Application by CFMEU - Construction and General Division, Western Australia Divisional Branch (105N-WA1) for an Entry Permit for the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWC 2614
What happened
The CFMEU (Construction and General Division, Western Australia Divisional Branch) applied for a right of entry permit renewal for the Applicant, an organiser who has held various permits since 1998. The Applicant previously faced charges including remaining on premises without lawful authority, which was initially convicted but later quashed upon appeal. He had also been subject to penalties under industrial laws and his permit was suspended in 2021 before being reinstated with conditions in 2023. The CFMEU disclosed the historical conviction for the first time in this application, stating it was done 'for the avoidance of doubt'. The Applicant’s work has involved engaging with workers from diverse backgrounds and addressing industrial fatalities.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) granted the Applicant a right of entry permit. The FWC considered his past convictions and penalties, including the historical conviction for remaining on premises without lawful authority which had been quashed. While acknowledging previous instances where the Applicant or the CFMEU were ordered to pay penalties, the Commission was satisfied he was now a fit and proper person to hold a permit. This decision was based on evidence of his understanding of past inappropriate conduct, remorse, training undertaken, and a record without contraventions for several years.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware that disclosing historical convictions, even if later quashed, can be important in applications for right of entry permits. Transparency regarding an employee's history is crucial when seeking such permissions. Employers also need to ensure employees understand their responsibilities and potential consequences under industrial laws.
What it means for employees
Employees applying for or renewing right of entry permits should disclose any relevant past convictions or penalties, even if those matters have been resolved. Demonstrating remorse, understanding of previous mistakes, and a commitment to compliance can positively influence the Commission’s decision. Employees who previously held permits that were revoked or suspended may need to address the reasons for those actions.
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.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2614.pdfWant 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 →