[2014] FWC 3907

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009
s.508 - Application to restrict rights if organisation or official has misused permit rights

Fair Work Commission
(RE2013/1710)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN

ADELAIDE, 13 JUNE 2014

Section 508 misuse of entry rights - Full Bench findings - action under s.508(2) - suspension and notification requirements.

[1] This decision relates to a matter commenced of the Fair Work Commission’s (FWC) own motion, pursuant to s.508 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act). That matter commenced on 11 November 2013 and initially concerned entries, on 30 October 2013, by officials of the South Australian branch of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) to sites controlled by Lend Lease. The matter was later expanded to include later entries onto those sites and to entries onto sites controlled by other companies.

[2] These matters have been the subject of a number of procedural decisions. One of these decisions, made on 23 December 2013 1 concluded that the circumstances of what I referred to as the Lend Lease entries represented serious, deliberate and sustained misuse of entry rights by the CFMEU. That decision foreshadowed that the matter would be relisted for consideration of the actions that might be taken by the FWC as a consequence of these findings.

[3] The 23 December 2013 decision, together with earlier procedural decisions 2 were appealed by the CFMEU. The Appeal Bench has subsequently issued two decisions. On 28 February 2014 a decision3 was issued dismissing the appeal with respect to the issue of an apprehension of bias. The remaining appeal matters were considered in a decision4 issued on 24 April 2014.

[4] That appeal decision found:

[5] The Full Bench then proceeded to review the circumstances relative to the Lend Lease entries. It made the following findings:

[6] With respect to the Lend Lease entries, the Full Bench concluded:

[7] On 30 April 2014 I issued directions advising that the issue of what, if any, action should be taken under s.508(2) of the FW Act would be considered at a hearing on 29 May 2014. Submissions were provided by the CFMEU, Lend Lease and Fair Work Building and Construction (FWB&C) in advance of this hearing.

[8] In the hearing, the CFMEU was represented by Mr Reitano, of counsel. Lend Lease was represented by Mr Putland of the Master Builders Association of South Australia and Fair Work Building and Construction (FWB&C) by Mr Roder, of counsel.

[9] The CFMEU position 5 was that:

[10] The CFMEU relied upon a statement filed by Carita Kazakoff, 6 an associate of Slater and Gordon Lawyers in which Ms Kazakoff detailed the CFMEU personnel who attended a training presentation she provided in Adelaide and the content of that training which dealt with the rights and obligations of permit holders under Part 3-4 of the FW Act and the legal and practical implications of the Full Bench appeal decision. The CFMEU asserted this training evidenced its acceptance of responsibility and provided a basis for some confidence that it was unlikely that the conduct identified as misuse in the Full Bench decision would be repeated. The CFMEU position was that whilst the Secretary of its South Australian Branch, Mr Cartledge did not attend that training, he intended to do so.

[11] The CFMEU position was that the Full Bench referred 7 to a CFMEU strategy which was not subsequently fully articulated. The CFMEU asserted that, properly read, the Full Bench Decision identified misuses at four different sites on 30 October 2013, a further entry at one of those sites on 8 November 2013 and three further entries on another site on 31 October, 5 November and 13 November 2013. The CFMEU position was that the entries were for relatively short periods of time but there was no evidence about this or findings relevant to it by the Full Bench. The CFMEU asserted that all but one of the entries involved a failure to give the requisite 24 hours notice and that this gave rise to the hindering of managers undertaking their planned activities. The CFMEU asserted that one entry involved a failure to comply with a request to "sign in", two involved walking onto a site without authority and, one, a failure to comply with the appropriate clothing policy. Two misuses involved asserting a demand for a full-time delegate and one misuse involved a demand to fly the CFMEU flag. One misuse involved moving some bunting. As such, the CFMEU asserted that:8

[12] Notwithstanding its position that the misuses found by the Full Bench did not involve findings of a serious nature, the CFMEU argued that the only conclusion that could be drawn from the Full Bench decision related to the nominated Lend Lease sites.

[13] The CFMEU acknowledged that no undertakings relative to its future behaviours had been provided but asserted that, given the training which had been undertaken and the absence of any evidence indicating that the misuses identified by the Full Bench had continued beyond the period in question, its compliance with normal entry requirements should now be accepted.

[14] Taking these considerations into account, the CFMEU argued that the FWC should refrain from making any orders in this matter. In the alternative, it argued that any orders should be suspended subject to continuing compliance with legislative right of entry requirements and a requirement that Mr Cartledge undertake training could be similarly incorporated.

[15] The Lend Lease position was that the Full Bench decision identified 80 instances of misuse of entry rights over a 15 day period and that these misuses represented "deliberate, serious and sustained misuse of rights of entry designed to achieve an industrial objective outside the terms of their recently ratified enterprise agreement". 9

[16] Lend Lease asserted that the Full Bench findings identified a significant number and manner of misuses such that FWC should exercise the discretion inherent in s.508(2) so as to establish appropriate boundaries for the exercise of rights of entry powers consistent with the objects and scheme of Part 3-4 of the FW Act. In this respect Lend Lease referred to the position adopted by Watson SDP in ABCC v McLoughlin 10 in the following terms:

[17] Lend Lease asserted:

[18] Lend Lease provided a draft order to this effect.

[19] The FWB&C position with respect to the Lend Lease entries was that the Full Bench decision confirmed "multiple instances of misuse of those rights on the Adelaide Oval project over a two-week period, the Adelaide Convention Centre project, the Tonsley Park TAFE project and the Tonsley Park Flinders University project" 11 and that this misuse of rights was part of a deliberate executive strategy in relation to the Lend Lease sites.

[20] FWB&C submitted that the FWC should take action under s.508 which was directed at avoiding disruptive entry into workplaces and the misuse of right of entry laws. The FWB&C position was that: 12

[21] I note that no new evidence was given with respect to the Lend Lease entries at the hearing on 29 May 2014. In this respect, the Full Bench decision 13 made clear the significance of enabling the CFMEU, Lend Lease and FWB&C to have a proper opportunity to address the actions which should follow with respect to the established misuses. I note that the submissions put to me differed relative to the significance attached to the misuses identified by the Full Bench. I have later set out my position in this respect. I also note that I have not been provided with any evidence relative to behaviours and actions which may have occurred since the matter was last before me. Consequently, my consideration of the matter remitted to me is based on the evidence before me.

Findings

[22] Section 508 states:

[23] This section is part of a comprehensive series of provisions which govern rights of entry onto premises, the purpose of those entries and the conduct of those entries. Section 480 sets out the objects of this part of the FW Act in the following terms:

[24] I have considered s.508 and Part 3-4 in the context of the misuses confirmed by the Full Bench. Before dealing with the individual misuses found by the Full Bench, I have summarised the Full Bench findings and have concluded that those misuses should be described as significant in number and scale. They involved multiple actions taken by a number of CFMEU officials on four Lend Lease sites over some 15 days. 14 The majority of these misuses involved a failure to give notice of entry as was required by the FW Act and, to the extent that entries occurred without notice, those entries hindered the Lend Lease managers by distracting them from their planned activities. Additionally, the misuses involved making demands the purposes for which rights of entry do not extend and failing to comply with signage requirements and instructions and reasonable requests made of officials. In the vast majority the misuses found by the Full Bench were part of a general strategy.15 The misuses represent an organisational misuse of entry rights.16

[25] In terms of the Adelaide Oval project, the evidence before the Full Bench was that on 30 October 2013 the entries involved six CFMEU officials, that these officials broke into two groups and that the officials made a demand in relation to a permanent delegate. The Full Bench finding was that:

[26] The evidence before the Full Bench was that, on 31 October 2013, the entries involved four officials and that one of these officials separated from the others whilst on the site. The Full Bench finding was that:

[27] The evidence before the Full Bench was that, on 5 November 2013 Mr Cartledge misused Part 3-4 rights. The Full Bench finding was that:

[28] The evidence before the Full Bench was that, on 13 November Mr McDermott of the CFMEU entered the site on two occasions. The Full Bench accepted that the evidence was that, on one of these entries, Mr McDermott interfered with bunting marking an exclusion zone. 17 The Full Bench conclusion was that this constituted a misuse of entry rights.

[29] In terms of the Adelaide Convention Centre, the evidence before the Full Bench was that on 30 October 2013 multiple officials of the CFMEU entered the site. The Full Bench finding was that:

[30] In terms of the Tonsley Park TAFE site, the evidence before the Full Bench was that on 30 October 2013 five CFMEU officials entered the site and dispersed whilst walking around the site. The Full Bench concluded that the first visit to this site on that day involved the use of Part 3-4 entry rights. The Full Bench finding was that:

[31] The evidence before the Full Bench was that on 8 November 2013 there was a further entry using rights under Part 3-4 of the FW Act on the part of multiple officials. The Full Bench concluded that these officials failed to provide the required notice and, to that extent hindered the Lend Lease managers. 18

[32] In terms of the Tonsley Park Flinders University project, the evidence before the Full Bench was that on 30 October 2013 there were two visits. The first visit involved four CFMEU officials entering the site and, whilst on the site, broke into two groups. A fifth official entered the site after the initial four. The Full Bench concluded:

[33] The Full Bench considered the second entry on that day and concluded that this was for the purpose of making a demand in relation to the positioning of the CFMEU flag and causing an employee to reposition that flag into the position it preferred. The Full Bench was not satisfied that this entry was for a purpose which Part 3-4 rights exists and that it did not involve the use of Part 3-4 entry rights. 19

[34] In my decision 20 I considered the evidence before me as the basis for the findings made. That evidence went to a number of entries and actions taken by CFMEU officials where the Full Bench was not satisfied, involved the use of Part 3-4 entry rights, and hence did not permit findings of misuse of those rights. Without being exhaustive, these entries and actions included:

[35] In considering the matter remitted to me and in light of the Full Bench findings, I have not taken these entries and actions into account.

[36] Having considered the findings of the Full Bench I have concluded that, in total, the misuses were significant in number, sustained, deliberate and organisationally arranged misuses.

[37] Whilst I have considered the CFMEU submission that the scale and effect of the misuses was not of a magnitude which would require or support the making of orders, I consider that this submission overlooks or disregards the scope and frequency of the misuses, the extent to which they occurred on significant construction projects and the extent to which the misuses were contrary to the balance sought to be achieved by Part 3-4 of the FW Act, and, finally, the extent to which they involved demands put on Lend Lease.

[38] I have noted the evidence relating to the disruption caused by the misuses.

[39] The evidence of Mr Gooding, the Project Manager of the Tonsley Park TAFE Project went to a demand for a full time CFMEU delegate at the site. 21 Further, Mr Gooding’s evidence was that:

[40] The evidence of Mr Crabb, the Site Manager of the Tonsley Park Flinders University Project also went to a demand for a permanent CFMEU delegate. 23

[41] The evidence of Mr Jackson, a Site Manager at the Adelaide Oval Project went to the safety reasons why CFMEU officials were escorted on the site 24. Further, Mr Jackson’s evidence was that:

[42] That evidence has not been challenged. It confirms the significance of the misuses.

[43] Further, I have noted the Full Bench findings of misuses which involve failures to comply with safety instructions. These go to failures to follow site signage, and to wear appropriate clothing.

[44] I have concluded that CFMEU officials have a clear responsibility to uphold and promote safe working practices and that behaviour which is inconsistent with that has the potential to dilute vital safety initiatives and hence affect the safety and employment security of employees.

[45] These factors confirm that the misuses identified by the Full Bench cannot be regarded as minor and support the position that action should be taken by the FWC to avoid repetition of this behaviour.

[46] I have noted that the CFMEU was given the opportunity 26 to provide some form of undertaking relative to its future behaviour before I initiated consideration of this matter pursuant to s.508. The opportunity to provide an undertaking relative to future behaviour was reiterated in the hearing on 29 May 2014. Further, the CFMEU has had numerous opportunities to provide evidence about both the reason for its actions and the extent to which I could be confident that the events of the two weeks commencing on 30 October 2013 would not be repeated.

[47] I have concluded that the CFMEU position, throughout the proceedings before me, was to deny any misuse and to deny that its behaviour represented misuse. Indeed, most of the misuses occurred during a time when the CFMEU had been given a specific opportunity to provide some undertaking about its future behaviour and had declined to do so.

[48] It remains the case that there is no evidence before me relative to the position of Mr Cartledge with respect to the reasons for the CFMEU actions or any organisational or operational changes made or adopted by the CFMEU since the commencement of the matter on 15 November 2013. In this respect, the training presentation conducted by Ms Kazakoff does not establish evidence of a position or strategy now adopted by the CFMEU as an organisation with respect to the exercise of entry rights by its officials in South Australia.

[49] Given the paucity of information relative to the CFMEU position and the nature and frequency of the misuses found by the Full Bench, I have concluded that the evidence before me confirms that there remains a significant potential for repetition of behaviours of the nature found by the Full Bench on the Lend Lease sites.

[50] The evidence considered by the Full Bench went to a strategy directed by the Secretary of the CFMEU South Australian Branch, Mr Cartledge. The Full Bench stated:

[51] This evidence indicates that, while the misuses occurred at the four nominated sites, the strategy referred to by the Full Bench appears to be directed to Lend Lease rather than being directed at a particular site managed by Lend Lease. For example, on 30 October 2013 Mr Roberts referred to "your managers". On 12 November 2013. Mr Roberts referred to matters being "dealt with higher up the line". On 30 October 2013 Mr Beattie stated "We want to talk with Lend Lease/ Baulderstone members. This is part of a national drive that is focused on Lend Lease employees". Lend Lease operate on a national basis in the construction industry. Whilst there is no evidence that goes beyond South Australia I have concluded that any considerations of future behaviours should only be limited by this South Australian focus and should not be constrained to the four sites which were the focus of the misuses. Indeed, it is clear that one of these, the Adelaide Oval project, is now completed.

[52] I am not persuaded that the risk of repetition of the misuses is limited to CFMEU officials coming from other states. The misuses found by the Full Bench generally involved both local and interstate officials. The training provided by Ms Kazakoff included only certain of the CFMEU officials involved in the misuses. The misuses involved multiple officials, including some officials not generally involved in construction work and other, unidentified officials.

[53] I have concluded that action pursuant to s.508(2) should be taken by the FWC. I consider this is appropriate given the Full Bench findings, the very limited confidence which can be taken from the CFMEU position and my conclusion there is a significant potential for further misuse. In this respect I have concluded that the circumstances of this matter mean that it is appropriate for the FWC to take action to preserve the integrity and balance of the right of entry arrangements which are permitted pursuant to Part 3-4 of the FW Act.

[54] I have adopted a position consistent with that which I expressed in Fair Work Australia 27 in the following terms:

[55] Notwithstanding subsequent legislative changes, I consider that approach is consistent with the position adopted by Watson SDP in ABCC 28 which was relied upon by Lend Lease. It is however, appropriate that I recite a more comprehensive extract of that decision:

[56] Notwithstanding the legislative changes made to right of entry provisions since that time, I consider the manner of the Senior Deputy President’s considerations remains appropriate. I have similarly taken into account the nature and basis of the behaviours, the position of the CFMEU and its officials with respect to undertakings about future behaviour and considerations relative to the ongoing representative role of the CFMEU. These are all matters relevant to the orders to be made. The circumstances before me differ to those then before the Senior Deputy President and hence have mitigated in favour of some different approaches to those applied by him in ABCC.

[57] Given my conclusions about the Lend Lease operations and the CFMEU Officials’ assertions of a strategy generally directed at Lend Lease, I consider that the actions which should be taken pursuant to s.508(2) should logically apply to projects managed in South Australia by Lend Lease, or its associated entities within the meaning of the Corporations Act. There is nothing before me which indicates that those actions should apply outside of South Australia and information which would establish a basis for a limitation on the scope of any possible order within South Australia is not clear to me.

[58] I also note that the orders I propose to make pursuant to s.508(2) are such that, pursuant to s.509 they represent matters about which a civil remedy may be sought in the event of contravention. I consider this is a factor which lends support to the orders proposed as a mechanism for encouraging compliance with the objects of Part 3-4.

[59] The actions I propose to take are directed at ensuring that future entries by CFMEU officials pursuant to Part 3-4 of the FW Act occur consistent with the purposes set out in that Part and minimise the potential for future misuse. They are directed at the following priorities:

[60] Whilst the orders I propose to make are directed at encouraging actions which ensure the objects of Part 3-4 are met in the future, given the misuses that have been established, they also incorporate restrictions on existing entry rights directed at ensuring that further misuses are discouraged because the potential consequences of any such misuses are clear.

[61] I propose to suspend the entry rights with respect to Lend Lease sites in South Australia for all CFMEU officials for one year, unless or until, the CFMEU demonstrates to me that officials have completed a right of entry training programme which includes specific reference to the matters canvassed in the Full Bench decision, and this decision, and is of a similar nature to that provided by Ms Kazakoff on 16 May 2014. A corresponding restriction on new entry permits issued over this time is appropriate. I accept the statement of Ms Kazakoff as evidence that the following officials attended training of this nature on 16 May 2014 and hence exclude those persons 29 from this immediate suspension.

[62] Notwithstanding that these six officials have participated in this training, I consider that certain of these officials should have their entry rights with respect to Lend Lease sites in South Australia suspended for a period of six months with that suspension itself to be suspended such that it will only apply in the event that further misuses involving any of those officials relative to Lend Lease in South Australia are established to the FWC within the next 12 months. I consider these suspended suspensions appropriate because the evidence before me confirms that each of the following officials was extensively involved in the misuses confirmed by the Full Bench.

Mr M Gava 31

Mr M McDermott 32

Mr J O’Connor 33

[63] In the event that participation by other CFMEU officials in a right of entry training program of the nature I have referred to above is established to me, I would, with one exception, intend to revoke my suspension of their entry rights with respect to Lend Lease South Australian sites. I have not proposed the imposition of a six month suspension relative to other officials because I am unable to identify all of the persons involved in the misuses.

[64] The exception in this respect relates to Mr Cartledge, whom I have concluded holds a pivotal and important role within the CFMEU in South Australia. In Mr Cartledge's case I intend that, if I am satisfied that the immediate suspension should be lifted as a consequence of his attendance at a training programme of the nature described, his ongoing entry rights with respect to Lend Lease sites in South Australia will be limited by imposing a 12 month suspension and then suspending the operation of that suspension such that it will only apply in the event that further misuses involving Lend Lease in South Australia are established to the FWC within the next 12 months. I have taken this action with respect to Mr Cartledge because it is clear that, as the Secretary of the relevant union branch he was instrumental in the adoption of the strategy to which the Full Bench referred. Further, Mr Cartledge's silence with respect to the CFMEU actions and strategy is of particular concern to me as he has had ample opportunity to indicate his future intentions to comply with the FW Act.

[65] In addition to these restrictions I consider that a series of other restrictions should apply in order to properly address the priorities which I have identified.

[66] Section 495 of the FW Act states:

[67] The order I intend to issue will make it clear that any CFMEU permit holder seeking to exercise a right of entry pursuant to Part 3-4 with respect to a Lend Lease site in South Australia will be required to give Lend Lease an entry notice for that proposed entry during normal site working hours such that a minimum of 24 hours notice of a proposed entry is given and not more than 14 days notice is given. Further, that the entry notice must specify the time at which the entry is sought and any employers in addition to Lend Lease to be covered by the entry notice. Additionally, the entry notice must advise of the contravention or basis upon which the entry is sought. The entry notice must be otherwise in the form set out in the Regulations. I consider that this requirement will provide a further safeguard against misuses of the nature identified by the Full Bench.

[68] In order to ensure that this requirement is able to be adequately enforced, I will require the CFMEU permit holder seeking to exercise the entry to provide a copy of this entry notice to the Director of FWB&C at the same time as this is provided to Lend Lease.

[69] The Order to be issued in this matter will provide the capacity for the CFMEU to reach an agreed position with Lend Lease in South Australia which enables CFMEU Officials to enter Lend Lease sites without the provision of notice of this nature. Notwithstanding this, in these agreed circumstances, the CFMEU will remain obliged to provide to the Director of FWB&C advice confirming such entries within 24-hours of the agreed entry being affected.

[70] Whilst a feature of a significant number of the misuses identified by the Full Bench involved visits by multiple officials at any one time and multiple visits on certain days and in certain weeks, I am not persuaded that that restrictions on entry frequency and duration should apply. Any future concerns about misuses of that nature may be addressed through the FW Act.

[71] The behaviour of various of the CFMEU officials on the Lend Lease sites was an element of the misuses identified by the Full Bench. I consider that it is necessary that the Orders to be issued specify the minimum behaviours and standards to be applied by CFMEU Officials engaging in entries to the Lend Lease South Australian sites. The Orders I propose to make will require that any CFMEU Official seeking to enter a Lend Lease South Australian site must comply with all applicable right of entry requirements under the FW Act and the Work Health and Safety Act 2012. Specifically and additionally, these orders will require that, before entering a Lend Lease site those officials:

[72] The Orders will require that, whilst on a South Australian Lend Lease site, the CFMEU official must be escorted by a nominated Lend Lease escort at all times and must comply with the instructions given by that escort.

[73] The Orders will require that any discussions with employees at the Lend Lease South Australian sites must be held during designated breaks or outside of work times.

[74] The Orders will require that when leaving a Lend Lease site the CFMEU officials are to sign the designated visitor’s book.

[75] An Order [PR551967] giving effect to this decision will be issued with other Orders to be issued in the event that I am satisfied that the required training has been undertaken.

Other Entries addressed by the FWB&C

[76] In my decision of 23 December 2013 34 I accepted that the evidence of Mr Mathers of FWB&C established a prima facie case to the effect that misuse of Part 3-4 entry rights had occurred with respect to a number of other sites, involving principal contractors other than Lend Lease. However, I concluded that the evidence before me did not establish the extent or the effect of that misuse so as to enable a conclusion relative to s.508(1). I advised that my decision would be provided to Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd and Hindmarsh Constructions Pty Ltd to give those businesses, FWB&C and the CFMEU a further opportunity to provide submissions and evidence relevant to the events referred to by Mr Mathers and possible subsequent events.

[77] The extent to which FWB&C was entitled to call evidence in the proceedings before me was considered by the Full Bench in the 24 April 2014 decision. The Full Bench stated:

[78] Consequent upon the Full Bench decision Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd and Hindmarsh Construction Pty Ltd were provided with advice in the following terms:

[79] The advice provided at the hearing on 29 May 2014 from Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd and Hindmarsh Construction Pty Ltd, confirmed that no further information relative to the matters addressed in my decision of 23 December 2013 35 would be provided.

[80] I have adopted the same position as that set out in my 23 December 2013 decision. Put bluntly, if the incidents identified by Mr Mathers and summarised in my 23 December 2013 decision are not deemed to be of such moment that Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd or Hindmarsh Construction Pty Ltd wish to express a position about those events, I see no reason to alter my position that misuse the purposes of s.508(1) has not been conclusively established.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

R Reitano of Counsel for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.

D Putland appearing for Lend Lease Building Contractors Pty Ltd, Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd and Hindmarsh Construction Pty Ltd.

M Roder Senior Counsel for Fair Work Building and Construction.

Hearing details:

2014.

Adelaide:

May 29.

 1   [2013] FWC 10168

 2   [2013] FWC 9343 and [2013] FWC 9860

 3   [2014] FWCFB 1443

 4   [2014] FWCFB 2709

 5   Exhibit CFMEU1, CFMEU Submissions, para 1

 6   Exhibit CFMEU2, Statement of Carita Kazakoff

 7   [2014] FWCFB 2709, para [195]

 8   Exhibit CFMEU1, CFMEU Submissions, para 4

 9   Exhibit L8, Lend Lease Submissions, para 5

 10   [2007] AIRC 717, para [217]

 11   Exhibit FWBC2, FWB&C Submission, para 2.

 12   Exhibit FWBC2, FWB&C Submission, para 14

 13   [2014] FWCFB 2709, para [187]

 14   [2014] FWCFB 2709, para [256]

 15   [2014] FWCFB 2709, para [257]

 16   [2014] FWCFB 2709, para [259]

 17   [2014] FWCFB 2709, para [224]

 18   [2014] FWCFB 2709, para [245]

 19   [2014] FWCFB 2709, para [252]

 20   [2013] FWC 10168

 21   Exhibit L2, para 10

 22   Exhibit L7, paras 4 and 5

 23   Exhibit L6, para 12

 24   Exhibit L1, para 8

 25   Exhibit L1, paras 79 - 82

 26   see [2013] FWC 10168, paras [2] and [3]

 27   [2011] FWA 5824

 28   [2007] AIRC 717

 29   Exhibit CFMEU 2, para 6

 30   Adelaide Oval Project - 30 October 2013 - Exhibit L3

 31   Tonsley Park TAFE - Exhibit L2 ; Tonsley Park Flinders University - Exhibit L6

 32   Adelaide Oval Project - 31 October 2013 - Exhibit L1

 33   Adelaide Convention Centre - 30 October 2013 - Exhibit L4

 34   [2013] FWC 2709

 35   [2013] FWC 10168

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, PR551966>