations manager for the Company was informed that at that meeting Mr Lynch, said words to the effect that:

[16] The evidence of the Company manager was that after that meeting the service trades workers did not return to work.

[17] Evidence was led by a CEPU industrial organiser who had spoken to Mr Lynch that Mr Lynch denied making the comment at (d) above. The evidence was that Mr Lynch did not deny it but could not strictly recall whether he made the comments in (a) and (b) above. No evidence was led to challenge the content of the comment in (c) above.

[18] The Company was also informed by subcontractor managers that Mr Lynch was also in attendance at a meeting of workers at Southbank on the morning of 20 August 2012. Further, a meeting of plumbing trade employees occurred in the CEPU office at South Brisbane, away from the site, on 20 August 2012, the same morning. 7 The plumbers were also called to a meeting, it appears at 6:30 am, at the CEPU's office in South Brisbane, away from the site, on 3 September 2012.8

[19] On 27 August 2012 the Company's evidence was that there was a “strong union presence” by the CEPU, including Mr Peter Ong who is an industrial organiser, Mr Lynch and Mr Mark Bateman, also organisers of the CEPU, and Mr Keith McKenzie, who the Company knows to be the strategic lead organiser of the CEPU.

[20] These organisers, who are from the electrical trades division of the CEPU and not the plumbing division, were in attendance at the site at 6:30 am on 27 August 2012 when a group of plumbers who congregated on a nearby corner, sought to attempt to return to work. The evidence is that the organisers stood only some few metres from the plumbers when they assembled.

[21] The Company was informed by subcontractor managers that Mr Jarrod Robinson, a CEPU organiser, Mr Lynch and Mr Ong were present at a subsequent meeting of the plumbers. By that time other workers were in attendance, photographic evidence of the direct attendance of the organisers on this occasion was in evidence.

[22] No plumbers attempted a return to work subsequently.

[23] The Company was further informed, this time by Logan City Electrical and Allied, both subcontractors to the Company, that Mr McKenzie (to whom reference is made above) addressed a meeting of their employees on 28 August 2012 in an attempt to persuade those workers to join in a march to the Company's head office in Southbank. It seems some did. 9 There is a further discussion of the activities and comments made on that day below.

[24] The CEPU (Mr Lynch in particular) has been in attendance at other times (such as 7, 8 and 9 August 2012) on the site and has addressed workers on some of those occasions. 10

[25] Mr Lynch was also in attendance on 30 August 2012 and 3 September 2012, and addressed employees at that time, according to Mr Gildea’s evidence. 11

CONSIDERATION

[26] Section 418(1) of the Act requires FWA to make an order that the industrial action stop, not occur or not be organised (as the case may be) for a period upon it appearing to FWA that industrial action by one or more employees or employers that is not, or would not be protected industrial action:

[27] The evidence in this matter does not all lead in one direction. There is evidence that the CEPU at one point stated at a meeting of the service trades that it did not support the industrial action being carried out by the BLF and the CFMEU. At the same meeting I note the CEPU organisers concerned did not recommend that their members cross the picket line owing to concerns with the consequences of so doing. 12

[28] On the evidence before me, however, the conduct of Mr Lynch, an organiser for the CEPU, moved beyond the simple communication of an observation made in the interest of public safety, that being the potential implications of crossing a picket line. Instead, Mr Lynch’s comments (being paragraphs (b) and (c) as cited earlier), when read together, constitute a communication the intent of which is to cause employees not to perform their duties in the ordinary manner and not to access their place of work for that very purpose. Indeed, Mr Lynch’s comments here may more appropriately characterise the actual intent of his other comments.

[29] It also appears to me from the evidence that the CEPU generally is conducting itself over time in a manner that is intended directly to dissuade its own members (and others) from performing work in the ordinary manner and accessing the QCH site for that very purpose. At times it has called meetings away from the site at which the employees ordinarily perform work. At other times, services trades employees left the site after being addressed by representatives (of both divisional branches) of the CEPU. 13

[30] In the contexts I have set out above, and notwithstanding the manner in which some of the relevant information has been conveyed to the Company, the presence of the CEPU on site has not been and is not a passive or disinterested one. Rather, it continues to be for a particular purpose: to advance and lend support to an industrial objective. The CEPU’s overall conduct on site cannot reasonably be explained otherwise.

[31] It appears to me therefore that by its conduct, the CEPU is organising industrial action for the purposes of s.418(1)(c) of the Act. And because I so find, I must make a stop order for a prescribed period of operation. I add that I have discussed in some limited way below the scope of meaning of the verb “organising” (for purposes of s.418(1)(c) of the Act) in the context of comments by a recent Full Bench of FWA.

[32] Given the circumstances, I will make an order that the CEPU not organise any industrial action on the site for a duration of six months. An order of this duration is needed in the context of the duration of the current stoppage, and the need for a reasonable period of time to be made available within which the site can achieve some measure of industrial stability. An order to this effect will issue along with this decision.

FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE CFMEU

Members of the CFMEU

[33] In the previous decision I found that employees who work at the QCH who are employed by any subcontractor to Abigroup and who are members of the CFMEU were taking what appeared to me to be industrial action that was not protected industrial action. My order in PR527573, issued on 6 August 2012 was to that effect.

[34] That evidence is unchanged by way of the proceedings in this matter. That industrial action is continuing to happen. My previous order was to no effect.

[35] Given that my order in PR527573 has now expired (as at 5.00 pm 3 September 2012), a stop order will be made pursuant to this application. In the circumstances, the order will apply for the duration of the QCH project. An order of such duration is necessary in my view for the site to stabilise, given the period of the stoppage and the attendant activities to date.

[36] An order to this effect will issue along with this decision.

The CFMEU

[37] In the decision of the Full Bench in AMWU v UGL Resources Pty Ltd; Conneq Infrastructure Services (Australia) Pty Ltd, 14 a finding was made to the effect that:

[38] The Full Bench went on to comment that the AMWU had not in any way “organised, aided, abetted, counselled, procured, induced or authorised any employees to engage in industrial action”. And further,

[39] Because of this, the relevant order which, amongst other things, imposed an obligation on the AMWU not to organise any industrial action was beyond jurisdiction.

[40] The continuing tense of the verb ‘organising’ appears to have some scope of meaning, and may extend to a range of conduct. The Full Bench as cited was of the view that for a union to be found to be organising industrial action, it must be found to be lending encouragement for the industrial action, or supporting the industrial action. The Full Bench also set out a series of other related notions, some being synonyms of the relevant verb (aiding, abetting etc).

[41] In what ways has the CFMEU been lending encouragement for or supporting the industrial action such that it could be said it was organising the industrial action?

[42] On 7 August 2012, on what appears to be the first full day on which the site was closed and access denied, Mr Gildea, Senior Project Manager, met Mr Mick Myles, a BLF Organiser, standing with his arms crossed at the Eastern gate to the site. Mr Gildea asked him what he was doing there and Mr Myles gave the response that he was:

[43] The workers were at that time bound by my order of the previous day to not take unprotected industrial action, which they had continued to take.

[44] Later that morning Mr Gildea gave evidence that Mr Myles and Mr Mark O’Brien (organiser for the CFMEU) were at the Raymond Terrace corner to the site, and when asked why they were still there (when some 400 workers had already gone home some time earlier) they replied:

[45] On that same morning (7 August 2012) Mr Mick Myles was involved in an incident which concerned an effort by Mr Gildea to allow entry for some workers who had requested site access. Mr Myles spoke to the workers as they attempted to enter. When asked what he said to the workers Mr Myles said (according to Mr Gildea):

[46] Mr Gildea observed other persons taking up positions at the entrances that morning, such as CFMEU site delegate Mr Steve McIntyre. Mr McIntrye (CFMEU delegate) and Mr Tony Floro (BLF delegate) were stationed or positioned at the Energy Plant and were photographed doing so. 20 The following day (8 August 2012) Mr Mick Myles (BLF) was at the Eastern gate from very early morning (though various delegates appear to have moved around the site entrances over the day).

[47] On that day (8 August 2012) Mr Gildea came to commence a conversation with employees of a concreting subcontractor that had arrived on site, and asked them if they had grievances of any kind. Mr Myles and Mr O’Brien walked over to the group and Mr Myles said words to the effect that:

[48] Later that day on 8 August 2012, Mr Myles, who had observed Mr Gildea speaking with the Fair Work Building and Construction (“FWBC”) was later to walk down Graham Street shouting that the Company was:

[49] At around 7.30 am that morning, it appears that BBQ equipment was set up on site by representatives of the BLF and CFMEU (Mr Mick Myles and Mr McIntyre) and later removed by Mr McIntyre. 21 Mr Myles later set up a marquee in Graham Street.22 The union presence appears to have dissipated around 1.30 pm when various materials, including BLF and CFMEU flags were removed.23

[50] The following day Mr Joe Myles (BLF delegate) and Mr Kane Pearson (Assistant State Secretary of the BLF) and Mr O’Brien of the CFMEU were on site. A truck also appeared on site in Graham Street. The truck depicted large photographs of the Company’s senior executives and criticised their remuneration packages relative to those of the employees. Mr Myles of the BLF had charge of the keys to the vehicle and appeared to be in charge of its movements. 24 Later, with the site again largely empty, Mr Gildea observed Mr Pearson, Mr O’Brien, Mr Lynch and Mr Joe Myles standing next to the truck.

[51] At around the same time, on 9 August 2012, Mr David Vicenzino, a Building Manager for the Company, had a conversation on the telephone with Mr Bud Neiland who he knew to be an organiser with the CFMEU. Mr Vicenzino’s evidence in this regard was in the form of an affidavit, sworn on 9 August 2012, and filed in the Federal Magistrate's Court of Australia for other proceedings. 25

[52] In that affidavit, Mr Vicenzino declares that Mr Neiland, in response to the question “why is this happening?”, stated words to the effect that, “Abigroup is not doing a new union EBA with the CFMEU”. Mr Neiland was also said to have commented in the same conversation that, “your agreement does not have a subcontractors clause”; “we need to tie up as many companies as possible before Labor are out”; “your sister companies has a union agreement, why don't you?”; “you have a non-union agreement, so how can we nibble (sic) the Tier 2 if we do not have Abigroup on board”; we'll [CFMEU] leave us [Abigroup] alone on other sites but QCH will have a union EBA so unions can go bash shit heads you [Abigroup] compete with.”

[53] Mr Gildea also gave evidence about the activities of a person by the name of Mr David Strano on and around the site. Mr Strano is not an employee of the Company or any subcontractor. On 20 August 2012, Mr Gildea saw Mr Strano with other persons prevent access to the site by a hoist operator on the site (a function critical to the performance of work on a construction site). 26

[54] Mr Strano is however identified in a BLF publication some nine months previously as being a person who had been of considerable assistance in an earlier industrial campaign against a building construction company. The BLF article reads in part as follows:

[55] Mr Strano was observed at the gathering of workers of 28 August 2012 (as referred to earlier). At that time he was said to be wearing a t-shirt with the words “Scab Hunter” on its front. 27

[56] An unidentified person appears to have been involved in incidents concerning the use of a laser pointer being shone in the eyes at close range of a security guard on the site. 28

[57] There appears to have been some antagonism between Mr Strano and a security guard, which resulted in an offer to engage in physical confrontation in a park after the security guard’s shift had finished (at 6.00 am).

[58] Mr Strano was subsequently seen shining the laser at a security guard from his vehicle. The laser light was also shone in Mr Gildea’s face. It appears Mr Strano was subsequently arrested and released on bail because of his conduct in this regard.

[59] Mr Strano was involved in other incidents on 20 August 2012 and 31 August 2012 around the site. On 20 August 2012 Mr Strano was active in barring entry to employees who were trying to seek access to the site. At that time Mr Strano refused to provide his name to the Company and said only that he was “a concerned citizen”.  29

[60] On 31 August 2012 Mr Strano was active in ensuring that a truck delivery was not completed. Mr Strano was standing with Mr Troy James, a BLF delegate at the time. 30

[61] At that time Mr Strano identified himself as the representative of the employees who were blocking entrance to the site at the time. There is DVD material providing digital audio visual footage of some of Mr Strano’s activities.

[62] When the truck appeared Mr Strano made it clear that, “we are not moving and the Company are scams for working and not supporting the workers.”

[63] Mr Strano and Mr Troy James engaged with police in relation to the truck incident. The incident dissipated when the truck driver ceased to continue with the loading of the gear and left the site. Mr James, I add, was a frequent attendee on the site for the duration of the relevant period.

[64] Mr James, for example, was in attendance at a concrete pour on 10 August 2012 with another BLF delegate (Mr Floro) and another individual in a black hood who would not identify himself. A number of other workers joined this group. 31

[65] The concrete workers felt intimidated by the presence of the group and the concrete pour was cancelled. This was met with applause from those who had assembled in proximity to the pour.

[66] At later times, such as on 16 August 2012, the BLF delegate acted so as to direct persons away to another location on the site perimeter when Mr Gildea sought to explain various issues to them. The BLF delegate appeared to exercise control of the movements of these people around the site. 32

[67] On 28 August 2012 it appears the employees exited the site with the intention of marching to the Company’s office in South Bank, where a union presence had been established for the week, involving such people as Mr James, Mr Floro and Mr McIntrye.

[68] The various organisers and delegates were in attendance outside the Company’s offices. A speaker system was provided by the CFMEU, and various union paraphernalia was handed out. A former union organiser addressed the crowd and made claims about the importance of every worker being offered the same rate of pay, that the Company supported a $20 per hour ordinary rate for employees, and that the Company needed to sign a union EBA. These issues allude to the issues which underpin the current industrial action.

[69] Following the conclusion of the speeches the workers left the head office in a coordinated manner, according to Mr McCann, seemingly to attend at other construction sites. 33

CONSIDERATION

[70] I have not had regard in this decision to all of the material evidence available to me. I have attempted to summarise as much of the evidence that I can in the circumstances that affords a reasonable perspective on the case presented by the Company, and which also allows me an opportunity to characterise objectively the conduct of the various parties over a period of time, and through an array of discrete and related activities.

[71] As I have mentioned above in relation to my consideration of the application in relation to the CEPU, s.418 of the Act requires, in effect, that if it appears to me that industrial action of the relevant species is occurring and is not protected industrial action, I must make an order to the requisite end.

[72] The circumstances of this application require that I carefully evaluate the evidence to determine whether the CFMEU is organising industrial action for the purposes of s.418(1)(c) of the Act.

[73] It appears to me that on the whole, the evidence leads to a conclusion that the CFMEU (including the BLF divisional branch) is lending encouragement and supporting the industrial action which is happening at multiple levels. The evidence is that the CFMEU is not a passive or disinterested spectator to the decision-making of the employees who are taking unprotected industrial action. Rather, the concentration of CFMEU and BLF officials and delegates at the site and elsewhere over time has been for the purpose of aiding, supporting and encouraging the stoppage of work and to ensure that work as ordinarily performed on site cannot take place.

[74] It was put to me that Mr Strano’s conduct cannot be associated with that of any union. For purposes of clarity, I do not consider that Mr Strano is a “concerned citizen”, as he apparently said he was. Mr Strano has identified himself as an employee representative, and his conduct (in all respects) was such as to support an organised industrial objective. He is a person well-known to the BLF and who has in previous times by his conduct demonstrated support for particular industrial causes on construction sites and been commended by the BLF for his efforts in this regard. Mr Strano appears to have been accompanied by Mr James, a delegate of the BLF at various times. In my view, Mr Strano is a person who is an effective agent for the purposes of the BLF. He currently appears to be legally restrained from direct attendance at the site.

[75] It was also put to me that I should make no order against the CFMEU because there is no evidence that there is any conduct by the CFMEU (including the BLF) that is happening or taking place contemporaneously with the industrial action. It appears to me that the CFMEU through its various officials has been lending encouragement for and supporting the industrial action over a period of time and I see no reason to believe those efforts will not continue or have ceased to be current. The evidence led in these proceedings by Mr McCann is quite recent indeed - referring to events on 28 August 2012. These are events that cannot be characterised as being in some manner taken in isolation from the wider industrial action and the reasons that underpinned that industrial action. It would be wholly unreasonable for me to conclude otherwise on the weight of the materials before me.

[76] Again, given the evidence which I have set out, it appears to me that the CFMEU (by which I also mean to include the BLF) is organising industrial action for purposes of s.418(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently I must make an order that the organisation of industrial action by the CFMEU must stop.

[77] An order to that effect will issue along with this decision. The order will bind the CFMEU as a corporate entity. In the circumstances, the duration of the order will be six months. An order of this duration is required to ensure the site has an opportunity, after such a long stoppage and the various incidents over the course of that stoppage, to return to industrial stability.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr J. Murdoch of Counsel for the Applicant.

Mr White of Counsel for the CEPU (electrical division)

Ms E. Thornton, solicitor for the CEPU (plumbing division0

Mr T. O’Brien for the CFMEU

Hearing details:

2012.

Brisbane.

3 September.

 1   For example see Exhibit A1 Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012.

 2   Exhibit A1 Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012.

 3   Exhibit A1 Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012.

 4   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 -Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012 at PN 27.

 5   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 -Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012 at PN 30.

 6   Exhibit A5 Supplementary Statutory Declaration of Timothy Martin McCann dated 3 September 2012 at PN 6.

 7   Exhibit A1 Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012 at PN 18.

 8   Exhibit A2 Supplementary Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012.

 9   Exhibit A1 Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012.

 10   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012 and Annexure BG-5 Affidavit of Mr Brian Gildea sworn on 13 August 2012.

 11   Exhibit A2 Supplementary Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012.

 12   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-5 Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 13 August 2012.

 13   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012 Annexure BG-7.

 14   [2011] FWAFB 4777, 21 July 2011.

 15   AMWU v UGL Resources Pty Ltd; Conneq Infrastructure Services (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 4777, 21 July 2011 at PN 20.

 16   AMWU v UGL Resources Pty Ltd; Conneq Infrastructure Services (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 4777, 21 July 2011 at PN 22.

 17   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012 at PN 26.

 18   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012

 19   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012.

 20   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012 Annexure BG-21.

 21   See Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012 Annexure BG-3 and Annexure BG-5.

 22   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012.

 23   See Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012 Annexure BG-26.

 24   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012 Annexure BG-28.

 25   Exhibit A3 Statutory Declaration of Ms Hilary Elizabeth Elaine Searing dated 3 September 2012 Annexure HES 1.

 26   Exhibit A1 Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012.

 27   Exhibit A1 Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012.

 28   Exhibit A2 Supplementary Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012.

 29   Exhibit A1 Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012.

 30   Exhibit A2 Supplementary Statutory Declaration of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea dated 3 September 2012.

 31   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012 Annexure BG-5.

 32   Exhibit A1 Annexure BG-3 - Affidavit of Mr Brian Gerard Gildea sworn on 9 August 2012 Annexure BG-7.

 33   Exhibit A5 Supplementary Statutory Declaration of Mr Timothy Martin McCann dated 3 September 2012.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR528778>