❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding allegations of improper conduct by union officials at a BGC Constructions site. The Minister outlines the investigation conducted and the avenues available to the employer for further action.
AnsweredQoN 615Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) has the Minister had the circumstances in the letters investigated; (c) if not, why not; (d) do the letters represent an accurate account of what transpired; (e) what action does the Minister propose to take against the action of the union officials; (f) does the Minister acknowledge that employers have a right for protection against improper actions by union officials; (g) will the Minister outline what action the employers can take as protection against improper actions by union officials; (h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(c) if not, why not; (d) do the letters represent an accurate account of what transpired; (e) what action does the Minister propose to take against the action of the union officials; (f) does the Minister acknowledge that employers have a right for protection against improper actions by union officials; (g) will the Minister outline what action the employers can take as protection against improper actions by union officials; (h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(d) do the letters represent an accurate account of what transpired; (e) what action does the Minister propose to take against the action of the union officials; (f) does the Minister acknowledge that employers have a right for protection against improper actions by union officials; (g) will the Minister outline what action the employers can take as protection against improper actions by union officials; (h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(e) what action does the Minister propose to take against the action of the union officials; (f) does the Minister acknowledge that employers have a right for protection against improper actions by union officials; (g) will the Minister outline what action the employers can take as protection against improper actions by union officials; (h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(f) does the Minister acknowledge that employers have a right for protection against improper actions by union officials; (g) will the Minister outline what action the employers can take as protection against improper actions by union officials; (h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(g) will the Minister outline what action the employers can take as protection against improper actions by union officials; (h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(c) if not, why not; (d) do the letters represent an accurate account of what transpired; (e) what action does the Minister propose to take against the action of the union officials; (f) does the Minister acknowledge that employers have a right for protection against improper actions by union officials; (g) will the Minister outline what action the employers can take as protection against improper actions by union officials; (h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(d) do the letters represent an accurate account of what transpired; (e) what action does the Minister propose to take against the action of the union officials; (f) does the Minister acknowledge that employers have a right for protection against improper actions by union officials; (g) will the Minister outline what action the employers can take as protection against improper actions by union officials; (h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(e) what action does the Minister propose to take against the action of the union officials; (f) does the Minister acknowledge that employers have a right for protection against improper actions by union officials; (g) will the Minister outline what action the employers can take as protection against improper actions by union officials; (h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(f) does the Minister acknowledge that employers have a right for protection against improper actions by union officials; (g) will the Minister outline what action the employers can take as protection against improper actions by union officials; (h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(g) will the Minister outline what action the employers can take as protection against improper actions by union officials; (h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(h) if not, why not; (i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(i) does the Minister regard the allegations outlined in the letter from BGC Constructions as serious; and (j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
(j) will the Minister initiate any action against these union officials?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
25 February 2003
Responded by
Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection
Response time
83 days
(a) No
(b) I am advised that on receipt of the letter from BGC Construction, the Building Industry Special Projects Inspectorate (BISPI) conducted an investigation into the incident.
(c) N/A
(d) I am advised the letter is an accurate account of the events that occurred but the investigation of the incident conducted by BISPI identified the union officials concerned had lawfully entered the site and that discussions with employees were mainly about safety issues.
(e) I am advised BISPI’s investigation determined the circumstances of the incident were not significant enough to warrant any further intervention by BISPI. BGC was advised that if it wished to pursue the matter itself, the Industrial Relations Act provides processes that allow the company to refer such matters to the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (WAIRC) for determination.
(f) I regard any allegation of improper conduct as serious.
(g) The new legislation allows employers to apply to the WAIRC for revocation or suspension of a union representative’s authority to enter premises if the union representative has engaged in improper behaviour or intentionally and unduly hindered work.
(h) N/A
(i) It is not for me as the Minister to determine which individual circumstances constitute improper behaviour. A process has been established for the WAIRC to determine whether the actions and conduct of an authorised union representative while exercising right of entry constitutes improper behaviour.
(j) It is not my responsibility to initiate action against these union officials. This responsibility rests with BISPI. As I have explained to the Member, BISPI has determined further action is not warranted.
(b) I am advised that on receipt of the letter from BGC Construction, the Building Industry Special Projects Inspectorate (BISPI) conducted an investigation into the incident.
(c) N/A
(d) I am advised the letter is an accurate account of the events that occurred but the investigation of the incident conducted by BISPI identified the union officials concerned had lawfully entered the site and that discussions with employees were mainly about safety issues.
(e) I am advised BISPI’s investigation determined the circumstances of the incident were not significant enough to warrant any further intervention by BISPI. BGC was advised that if it wished to pursue the matter itself, the Industrial Relations Act provides processes that allow the company to refer such matters to the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (WAIRC) for determination.
(f) I regard any allegation of improper conduct as serious.
(g) The new legislation allows employers to apply to the WAIRC for revocation or suspension of a union representative’s authority to enter premises if the union representative has engaged in improper behaviour or intentionally and unduly hindered work.
(h) N/A
(i) It is not for me as the Minister to determine which individual circumstances constitute improper behaviour. A process has been established for the WAIRC to determine whether the actions and conduct of an authorised union representative while exercising right of entry constitutes improper behaviour.
(j) It is not my responsibility to initiate action against these union officials. This responsibility rests with BISPI. As I have explained to the Member, BISPI has determined further action is not warranted.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.