Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v CPB Contractors Pty Ltd
Citation: [2021] FCA 1107
What happened
CPB Contractors Pty Ltd is the principal contractor on the Cross River Rail Project (a $5 billion infrastructure project in Brisbane with tunnel works). The CFMMEU (Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union) sought to gain access to tunnelling worksites to meet with employees, claiming coverage of tunnelling workers. CPB disputed CFMMEU's right of entry, arguing the Australian Workers' Union has exclusive coverage of tunnelling work and that the tunnel and surface work sites are separate workplaces with different access requirements under work health and safety laws.
What was decided
Justice Greenwood dismissed the CFMMEU's application for an interlocutory injunction. The court found that CPB was entitled to manage access to separate workplaces (tunnelling sites) differently from surface work sites based on genuine safety and operational considerations. The court accepted that different site conditions, safety inductions, and personal protective equipment requirements applied to each workplace. CPB was not in contravention of fair work or WHS laws by controlling access to these separate workplaces.
What it means for employers
Employers on large construction projects can establish separate workplaces with different access controls based on legitimate safety and operational differences. Employers are entitled to manage union right-of-entry requests on a workplace-by-workplace basis where genuine differences in work, hazards, or access requirements exist.
What it means for employees
While unions have right of entry to meet with members on construction sites, employers can restrict access to specific work areas where safety or operational reasons justify separate workplace designation. Employees should understand that union access may be managed differently across different parts of large projects.
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/2021/2021fca1107Want 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 →