Bill Shorten's sworn testimony to the Cole Royal Commission should be revisited
Thursday, 04 June 2015
- Winslow Constructions has been paying bulk union memberships to the AWU since the 1990s
- The MD Dino Strano names Bill Shorten as a person he was dealing with
- Bill Shorten gave evidence to the Cole Royal Commission in 2002 stating he was not aware of bulk union memberships being paid by companies
The Heydon Royal Commission is hitting its straps.
Dino Strano is the managing director of Winslow Constructions - he started the company in 1985 and since 1996 he's been the sole owner - read history here.
Dino gave startling evidence on Wednesday afternoon.
Have you been paying false invoices raised by the AWU? Yes.
The invoices show amounts for training and OH&S, what are they actually for? Membership.
Aside from admin and others, your workforce is AWU? Yes.
Page after page of transcript here.
Cesar Melhem is cactus.
looking further up the page, Mr Melhem, the same day, five minutes later, forwarded that to you?
Correct, yes.
And you wrote back:
I have cheque in my hand. It will cost you a lunch.
And Mr Melhem writes back:
Friday you book.
The workers didn't decide, Dino and the AWU decided to pay bulk AWU memberships directly from Winslow Constructions to the AWU.
So how long has Winslow been paying the AWU this way?
How long has Winslow had a relationship with the AWU?
It goes back to somewhere around the mid 1990s.
That's the practice, though, of paying for union membership?
Union membership.
Because one problem with paying for union membership, if the employer does it, is that it means that workers aren't able to choose freely which union to join - is that one of the reasons?
No.
Well, what was the reason?
Well, the reason - I have to go back to the 1990s. I had to - you know, being in construction in Victoria you had to choose - you know, the danger was that there wasa certain union that is very hard to deal with, and back then, in the 1990s, I decided to try and, you know, have my employees in with the one union that had the coverage over the sort of work that we were doing, and that was the AWU which covered the green field civil construction work. And that's the genesis of it all, back then. And at the end of the day, we paid the membership, the guys got the benefit of being well represented and it enabled our company to have certain degree of stability. Our blokes have got permanent employment. It's not like most other construction companies that have casualised workforces. Our guys - I have guys that have been with the company 20 years, 15, 25 years. They have continuity of work, they have job security, and it has been a success.
When you say there was a union that was hard to deal with, you mean the CFMEU?
Yes.
And is this the position: back in the 1990s you made a decision that you wished to have Winslow associated with the AWU?
Correct.
He names names, times dates and places.
Who did you deal with after that?
There's been a variety of people from, you know, Bill Shorten, Peter Smoljko, Cesar and various organisers the years, yes.
When did the practice stop?
Two years ago.
Why did it stop?
Well, it stopped because when the Liberal Government came in in Victoria they set up a Code Compliance Unit, and I had a number of visits by officers from Code Compliance. We had some of our sites visited that were Victorian Government jobs, and then I said - this practice of paying for membership, I decided to get - in view of the new regime and the new compliance that was required to meet the Code Compliance Unit, I sought legal advice, and the legal advice came back that, "We suggest that you stop the practice", and I took the legal advice and stopped that practice.
Which brings us to the Cole Royal Commission.
On 19 February 2002 Bill Shorten gave evidence to the Cole Royal Commission - link here.
What about the notion of the union fees of workers being paid by their employers. Is that a matter on which you have a view?---
In terms of the theory I guess I would have two comments to make. One is: if an employer advance pays union dues and then deducts it from the workers, and this is done with the consent of the workers, that's pretty good for cash flow for the organisation. The issue is if an employer pays money for workers who don't know they are in the union, or haven't asked to be in that union, well, I think that's a pretty bold employer who does that. If that employer does it, and we would never advise an employer to simply pay money, for instance, to the CFMEU in the context of - in lieu of union membership, we don't think employers should do that.
Have you ever become aware, during the time you've been state secretary, of employers paying CFMEU tickets for their workforces without the workers concerned, being your members, signing application forms to join the CFMEU?---
I cannot think of a particular or specific employer that I could name who has done that. I think that's probably the most precise answer I can give to that question.
Let's bring it to your union. Has your union, during your time as secretary or as a full-time official, ever taken money from an employer without, at the same time, receiving application forms for membership?---
Not to my knowledge. I would just make one point about it, and it is not so much in construction: sometimes companies with payroll deduction, someone may leave - the company has a system and they will pay a weekly membership, and if you're interested, it's $6.20, but sometimes people will change jobs, some people will start in a business, some will leave. So we will, I guess, from time to time receive amounts of money for a name which we mightn't have yet fully processed the membership card, but I am not really sure that's what you are getting at.
No. What I am getting at is the situation where, as a result of a demand by your union on an employer whose workforce is CFMEU, or some other union, that they become members of your union, that the employer simply writes out a cheque to the AWU to cover that workforce and the AWU does not have, at that time, signed application forms for membership of any or all of those employees?---
No, I'm not aware of that in the construction industry, for our union.
Does your union have a policy on such a matter?---
I am not sure we have a policy, but our rules do require that I keep a register of members, and so what we do like to have is a name and a form for each person for whom we are receiving union dues. It is not an affirmative policy, it is sort of a practical auditing mechanism.
Presumably, your office staff have instructions from you as to how they are to respond in a situation where a cheque comes in from an employer, supposedly for the payment of union dues of a number of nominated persons, and it's necessary to establish whether those people have signed application forms to join the union. What instructions have you given to your office staff as to how to respond in such a situation?---
I am not sure I have ever given a specific instruction, but I do understand that if our office was ever to get a cheque or names where there weren't forms, what they would seek to do is contact the organiser for the site and reconcile it and work out who is this money for and whose membership account do we credit that to. I have no doubt that we have got that practice of lining up names, money and forms.
Are you aware of any circumstances in which cheques have come in in respect of named individuals who are not members of the union?---
So I understand the question, you're saying am I aware of cheques that have come in with names for people who are not members of the AWU?
Yes?---
No, I'm not, but I would say that if we got a cheque with some names, we would try and find the membership forms, because we would like to have them as members, I guess.
COMMISSIONER: I have been told from a number of people that it is not uncommon in the construction industry for an employer faced with a possible demarcation dispute between the AWU and the CFMEU to simply pay a sum the equivalent or the amount of union fees into the second union, whatever it may be, just so as to avoid industrial unrest?---
I guess two points to make, to see if I have understood your point, Commissioner. The first one is the AWU likes to have the names, the membership forms and the money, because we have to provide audited accounts to the industrial relations registrar every year under the act. The second point is I would be surprised if you had been told, and I'd welcome, if you have, to clarify - I beg your pardon. I would be very interested if you have been told that the AWU in Victoria has been receiving money, if you like, in lieu of union membership, an employer pays just to have industrial harmony with us. I do not believe that is our reputation.
I am not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that it is a sum equivalent to the membership application fees?---
Well, all the money we receive has to be for some reason.
It's de facto dual ticketing for the purpose of avoiding industrial unrest?---
All the money we receive has to be accounted for, it has to be for some reason. To receive money in lieu of membership is not a line we can put in our accounts and statements, so I do not believe that the AWU is receiving this sort of income in the manner which you described.
MR TRACEY: In the event that a cheque did come in in those circumstances, you've got a cheque that is supposedly attributable to the union dues of a nominated group of workers, what would your office staff do with that cheque if, having looked at the records, none of those people, or some of them, were found not to have ever signed application forms to join your union?---
Sometimes cheques which come in the mail - we get cheques in the mail - I guess, can get separated from the paperwork that they are with. When you're sorting all the cheques, we obviously focus on the cheques and the forms, but we certainly focus on banking the money we receive. I have got no doubt, in terms of a practical day-to-day issue, that we may well encounter situations where people may have a private company and the cheque is signed under that or it's a private cheque in the name of the wife of the construction worker. What we try and do is then - normally, most people will send some sort of invoice back or receipt. What our office staff will do, I imagine, is contact the sender of the cheque and say, "Sorry, we can't quite work out why you have sent this," but we don't maintain sort of a suspense account, where we put the money in and then we'll hopefully work out, at some point in the future, why we have got the money. We will endeavour to reconcile all membership dues with names.
So you pay the money into the account. If you subsequently discover that people haven't signed application forms, does the money get paid back?---
As I think I said earlier, I'm not aware of us ever receiving money for people who weren't members.