CFMEU: Concerns about Royal Commission procedures.

Letters to the Royal Commission

The CFMEU’s legal team has provided letters to the Royal Commission outlining serious concerns about procedure and the investigation of evidence presented to the Commission. The letters are attached in three documents below.

1. Failure to properly investigate adverse evidence

Letters dated 15 September and 22 July 2014

Lawyers for the CFMEU wrote to the Commission in July asking for it to investigate a number of matters raised during the evidence of witnesses. Unlike a normal court hearing, the CFMEU may not independently investigate adverse evidence raised by witnesses.

For example, the CFMEU has asked the Commission to request ‘records’ Andrew Zaf referred to during his evidence that he provided roofing materials to John Setka (an allegation denied by Mr Setka). Mr Zaf suggested during hearings in July he would have to check his records about relevant dates.

The Commission’s failure to respond to these requests has severely disadvantaged the CFMEU when it finally gets to cross-examine witnesses who have given adverse evidence against the union and its officers.

2. Unfair cross-examination practices

Letter dated 15 September

Lawyers for the CFMEU wrote the Commission in August, asking that statements and documents filed in relation to the union’s proposed cross-examination of witnesses not be shown to those witnesses. The Commission replied it has in fact shown the materials to witnesses over which they would be cross-examined.

CFMEU witnesses appearing in the Commission have not had the benefit of being given the documents on which they were to be cross-examined.

This puts the CFMEU at a disadvantage when it finally gets the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

We have requested copies of all documents which are going to be put to witnesses put forward by the union. The Commission has failed to provide them.

3. Death of Thomas Kelly

Letter dated 12 September

While the Commission has paid the event little attention it was the death of a young worker, Thomas Kelly, at the Pentridge site that led to the industrial dispute being examined by the Commission.

The CFMEU has made repeated attempts to access the documents held by the Coroners Court in relation to this case.

We have also requested the Royal Commission subpoena the documents relating to the circumstances of Mr Kelly’s death, which we consider highly relevant to the union’s subsequent actions to improve safety at the site.

The Royal Commission has now declared that it will not investigate Mr Kelly’s death. As we move into cross-examination of the Pentridge dispute this is a serious failure in proceedings.