RIGHT OF ENTRY – application for permit – s.512 Fair Work Act 2009 – application by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, WA Divisional Branch for official, Mr Roberts – concept of ‘fit and proper person’ considered [MUA] – cases involving Mr Roberts were considered – these cases involved penalties imposed on Mr Roberts and the CFMEU and entry right suspensions which all related to a single incident which occurred on the Lend Lease Adelaide Oval redevelopment project in October 2013 – CFMEU submitted that this was an isolated incident which was out of character for Mr Roberts and that it should not preclude him being found to be a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit – in these cases it was found that Part-3-4 rights were misused due to no notice of entry being provided, hindering employers by distracting them from their planned activities and entry utilised for purpose of asserting a demand in relation to a permanent delegate being a purpose for which the right of entry does not extend – Mr Roberts was found to have behaved in an aggressive and threatening manner during this incident – Mr Roberts submitted that he understood the obligations as a permit holder having been a union official for over 16 years and only having his right of entry permit suspended for four months following his involvement in the October 2013 incident – Mr Roberts further submitted should he again take action which was inconsistent with the right of entry obligations, the consequences would be far greater and confirmed he would refuse to undertake actions of that nature – taking this advice into account, Commission satisfied that Mr Roberts is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit – had the Commission simply considered the ‘normal’ union circumstances to assess Mr Roberts as a fit and proper person, the same conclusion may have not been reached because of the seriousness of his involvement in the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment incident and the likelihood of similar strategies on the part of the CFMEU in the future – conclusion in this regard was supported by Mr Roberts’ behaviour, prior to October 2013, but, more particularly, after that date which confirm his normal conduct – considered the extent to which, pursuant to s.515, conditions on entry permit should be imposed and determined it was not necessary in Mr Roberts’ circumstances – Mr Roberts has undergone the relevant training and he has recognised the obligations relevant to the responsible application of a right of entry permit – Commission held application for permit granted – permit to be issued. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, WA Divisional Branch
…
