Bruce's assertion that Thiess was paying a "retainer" begs the question: Why would a contractor pay a retainer to a union? The only reason I can think of would be a massive conflict of interest with the stated aims of the union.
If Thiess were paying for training to raise the standards of the workers, that would not normally be on an "as required" basis which is the basis of a retainer. Any reasonable person would expect only to be billed for work done.
