Bills Digest No. 140 2004–05
Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and
Transitional) Bill 2005
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Building and Construction Industry
Improvement Bill 2005
Building and
Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional) Bill
2005
Introduced:
9 March 2005
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Employment and Workplace
Relations
Commencement:
Provisions prohibiting
unlawful industrial action take effect from 9 March 2005. Most
of the other provisions take effect from Royal Assent.
To enact legislation making
certain forms of industrial action in the building and construction
industry unlawful, and to provide for additional sanctions against
such action in the form of injunctions, financial penalties and
compensation.
This Bill replicates the enforcement and penalty provisions, and
some of the provisions making certain forms of industrial action
unlawful, in the Building and Construction Industry Improvement
Bill 2003 ('the 2003 Bill'). The 2003 Bill was passed by the House
of Representatives on 4 December 2003. It was also referred to the
Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References
Committee, which provided its
report(1) on 21 June 2004. The 2003 Bill lapsed when
Parliament was prorogued for the 2004 federal election.
The purpose of re-introducing part only of the 2003 Bill is to
prohibit industrial action in the building and construction
industry aimed at pressuring employers to sign new enterprise
agreements before the current round of agreements expire in October
2004.(2) The Minister for Employment and Workplace
Relations, the Hon. Kevin Andrews, said that remaining elements of
the 2003 Bill, including the creation of the Australian Building
and Construction Commission, will be introduced at a later date
after further consultation with industry
participants.(3)
According to the Minister, the current Bill:
will do two things in particular: firstly, it
will increase the penalty provisions in the Workplace Relations Act
and, secondly, it will finally give the
building industry task force the
powers it needs to effectively prosecute illegal activity. This
bill is intended to send a clear message to employers and unions
that the government is serious about taking action in relation to
what Justice Cole found in the
building and construction
industry. For those in the industry who may be contemplating taking
unlawful action, it will act as a powerful deterrent. The increased
penalties are up to a maximum of $110,000 for a body corporate and
$22,000 in other cases.
(4)
Because the provisions in the current Bill are for
the most part taken directly from the 2003 Bill, the commentary
below is largely the same as in Bills
Digest 129 2003-04, Building and Construction Industry
Improvement Bill 2003.(5) Readers are directed to
that digest for background and discussion of the Federal
Government's proposed legislation for the building and construction
industry in Australia, including reactions from various industry
participants and interested groups. Annex A to
that digest contains a list of key issues for each of the 13
chapters in the 2003 Bill. Annex B(6)
in the on-line 'html' version contains a detailed analysis of each
of these chapters, including the provisions replicated in the
current Bill.
Cole Royal
Commission
The Cole Royal Commission was established in July 2001 after a
report by the Office of the Employment Advocate highlighting
various allegations about the building industry, including:
-
breach of 'freedom of association' principles
-
-
maltreatment of illegal immigrants
-
collusion and intimidation by building unions
-
theft and re-sale of construction equipment, false invoicing and
fraud, and
-
involvement of criminal figures in the industry.
Terms of reference for the Cole Royal Commission were signed by
the Governor-General in August 2001. The Commission provided its
first report to the
Government in August 2002. The final 23 volume report was tabled in
Parliament in March 2003, bar the last volume containing names of
those referred for prosecution and options for dealing with
unions.
Summary of Cole Royal
Commission
The Royal Commission report contained 212 recommendations, the
bulk of which proposed changes to federal workplace relations
legislation governing the building and construction industry. The
Royal Commissioner found that change was necessary in four key
areas:
-
all participants must recognise that the rule of law applies
within the industry
-
unions,
contractors and subcontractors must accept that the freedom to
choose to join or not join a union is a fundamental right of
Australian employees. Breaches should be vigorously prosecuted
-
head
contractors should resume control of their building sites, control
they have largely ceded to the unions, and
-
occupational health and safety must be taken seriously by all
parties.
The key recommendations of the Cole Royal Commission relating to
workplace reform included:
-
the introduction of an 'industry specific' Act;
-
the establishment of a new independent monitoring and regulatory
body to ensure participants comply with industrial, civil and
criminal laws
-
emphasis on
bargaining at the enterprise level, with limitations on 'pattern
bargaining'
-
any party causing loss to other participants through unlawful
industrial action to be held responsible for that loss
-
improvements to occupational health and safety, including the
establishment of a Federal Safety Commissioner to oversee such
issues in the construction industry
-
disputes to be resolved in accordance with dispute resolution
procedures rather than by industrial and commercial pressure,
and
-
changes to the
National Building Industry Code of Practice.
The final report of the Cole Royal Commission is available at
http://www.royalcombci.gov.au.
Analysis from the Parliamentary Library can be found in CIB 30
2002-03, 'Building Industry Royal Commission: Background,
Findings and Recommendations'.(7) On 6 November 2003 the
Minister released a report on the Government's progress in
implementing the recommendations of the Cole Royal
Commission.(8)
In November 2002, the Interim Building Industry Task
Force was set up in response to the first report of the Cole Royal
Commission. The task force is the forerunner to the proposed
Australian Building and Construction Commission. The role of the
Task Force is to:
-
investigate freedom of association breaches
-
take legal action in relation to freedom of association, and
-
investigate breaches of Part V1D of the Workplace Relations Act
concerning Australian Workplace Agreements
(AWAs).
On 2 April 2003, Federal Cabinet decided to extend the operation
of the Building Industry Task Force, pending the establishment of
the proposed Australian Building and Construction Commission
('ABCC'). Cabinet also supported separate legislation to regulate
the construction industry. On 25 March 2004, the Minister announced
that the taskforce would become a permanent body, and would
'continue to operate until the Building and Construction Industry
Improvement Bill (and the establishment of the ABCC) is passed by
this Parliament'.(9)
In the Workplace Relations Amendment (Codifying Contempt)
Offences Act 2004, the Building Industry Taskforce was given
additional powers, including:
-
new information gathering powers to investigate crime and
corruption in the building and construction industry
-
protection for whistleblowers
-
fines or imprisonment for up to six months for failing to
cooperate, and
-
further information gathering powers similar to those of the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
These new powers are subject to:
-
clear guidelines to be drawn up and approved by the
Senate(10)
-
annual review by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and
-
Strikes are ordinarily regarded as illegal at common law because
they constitute a breach of contract by the employee, giving the
employer the right to terminate the contract of employment and to
sue for damages. Striking employees and unions are also generally
subject to sanctions provided for by legislation or the provisions
of awards or agreements, such as non-payment of wages, fines and
bans clauses.(12)
Creighton and Stewart note that in the 1993 reforms to the
(then) Industrial Relations Act:
For the first time in the history of the federal
system, the legislation provided for a measure of protection
against civil liability in respect of industrial action during a
'bargaining period'.(13)
The relevant provisions were retained in modified form in the
Workplace Relations Act (Part VIB Division 8) introduced in
1996.
A pre-condition for 'protection' is that the party taking
'protected action' has initiated a 'bargaining period' in
accordance with section 170 MI of the Workplace Relations Act.
Another pre-condition is that such action is preceded by written
notice in accordance with section 170 MO of the Act.
In regard to a bargaining period for a certified agreement, an
employee or a union (including its officers or employees) can take
industrial action against an employer in the form of a strike or
work ban (section 170ML(2) Workplace Relations Act). If the
prescribed conditions are met, such action is 'protected' from
legal action including action in tort (section 170MT). For example,
employees who engage in such industrial action can do so without
breaching their contract of employment (section 170ML(2)). An
employer may take industrial action against its employees in the
form of a lockout or by standing down employees, without breaching
the employment contract (section 170ML(4)).(14)
In addition, employers are prohibited from dismissing or
'injuring' an employee in his or her employment because the
employee has taken protected action (section
170MU).
Section 127 of the Workplace Relations Act allows the AIRC to
direct that 'industrial action' that is 'happening, or is
threatened, impending or probable' should stop or not occur.
However section 127 orders are not available in relation to
'protected' action under Part VIB Division 8 of the Act.
The Bill addresses this issue in clause 72,
which defines 'constitutionally-connected'
industrial action as broadly as possible to bring the maximum
number of Australian workers (and employers) within the scope of
the 'unlawful industrial action' provisions in Chapter
6. It is likely, however, that not all workers and
businesses in the building and construction industry will be
covered. It is unclear, for example, whether employees of an
unincorporated sub-contractor on a building site would be covered
by the Bill, especially if any action they take is only in relation
to their own employer.(15)
Chapter 1 contains key
definitions that determine the Bill's coverage. A definition of
'building and construction industry' is not included.
Clause 5 contains the key definition of
'building work' which:
determines the scope of the Bill by forming the
basis of terms such as building employee and building
agreement, and hence terms such as building employer
and building association. The coverage of all provisions
of the Bill is ultimately determined by reference to the definition
of building work.(16)
The definition of building
work includes a broad range of activities whether these
are traditionally thought of as 'building' or not including
fit-out, restoration, repair and demolition, any work 'part of or
preparatory to' such activities, and 'pre-fabrication of
made-to-order components'. As the
Australian Industry Group pointed out, this appears to deem 'large
parts of the manufacturing sector, together with various service
sectors, as being part of the building and construction
industry'.(17)
Specific exclusions from the definition of 'building work'
include mining and extraction activities and domestic building,
including alteration or extension, except where this is part of a
project including at least 5 single-dwelling houses. Regulations
can be made including or excluding additional activities from the
definition of 'building work'. It is intended that regulations
would be used to clarify whether or not a particular activity falls
within the definition.(18)
In clause 4, building agreement,
building award and building certified agreement
include any award or agreement that has application to 'building
work', whether or not they also apply to any other kind of work.
Similarly, building employee means a person whose
employment includes 'building work' even if the employee performs
other work as well as building work.
Chapter 6 makes certain forms of industrial
action in the building and construction industry unlawful and
provides 'improved access' to sanctions against unlawful industrial
action in the form of injunctions, pecuniary penalties and
compensation for loss.
The definition of 'building industrial action'
in subclause 72(1) determines the scope of
'unlawful' building industrial action under Part
2:
-
In contrast to the Workplace Relations Act, it includes
industrial action taken not only in relation to agreements and
other instruments made under Commonwealth law but also in relation
to instruments under State and Territory law (through the
definition of 'industrial instrument' in clause 4)
(see sub-paragraph (1)(a)(i) and paragraph
(1)(b))
-
It includes
action taken in relation to an 'industrial dispute' within the
meaning of subclause 72(4). The definition of 'industrial
dispute' in subclause 72(4) is broader than the
definition of the same term in section 4 of the Workplace Relations
Act (sub-paragraph (1)(a)(ii) and
paragraph (1)(c)).
-
It excludes
action by an employee based on a 'reasonable concern about an
imminent risk to his or her health or safety', provided the
employee did not unreasonably fail to comply with a direction to
perform other work 'that was safe for the employee to perform'.
This is a narrower exclusion than in section 4 of the Workplace
Relations Act (paragraph (1)(g)). In a further
change from the Workplace Relations Act, where an employee seeks to
rely on paragraph (1)(g) the onus is on the employee to prove that
the action was based on a reasonable concern about an imminent risk
to health and safety (sub-clause 72(2)).
The above provisions increase the scope of 'unlawful' industrial
action compared to the Workplace Relations Act.
In contrast to Part VIB Division 8 of the Workplace Relations
Act which defines 'protected' industrial action, Chapter 6
Part 2 introduces a statutory concept of 'unlawful'
industrial action for the building and construction industry.
Clause 74 prohibits a person from engaging in
'unlawful industrial action'.
Clause 73 defines 'building industrial action'
as 'unlawful' if it is industrially-motivated and
constitutionally-connected and is not 'excluded
action'.
-
'industrially-motivated' is defined in
clause 72 as including one or more of the following:
-
supporting or advancing claims by or against an employer in
relation to 'the employment of employees'. This includes action by
one group of employees in support of claims by another group
against a different employer
-
'advancing industrial objectives of an industrial association',
or
-
'disrupting the performance of work'
-
constitutionally-connected action' is defined
in clause 72 as broadly as possible (see section
on 'Constitutional Coverage' above).
-
'excluded action' defines 'building industrial
action' that will not be 'unlawful' for the purpose of this Bill.
It includes:
-
'protected action' under the Workplace Relations Act as modified
by Chapter 6 Part 3, and
-
industrial
action in relation to individual Australian Workplace Agreements
(AWAs) under Part VID Division 8 of the Workplace Relations
Act.
A key clause for this particular Bill is clause
80, which provides that industrial action taken prior to
the expiry date of a building certified agreement will not be
protected action. This clause attempts to override the Federal
Court's decision in
Emwest (19) that a union may take
industrial action during the course of a certified agreement in
relation to a matter not included in the agreement.
In clause 136, the Bill proposes increased
penalties for contravention of the 'strike-pay' provisions in the
Workplace Relations Act. It prohibits employers from making
payments and employees from accepting payments in relation to any
periods of building industrial action that are
industrially-motivated and constitutionally-connected. There is a
maximum penalty of $110,000 (for a body corporate) compared to the
current maximum penalty under the Workplace Relations Act of
$33,000. The maximum penalty for an individual will be $33,000
(compared with $22,000 in the 2003 Bill).
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that:
Applications in relation to contraventions may be made to the
Federal Court by the Minister, a person who has an interest in the
matter or any other person prescribed by the regulations.
Application may also be made by the employer in relation to
contraventions of section 187AB of the WR Act, as modified by this
Bill.
Paragraphs 187AD(c) and (d) of the WR Act allow the Federal
Court, in respect of contraventions, to make injunctions (including
interim injunctions) and any other orders considered necessary to
stop the contravention or remedy its effects (20)
Proposed Chapter 12 Part 1 outlines the effect
and operation of the civil penalty provisions prescribed in the
Bill (currently only clause 74). The key effect of
the proposed chapter is a significant increase in the range of
penalties for contraventions of the Bill compared to contraventions
of the Workplace Relations Act. It reflects the Government's goal
of increasing compliance with the law, following the Cole Royal
Commission's finding of 'lawlessness' throughout the building
industry.(21)
Increased civil penalties and other
remedies
Clause 227 in the current Bill provides for a
civil penalty for contravention of clause 74 of up
to 1,000 penalty units for bodies corporate ($110,000) and 200
penalty units ($22,000) for individuals. By contrast, the Workplace
Relations Act tends to provide maximum pecuniary penalties of
$10,000 for bodies corporate and $2,000 for
individuals.(22)
Clause 227 also provides that the court may
order compensation be paid to any person who has suffered damage as
a result of a contravention. This extends the right to seek
compensation over contraventions to third parties who may not be
directly involved in the dispute or conduct that gave rise to the
contravention. The Workplace Relations Act tends to limit the right
to compensation to direct parties, such as employees, employers or
industrial associations.
Further, clause 227 gives the court the power
to make any orders it considers appropriate. Presumably this
includes orders requiring re-instatement of an employee or granting
an injunction to prevent a threatened action.
Parties that may apply for penalty orders
Consistent with the expansion of the class of people who may
recover compensation for contraventions of civil penalty
provisions, clause 227 expands the class of people
who may apply to a court for penalty orders or remedies to include
any person affected by the contravention. As the Minister noted in
his Second Reading Speech, an 'eligible person' able to bring an
action under clause 227 will include Inspectors under the Workplace
Relations Act (including officers of the Building Industry
Taskforce and the Australian Building and Construction Commission
once established).
Involvement in a contravention
Sub-clause 226(2) provides that a person 'who
is involved in a contravention of a civil penalty provision' is
deemed to have contravened that provision. To be 'involved in' a
contravention is broadly defined to include:
aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the contravention
inducing the contravention 'whether by threats or promises or
otherwise'
being 'directly or indirectly' knowingly concerned in or party to
the contravention, or
conspiring with others to effect the contravention.
Interaction between civil penalties and criminal
law
Given that several of the civil penalty provisions of the Bill
relate to conduct that might also involve criminal offences, such
as threat, clauses 228 and 229
describe the interaction of these provisions with criminal
prosecution of the same conduct.(23)
Sub-clause 228(1) prevents a person from
receiving a double penalty by preventing courts from imposing a
penalty for conduct for which that person has already been
convicted of an offence. Note, however, that by virtue of
sub-clause 228(3) this protection does not work in
the other direction: someone may be tried for a criminal offence
despite already having had a civil penalty imposed against them for
the same conduct.
Sub-clause 228(2) requires that proceedings for
a penalty order be stayed if criminal proceedings are on foot
relating to the same conduct. The civil proceedings may be resumed
if the person is not convicted of the criminal offence.
Sub-clause 228(4), a new addition compared to
the 2003 Bill, provides that if a person's conduct amounts to a
contravention of both section 174 of the Bill and section 170MN of
the Workplace Relations Act, proceedings can be instituted under
either or both of section 227 of the Bill or section 170NF of the
Workplace Relations Act. However a person will not be liable for
more than one financial penalty for the same conduct. But as the
Explanatory Memorandum notes:
This will not prevent a person who has had a
pecuniary penalty imposed on them for a breach of s. 170MN of the
Workplace Relations Act 1996 from having an order made
against them to pay damages to a specified person or any other
order the court considers appropriate under paragraphs (b) or (c)
of subclause 227(1).(24)
Clause 229 provides that evidence of
information given or documents produced by a defendant in
proceedings for a civil penalty may not be admitted in a subsequent
criminal trial against that defendant relating to the same conduct.
This provision seems intended to provide protection from
self-incrimination in the course of civil proceedings: that is, to
ensure that evidence that a defendant gives in the civil
proceedings cannot be used against them in subsequent criminal
proceedings. However, it is arguable that the provision could also
be used to prevent a defendant from reusing evidence of their
innocence in a subsequent criminal trial.
The issue may depend on the interpretation of 'evidence of
information'. There is no concern if 'evidence of information' is
understood to mean evidence of the record of the proceedings or
evidence of oral statements provided to investigators in the course
of civil proceedings. However, a problem may arise if 'evidence of
information' is taken to mean evidence of information provided by
the defendant outside the context of civil proceedings. For
example, if it is alleged that the defendant verbally threatened
another person, evidence of the information provided by the
defendant (that is the conversation that took place between the
defendant and the other person) may be critical to the case. In
this example, it is unclear that the defendant may give evidence of
that conversation in both proceedings. This would be a harsh,
presumably unintended, consequence of the provision.
Concluding Comments
See comments under this heading in Bills
Digest 129 2003-04.
-
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/building03/index.htm.
-
Specialist News 2004, 'Big sanctions start today for unlawful
action in construction', Workplace express, www.workplaceexpress.com.au,
9 March 2005.
-
Kevin Andrews, 'Second reading: Building and Construction
Industry Improvement Bill', House of Representatives,
Debates, 9 March 2005, p. 4.
-
Kevin Andrews, 'Question without Notice: Workplace Relations:
Building Industry', House of Representaives, Debates, 8
March 2005, p. 7.
-
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2003-04/04bd129.htm.
-
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2003-04/129-130%20Annex%20A,%20B.htm#annexb.
-
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2002-03/03cib30.htm.
-
The report is available on the Government's
'Australian Workplace' on-line site
(http://www.workplace.gov.au/Workplace/WPDisplay/0,1280,a3%253D5921%2526a0%253D0%
2526a1%253D517%2526a2%253D637,00.html).
-
Kevin Andrews (Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations),
'Ministerial statement: Royal Commission into the building and
construction industry', House of Representatives, Debates,
25 March 2004, p. 27297.
-
Available at the Federal Government's on-line site for Building
and Construction Industry reform at:
http://www.workplace.gov.au/Workplace/WPDisplay/0,1280,a0%253D0%2526a1%253D517%2526a2%253D637,00.html.
-
'Taskforce gets new "clean-up" powers', industrial law
news, Issue 7, 28 July 2004, p. 5.
-
CCH, Australian Labour Law para 45-610.
-
Creighton and Stewart, op. cit., p. 148.
-
CCH, Australian Labour Law para 45-610.
-
The Commonwealth's ability to legislate in the area of workplace
relations is based on a combination of powers in the Australian
Constitution: primarily s 51(35) 'conciliation and arbitration for
the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending
beyond the limits of any one State'. As Creighton and Stewart note,
however, 'the wording of s 51(35) suggests that the founders of the
Constitution intended that the Commonwealth Parliament should have
only a limited power to make laws with respect to industrial
relations'.
Other provisions in the Constitution have
been used in an attempt to broaden the constitutional coverage of
Commonwealth workplace relations laws, including s 51(20)
corporations, 51(1) trade and commerce and 51(29) external affairs.
But compared with the ability of the States to legislate on the
full range of industrial and workplace relations matters,
Commonwealth coverage in this area remains incomplete. According to
Creighton and Stewart, 'relatively few incorporated bodies would
now be excluded from the reach of s 51(20) .Nevertheless, there are
many small to medium employers in Australia who do not have
corporate status, but instead operate as sole traders or
partnerships'. Moreover, 'what s 51(1) cannot do is to reach
employers engaged only in intrastate trade, many of whom are likely
to be the very businesses who would also fall outside the scope of
the corporations power.' (Labour Law, an introduction, 3rd
edition pp 82-4)
The High Court has held that the external
affairs power in s 51 (29) can justify legislation including
industrial relations legislation - that is 'reasonably appropriate
and adapted to' the implementation of an international instrument
(Victoria v Commonwealth (Industrial
Relations Case) (1996) 187 CLR 416. Thus, where an
international instrument such as an ILO Convention addresses the
relevant area, the external affairs power can be used to ensure
that workers who might not come within the other heads of power are
covered by the Commonwealth legislation. However there is
uncertainty about whether the external affairs power can be used to
implement anything less than an international 'obligation'.
As Harris states, it should be noted that the
court in the Industrial Relations Case 'did not find it
necessary to decide whether mere recommendations (as opposed to
treaties) could form the basis of s51(29) legislation.' (Bede
Harris, Essential Constitutional Law, p 135). According to
Blackshield and Williams, 'despite some peripheral comments on that
question in the Industrial Relations Act Case, the precise effect
of 'recommendations' must still be regarded as open'. (Blackshield
and Williams, Australian Constitutional Law and Theory,
3rd edition, p. 774).
-
Explanatory memorandum, p. 7 (emphasis added).
-
'Ai Group submission on the Building and Construction Industry
Improvement Bill' (submission on exposure draft), at
http://www.aigroup.asn.au/scripts/cgiip.exe/ccms.r?Roxy=0x000198c1&PageId=1212.
-
Explanatory memorandum, p. 8.
-
Emwest Products Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering,
Printing & Kindred Industries Union [2002] FCA 61 (6 February
2002).
-
p. 12.
-
See Minister's second reading speech and Cole Royal Commission,
op. cit., Vol 1, p. 17.
-
See for example s 170CR, s 170HI, s 170NF, s 170VV, s 178, s
285F, s 298U and s 533, Workplace Relations Act.
-
These provisions appear to be modelled on Regulations 172 175 of
the Workplace Relations (Registration and Accountability of
Organisations) Regulations 2003.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 15.
Peter Prince
23 March 2005
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared to support the work of the
Australian Parliament using information available at the time of
production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position
of the Information and Research Service, nor do they constitute
professional legal opinion.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's
contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with
members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2005
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Parliamentary Library, 2005.
Back to top