Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Milin Builders Pty Ltd
Citation: [2019] FCA 1070
At a glance
- Penalty
- $15,000
What happened
Milin Builders operated a multi-storey apartment construction site in Canberra in February 2016. The site contained a high-risk fenced zone accessible only by swipe card and an induction shed outside the fenced area. Union officials Kenneth Miller and Cameron Hardy, holding valid entry permits, gave notice of their intention to hold discussions with employees on 4 February 2016. They were told they could only hold discussions in the induction shed, not in the amenities sheds within the high-risk zone, and refused entry to the fenced area.
What was decided
The court declared that the builder contravened section 501 of the Fair Work Act by refusing entry to permit holders. The court imposed a pecuniary penalty of $15,000. Once union officials are admitted to premises, the employer must provide a reasonable room or area for discussions. Restricting union access to only an induction shed outside the workers' main work area does not satisfy the legal requirement to provide a reasonable location.
What it means for employers
Once a union official with a valid entry permit arrives at a workplace, employers must permit access and provide a reasonable room or area for discussions with employees. Security and safety concerns do not justify blanket refusals to allow permit holders into work areas. Employers should plan for union access and designate appropriate meeting areas in advance.
What it means for employees
Union officials have the right to visit your workplace and hold discussions with you about your employment and industrial matters. Employers cannot prevent this by restricting union access to unreasonable locations or refusing entry to work areas. If a union official is prevented from entering, this may be unlawful.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2019/2019fca1070Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →