With ongoing allegations regarding the harassment of construction workers by CFMEU employees, it is time to implement consequences for unprofessional conduct
I attended the Civil Contractors Federation National Infrastructure Summit and Earth Awards in Canberra recently and was privileged to facilitate a workshop and panel session regarding the industrial relations landscape in Australia.
This was a national perspective, and it was a great chance to hear from other industry participants and share experiences regarding industrial relations issues – in particular the administration of the CFMEU (Construction, Forestry, and Maritime Employees Union).
The sessions were attended by representatives of industry regulators, in-house and external industrial relations councils and leaders from across the country. We heard firsthand experiences of dealing with the worst parts of industrial relations and the profound effects they have had on the mental wellbeing of individuals.
The testimonies alleged the relentless harassment of employees and businesses by union employees. The alleged harassment involved threats of future employment and business opportunities, personal threats and derogatory insults to individuals and their families, which were also of a sexual and racial nature. It was alleged the harassment occurred on a daily basis throughout the lifespan of projects and we heard from employees who left the industry because of this harassment.
It was clear that although some states’ experiences were more severe than others, there was a common theme across all of Australia.
The Federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Murray Watt, has emphasised that the alleged threats of violence and intimidation from sections of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU are unacceptable and underscored the need for legislative and administrative action to ensure accountability and transparency within the CFMEU.
It is important that our industry can display, internally and externally, a culture that upholds mutual respect between employers, employees and unions, and where differences can be discussed and negotiated professionally. This is for the sake of the wellbeing of all participants, which will encourage retention and promote the industry as an industry that new entrants want to join.
- Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to receive the latest news in the earthmoving industry
- Never miss a great deal and subscribe to our monthly magazine
- Download a free copy of our latest digital magazine to catch up on the biggest news and developments in the earthmoving industry
Employers have a duty of care to their employee’s safety. This is a duty which is rigorously promoted by all unions. An employer must protect the physical and mental safety of their employees. To protect against physical harm there are rigorous risk assessments and controls in place for the job tasks at hand. The system is designed to prevent physical harm to employees.
However, with regard to mental health, the control systems are not so rigorous. There are many support groups and company policies designed to recognise and support those with mental health issues, but very few systems in place to prevent mental health harm before it happens.
The alleged persistent abusive and threatening behaviour perpetrated by individuals of the CFMEU does nothing to prevent mental health harm. In addition, employers, who have a duty to provide a safe workplace, have little control over these mental harm risks. The only real risk control is to remove the employee from the situation or refuse entry to the perpetrator of the abuse.
The former is difficult as it often will require the staff member to be removed from the site and exposes any replacement staff member to the same abuse.
The second is also difficult as union entry permit holders have a legal right to enter work sites. Once on site, it is a significant issue for an employer to then manage the alleged behaviour of intimidation and abuse against its employees as it is illegal to deny entry of a permit holder to a site.
The system needs to be strengthened so an individual’s ability to hold an entry permit is reliant on them exhibiting professional behaviour in the course of their duties. If the permit issuer has clear direction that it cannot issue a permit because of proven bad behaviour, then only those who conduct themselves in a professional, lawful and respectful way will be allowed to enter worksites.