BILL Shorten presents himself as a passionate advocate for the underprivileged. Last week we saw him in Adelaide, bellowing like a union rep about job security and fairness. Evidence this week in the royal commission into union governance cast serious doubt on this image. Shorten looks more like an opportunist who is happy to screw the underprivileged if it suits.
In a grubby deal in 2004, 157 mushroom pickers lost their jobs, 120 workers suffered wage reductions but the Australian Workers Union (Shorten was secretary at the time) received $25,000 in secret payments and $4000 a month in “union fees”. The grubby deal makes Work Choices look generous to the downtrodden. For those who will demand the smoking gun to substantiate these claims, be advised there is an entire armoury contained in the transcripts and sworn evidence from the commission on September 15 and 18.
In 2003, an Australian mushroom farm, Chiquita, employed between 500 and 600 workers, with, at most, 40 per cent union membership.
At that time, Chiquita had two enterprise bargaining agreements with the AWU. EBA requirements meant Chiquita was compelled to employ a minimum of 277 mushroom pickers directly, in permanent jobs. All other pickers were able to be employed through labour hire firms of Chiquita’s choice, and in 2003 about 200 non-union pickers were employed through a labour hire company. The AWU person admitted being unhappy that the union received no fees from these people.
Because Chiquita had a poor safety history, the WorkCover premium for its staff had blown out to $6 million a year, which represented an additional financial impost equivalent to 42 per cent of its wages bill. Chiquita also was losing 10,000 work hours a year because so many people were absent with injuries.
It seems the workers, on about $15 an hour, did not know about it, though. In the royal commission, Chiquita and the AWU gave various versions (none credible) relating to what the money was for, but it is obvious. The money was paid to the AWU simply because the union asked for it, and the AWU asked for it because it knew it was doing Chiquita a favour.
Before an EBA is signed by a union it is checked by the secretary to ensure union revenue is maximised; for instance, the superannuation clause should mandate contributions into the union fund and income protection and labour hire clauses should nominate companies that pay union kickbacks. Another former AWU official, Cesar Melhem, gave evidence that the only person in the AWU authorised to sign EBAs was the secretary, who would read the EBA and a report on it before signing.
Even if Shorten denies the alleged conversation with the executive, he signed one of the 2004 EBAs and Melhem signed the other.
Combine those documents with hard evidence from the royal commission and you can’t get many more smoking guns that.
