By -

Key decisions

  • Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Fair Work Ombudsman (Cross River Rail Appeal) [2024] FCAFC 1

INDUSTRIAL LAW

Whether primary judge erred in finding visitor entry and conduct requirements were occupational health and safety requirements for purposes of s 499 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether primary judge erred in finding breach of s 500 – penalties to be redetermined.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Fair Work Ombudsman (Cross River Rail Appeal) [2024] FCAFC 1 (Halley, Goodman and McElwaine JJ)

In Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Fair Work Ombudsman (Cross River Rail Appeal) [2024] FCAFC 1 (‘CFMMEU v FWA’), Mr Dean Rielly (the Second Appellant) was employed by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the First Appellant) (‘CFMMEU’) as a union official and state organiser. On 1 July 2021, Mr Rielly attended the Brisbane Cross River Rail Construction Project Worksite (the ‘Worksite’). In his capacity as a permit holder pursuant to ss 497 and 500 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘FW Act’), Mr Rielly produced a notice under s 119 of the Work, Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘WHS Act’). The notice detailed Mr Rielly’s suspicions that the person conducting a business or undertaking (‘PCBU’) at the Worksite was in breach of its statutory obligations under s 19(3) of the WHS Act (at [5]). On entering the Worksite, ‘Mr Rielly refused to sign-in or undertake a written site induction and was not given an oral sign-in or induction’ (at [6]).

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more