Heiko Constructions T/A Heiko Constructions Pty Ltd v the Respondent
Citation: [2020] FCA 697
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was an experienced formwork patcher employed by Heiko Constructions, a labour hire company. While working at the Multiplex Jewel worksite, the Applicant witnessed a serious workplace accident. He believed the accident resulted from unsafe working conditions and reported it to both WorkSafe and the CFMEU union. Believing no action was taken on his complaints, the Applicant resigned from CFMEU membership. Shortly after, the foreman terminated the Applicant's employment. The Applicant alleged this was adverse action in retaliation for his complaints about safety.
What was decided
The Federal Circuit Court found Heiko Constructions contravened section 348 of the Fair Work Act, which prohibits coercion of employees regarding union membership and payment of dues. Evidence showed that after the Applicant's resignation from the union, the foreman pressured the Applicant to rejoin and pay union dues, threatening that the Applicant could not work on enterprise agreement jobs unless he paid the union and would otherwise be employed elsewhere at lower wages. Heiko Constructions sought leave to appeal, arguing procedural fairness issues and challenging whether the facts supported a section 348 finding.
What it means for employers
Employers and labour hire companies must not coerce employees regarding union membership or membership dues. Foremen and managers must not make threats about employment conditions based on union status. Conduct pressuring employees to join or pay unions after they have resigned breaches statutory protections.
What it means for employees
Employees who report workplace safety concerns cannot be lawfully subjected to pressure to rejoin unions or pay union dues as retaliation. Union membership and dues payment must be genuinely voluntary.
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/2020/2020fca0697Want 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 →