The CFMEU responds to the Royal Commission
Thursday, 19 March 2015
The Labor Party is controlled by the CFMEU, AWU, HSU and other unions. Labor MPs more often than not come from a union background.
So it's important to know whether or not unions are serious about cleaning up their act.
The Royal Commission made dozens of referrals for prosecution, as well as this chilling finding:
Confidential Report
There is a recommendation that one volume of this Interim Report be kept confidential. On 12 December 2014 an order was made directing that any information in the Confidential Report that might enable a person named in that report who has given evidence before the Commission to be identified not be published. That recommendation and that order were made because the confidential volume deals wit threats to witnesses. It is necessary for that volume to be confidential in order to protect the physical well-being of those witnesses and their families. This is unfortunate, because the confidential volume reveals grave threats to the power and authority of the Australian state.
Brian Parker (secretary) and Rita Mallia (President) are the senior office holders in the CFMEU in New South Wales. Each is mentioned adversely in the Royal Commission's report. If the CFMEU was interested in reform, they'd be gone. So have a look at the March edition of the CFMEU magazine, with Rita and Brian proudly on the front cover.
Brian gets 19 mentions in the mag, Rita gets 8. But this story really sets out the CFMEU response to the Trade Union Royal Commission:
Here is a little taste of what the Royal Commission said about Brian, Rita and their team.
NSW CFMEU President Rita Mallia
Did not act on a death threat made by Darren Greenfield against Brian Fitzpatrick [page 1284]:
"The lack of investigation, analysis and recording on the day of the incident and in the days which followed indicates that neither Mr Parker nor Mr Mallia regarded it as particularly worrying that one official had allegedly threatened to kill another. This is remarkable."
Rita Mallia was aware of serious allegations – but took no steps to investigate the matter until complaints were made by individuals within the CFMEU as to the lack of investigation that had been undertaken. [page 1284]:
"Neither Ms Mallia nor Mr Parker, the two most senior figures in the NSW Divisional Branch, took any further step to investigate the matter until complaints were made by individuals within the union as to the lack of investigation that had been undertaken."
Engaged a former union secretary, Don MacDonald, to complete a report to shore up her own position rather than investigate the allegations of Brian Fitzpatrick. [page 1287]:
"It must have been immediately obvious to Ms Mallia and Mr Parker, and any reader of the McDonald report, that he had not been asked to undertake, and had not undertaken, any real investigation into the events to determine what had happened."
Rita Mallia did not conduct an appropriate investigation into the Fitzpatrick allegations – instead she sought to pay him out. [Page 1289]:
"Ms Mallia is a trained lawyer.121 She appreciated that it was important, for there to be a proper investigation into the matter, for account to be taken of the objective circumstances.122 Yet she did not do this when dealing with Mr Fitzpatrick’s complaint against Mr Greenfield.
…
The fact is that Ms Mallia, Mr Parker and others were, on the one hand, working out what it would cost to terminate Mr Fitzpatrick’s employment, and, on the other hand, conducting a somewhat limited investigation into Mr Fitzpatrick’s complaint. It is difficult to see how an investigation could be carried out in good faith in such circumstances. It was all about appearance, not substance. The CFMEU submitted that this was only a coincidence, and that Mr Fitzpatrick was having discussions with various officials and former officials about leaving the union.
When the events of 2013 are viewed as a whole, the contemporaneity of Mr Fitzpatrick’s slide out of the union, the ineffectual reports into the 27 March 2013 incident, and Mr Fitzpatrick’s growing persecution is not just a coincidence."
Rita Mallia was involved in preparing an early 2014 press statement that she knew was untrue and selectively chose facts to mislead the public. Ie, she did not want members of the union or the public generally to be informed of all the facts so that they could make their own assessment. [Page 1303]:
"The statements issued by Mr Parker included that the union could not tell whether ‘Mr Fitzpatrick’s allegations were true’. This, coupled with the incomplete account of the relevant events, carried with it the implicit suggestion that Mr Fitzpatrick (not Mr Greenfield) was the one whose word could not be believed.
Mr Parker, Ms Mallia and the many other union officials and press advisers who were involved in the preparation of this statement did not want the public or members to be informed of all of the facts so that they could make their own assessment.
This betrays a consciousness, on the part of Mr Parker and Ms Mallia, that a revelation of all relevant facts would demonstrate the likelihood that Mr Fitzpatrick’s version of events was correct."
Mallia conducted a sham investigation.
Mallia has continued to support and intervene on behalf of Parker and others in the union instead of divorce herself from their reprehensible conduct.
NSW CFMEU Secretary Brian Parker
Gave false evidence to the Commission about his involvement in acquiring and using CBus records of workers at two Lis-Con businesses. [Page 1123]:
"However, Ms Zanatta, Ms Butera and Mr Parker each gave false evidence to this Commission about their involvement. Ms Zanatta went so far as to create an entirely fictitious account of why she came to Sydney on 29 July 2013 and what she did while she was there. When those lies were exposed, she admitted she had committed perjury in order to protect Mr Parker and others. By giving this false evidence, Ms Zanatta, Ms Butera and Mr Parker have put the Commission and third parties to great inconvenience and expense."
[Pages 1187-1189]
"Mr Parker also gave false evidence. The evidence he gave as to his lack of involvement of and awareness in the Cbus leak was not true.
Mr Parker was a shrewd, capable and cunning man. He had numerous stock phrases which he used to admit what he thought counsel would know, but not concede anything else. His evidence was in a state of constant movement. It shifted here and there as more evidence adverse to him came to light.
In August 2014, Mr Parker told Ms Mallia that he had telephoned Mr Atkin in July 2013 to get information about Lis-Con compliance, and then had ‘no further contact with anyone from Cbus about Lis-Con’.
He did not mention a single phone conversation with Ms Zanatta or Ms Butera, despite the large number he actually had.
On 3 October 2014, that position had changed. On that date he accepted there had been a brief phone call to Cbus for Lis-Con arrears information and a brief phone call back from Cbus with that information. This conveniently dovetailed with Ms Zanatta’s evidence to that point.
Then, when Ms Zanatta made her admissions on 3 October 2014 after Mr Parker had given evidence earlier that day, other ‘possibilities’ or ‘probabilities’ began to admit themselves to Mr Parker’s mind. On occasion Mr Parker would advance different possibilities in answer to the one question – for example ‘I didn’t’, ‘I can’t recall’ and ‘I’m not privy to’ in answer to the same question within the space of about 15 seconds. In the end, Mr Parker typically sought sanctuary in the harbour of ‘I don’t recall’. Mr Parker presented as a witness who was not prepared to tell the truth, but at the same time wanted to avoid perjury charges."
[Pages 1195-1196]
"Before leaving the topic of the false evidence of Ms Butera, Ms Zanatta and Mr Parker, a few further observations should be made.
First, if these witnesses had told the truth at the outset, the Commission would have been spared great expense, and the case study could have been concluded swiftly and economically. The cost, trouble and difficulty that this Commission has had to go to in dealing with this false evidence may be of considerable significance in any subsequent prosecution. There has also been a cost for third parties. An example concerns the numerous banks, courier, airline and taxi businesses who received notices to produce with a view to collecting evidence about Ms Zanatta’s movements on 26 and 29 July 2013. To comply with a notice to produce requires a search. Searches, successful or not, cost businesses time and money.
Secondly, the fact that Ms Butera, Ms Zanatta and Mr Parker were prepared not only to give untruthful evidence in answer to Mr Fitzpatrick’s evidence, but to sit back and allow what they knew to be wild allegations to be made against Mr Fitzpatrick (which allegations he rightly described as ‘nonsense’ and ‘rubbish’216), makes their conduct all the more unsavoury. It also makes regrettable the CFMEU’s inappropriate public criticism of what it said it perceived to be the Commission’s position in relation to Mr Fitzpatrick.Those comments should now be the subject of public apologies from the CFMEU to both the Commission and Mr Fitzpatrick."
Did not act on the Greenfield death threat complaint made by Fitzpatrick. [Page 1284]:
"The lack of investigation, analysis and recording on the day of the incident and in the days which followed indicates that neither Mr Parker nor Ms Mallia regarded it as particularly worrying that one official had allegedly threatened to kill another. This is remarkable."
Parker did not carry out a rigorous or comprehensive investigation into the death threats made by Greenfield against Fitzpatrick. [Page 1246]:
"Mr Parker shied away from carrying out any rigorous or comprehensive investigation into the incident, avoided arriving at any properly considered conclusion, and generally sought to whitewash the incident rather than discipline Mr Greenfield appropriately;
Mr Parker set about marginalising and attempting to remove Mr Fitzpatrick from the CFMEU after he complained about the way in which the incident had been handled and about the nature and extent of the union’s dealings with companies associated with Mr George Alex;
the failure of Mr Parker to take any appropriate action in response to Mr Fitzpatrick’s complaints about the death threat incident represented a dereliction of his duty as a union official and, coupled with his attempts to have Mr Fitzpatrick removed, fell short of the professional standards expected of him as an officer of the CFMEU."
Has engaged in gross misbehaviour;
Has grossly neglected his duty. [Page 1308]:
"By ignoring the death threat incident and not ensuring the proper investigation of it, and by instead turning on Mr Fitzpatrick and embarking on a campaign to have him removed from the union (which campaign began before there had even been an investigation into the matter), Mr Parker may have engaged in a ‘gross neglect of duty’ within the meaning of that expression in the Rules. In doing so he may have breached the professional standards expected of them. By so acting, he may have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to conduct himself to a standard that is expected of them by members of the CFMEU and the community at large."
Parker put the interests of a known bankrupt and alleged organised crime figure (George Alex) ahead of the interests of his members and the advice of the union delegate and union committee member Mario Barrios, by ignoring Mr Barrios’ complaint on 18 August 2014, and instead communicating that Barrios was creating problems for the company and speaking to journalists.
When Barrios complained to Parker about received a threatening phone call from organised crime figure George Alex and reported the same to police, [page 1321], Parker resisted a CFMEU Committee of Management decision to pull consent to an agreement with the company (Capital) and had a conversation with Assistant Secretary Rob Kera about Mr Barrios in the following terms: [Page 1322]:
"Parker: I’ve just got to stop myself from fucking bashing fucking the other bloke today.
Kera: Who is that?
Parker: Barrios.
Kera: Oh okay. Fair enough.
Parker: I’ve got to stop meself because I will. The tension is pretty fucking high and Rita is a bit worried, you know. I said ‘Well, don’t be worried because it will be all over in fucking – five seconds.’ I said, ‘You’ve never seen me unleash.’ I said, ‘I’ve been building up this up for a fortnight’, you know. I said, ‘The problem is if I fucking end up doing it, you know, it will end up – you know, he’ll end up fucking doing a stint in hospital, I’m fucking telling you, because I won’t stop.’"
Parker compounded the damage by then lying to the Royal Commission about what he had done. [Page 1323]:
"In his examination on 3 October 2014 – that is, only about five weeks after this explosive conversation – Mr Parker was asked whether he had ever told others that he wanted to bash up Mr Barrios, and whether he had ever said that he had to stop himself from bashing Mr Barrios otherwise he would end up doing a stint in hospital. His answer to each of these questions was ‘no’.
It is inconceivable that, when he gave this evidence, only a handful of weeks after having spoken in so violent a way about his feelings towards Mr Barrios, Mr Parker would not have had a recollection of having done so. His sworn denials were not true, and he knew that to be so when he gave the evidence.
…
… the conduct is not that of a person who is suitable to hold office as Secretary of a Divisional State Branch of a registered organisation."
Parker further compounded his conduct in his conversation with his daughter where he demonstrated a comprehensive disregard and contempt for the alleged values of the labor movement. [Page 1324]:
‘what a dog’
‘he’s a fucking dog’
‘he’s a fuckwit’
‘he makes out like he’s a great fucking trade unionist’
‘that fucking imbecile Mario is so gullible’
‘he is so fucking dumb’
It was totally inappropriate to unleash this tirade of abuse about a man who had received a disturbing call from Mr Alex and reported it, who had been compelled to attend the Commission, who had honoured his oath to speak the truth, and who had raised entirely legitimate [concerns]..."
Parker engaged in gross misconduct in general, but in particular in his July 2014 behaviour to federal government employees at the Barangaroo construction site in Sydney. The conduct is too numerous to detail, and is worth reading at chapter 8.9 of the report. Essentially, as Secretary he was directly engaged in or supervised employees of the union in:
• Directing offensive language and abusive comments to federal government employees;
• Allowed the broadcast of the name and mobile telephone number of a federal government employee to approximately 150 to 200 striking workers;
• Allowed an official to stand five centremetres away from a federal government employee, obstructing her in carrying out there duties;
• He misled workers about the function of the federal government employees on site;
• Allowed a barrage of abusive and derogatory comments to federal government employees that made at least one feel intimidated, including spitting at a worker, calling a female worker a ‘fucking slut’ and ‘fucking dogs’, and allowing the statement of an employee: ‘I hope you brought your knee pads, you’re going to be sucking off those dogs all day’;
• Blasting a megaphone wailer centremetres from federal government employee’s ears;
• Telling an intimidated federal government employee that: ‘What are you looking at, you fucking dog, do you think your phone number is all I got’.
The silence of self proclaimed 'woman's activist' Rita Mallia is notable in respect of the above behaviour.
Brian Parker was aware of serious allegations by organiser Andrew Quirk – but took no steps to investigate the matter until complaints were made by individuals within the union as to the lack of investigation that had been undertaken. [page 1284]:
"Neither Ms Mallia nor Mr Parker, the two most senior figures in the NSW Divisional Branch, took any further step to investigate the matter until complaints were made by individuals within the union as to the lack of investigation that had been undertaken."
Brian Parker was involved in preparing an early 2014 press statement that he knew was untrue and selectively chose facts to mislead the public. i.e., he did not want members of the union or the public generally to be informed of all the facts so that they could make their own assessment. [Page 1300]:
"In early 2014 Mr Fitzpatrick was interviewed by members of the press and gave an account of the way in which he was treated.
In response, Mr Parker issued a series of contrived and misleading statements to the public and to the members of the CFMEU."
[Page 1303]:
"The statements issued by Mr Parker included that the union could not tell whether ‘Mr Fitzpatrick’s allegations were true’. This, coupled with the incomplete account of the relevant events, carried with it the implicit suggestion that Mr Fitzpatrick (not Mr Greenfield) was the one whose word could not be believed.
Mr Parker, Ms Mallia and the many other union officials and press advisers who were involved in the preparation of this statement did not want the public or members to be informed of all of the facts so that they could make their own assessment.
This betrays a consciousness, on the part of Mr Parker and Ms Mallia, that a revelation of all relevant facts would demonstrate the likelihood that Mr Fitzpatrick’s version of events was correct."
Parker engaged former CFMEU secretary Don MacDonald to complete a report to shore up his own position rather than investigate the allegations of Brian Fitzpatrick. [page 1287]:
"It must have been immediately obvious to Ms Mallia and Mr Parker, and any reader of the McDonald report, that he had not been asked to undertake, and had not undertaken, any real investigation into the events to determine what had happened."