News & Events

Back to the future - ABCC set to return under Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill

Submitted By Firm: Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Contact(s): John Tuck


Simon Billing (Partner), Anthony Forsyth (Consultant) & Joshua Levy (Graduate Lawyer)

Date Published: 2/27/2014

Article Type:

Share This:

On 14 November 2013, the Abbott Government introduced the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 (Bill) into Parliament. The Bill fulfils the Coalition’s election promises to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), return to stronger regulation of unlawful conduct, and promote respect for the rule of law in the construction industry.

The ABCC was originally established by the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) (BCII Act), implemented by the Howard Government in response to the 2003 Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry. However the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012 (Cth) (FWBI Act) abolished the ABCC and replaced it with the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate, which operated as Fair Work Building and Construction (FWBC) but had significantly reduced powers compared to the ABCC. The FWBI Act also lowered the penalties applicable to building industry participants for breaches of industrial laws, and limited the circumstances in which unlawful industrial action attracted penalties.

In this In Brief, we examine the key aspects of the Bill, which marks a return to the stricter regulatory scheme that existed under the BCII Act with some important additions and modifications. The Bill is explained in terms of how its provisions would operate in the event they are passed in their present form, although amendments are likely as the Bill progresses through the legislative process.

Key points for employers

  • The definition of building work is expanded to include transportation or supply of goods to building sites, and offshore resources platforms.
  • The ABCC is to be re-established, armed with the powers it previously held to compel the attendance and production of documents by persons with information relevant to an investigation.
  • New limits are imposed on unlawful industrial action and unlawful picketing, backed up by tougher penalties. This is largely a response to a number of high-profile disputes in the construction industry, most prominently the CFMEU/Grocon Myer Emporium dispute in 2012.
  • Prohibitions on coercion and discrimination are expanded, with “reverse onus” provisions to make it easier to prove breaches.
  • A new Building Code will be issued, imposing further obligations on building industry contractors and other participants in the industry as conditions of obtaining work on Commonwealth-funded projects.
  • The Bill is unlikely to be passed and come into effect until after 30 June 2014.

Main provisions of the Bill

Definition of building work expanded

The Bill applies to “building work”, the definition of which has been expanded to include the transportation or supply of goods to building sites (including any offshore resources platforms) where “work is being or may be performed.” In the Second Reading Speech, Christopher Pyne MP (representing Employment Minister, Senator Eric Abetz) explained that “this is a change from the previous ABCC legislation and is included to ensure that large resource construction projects [onshore and offshore] cannot be indirectly disrupted through coordinated ‘go-slows’ on the supply of materials to those projects.”

Other key terms relating to the scope and application of the Bill are based on the definition of building work, including “building industry participant”, “building employee”, “building employer” and “building association” (which includes unions and employer associations).

A regulator with sweeping powers

The Bill provides for the establishment of the ABCC (replacing the Labor Government’s FWBC), headed by the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABC Commissioner). The Commissioner’s functions include:

  • monitoring and promoting appropriate standards of conduct by building industry participants;
  • investigating suspected contraventions of relevant building laws and the Building Code;
  • instituting or intervening in legal proceedings; and
  • providing assistance, advice and representation to building industry participants where appropriate.

Although the Minister for Employment can give directions to the ABC Commissioner that must be complied with, directions cannot be given about a particular case.

To fulfil these functions, the Commissioner can appoint persons as Australian Building and Construction Inspectors (ABC Inspectors). ABC Inspectors can enter premises where they believe breaches of building laws are occurring or likely to occur, or where there are records or documents relevant to compliance purposes on the premises. While on the premises, ABC Inspectors can inspect work, conduct interviews and require the production of records.

The Bill further augments the ABC Commissioner’s investigative powers by restoring the “coercive powers” formerly held by the ABCC under the BCII Act. These powers are considered by the Government to be “a key tool for breaking down the historical and unacceptable ‘culture of silence’” in the construction sector:

  • Chapter 7 of the Bill allows the ABC Commissioner to serve an examination notice on a person that the Commissioner reasonably believes has information or documents relevant to an investigation or is capable of giving evidence relevant to an investigation.
  • The examination notice may require the person to give information, produce documents or attend before the ABC Commissioner.
  • A person commits a criminal offence if they fail to comply with the examination notice, such as by failing to give information in accordance with the notice or failing to answer questions. The penalty is imprisonment for up to 6 months. However, any information or answers provided by a person in response to an examination notice will not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding against that individual.
  • The ABCC’s exercise of these coercive powers will be overseen by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Unlawful industrial action and unlawful picketing

Chapter 5 of the Bill contains prohibitions on organising or engaging in “unlawful industrial action”; or organising/engaging in “unlawful picketing” (a new concept under the Bill). To be covered by the Bill, these prohibited forms of action must be taken by – or in a way that affects – a “constitutionally covered entity” (i.e. a corporation, the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth authority, a body incorporated in the ACT or NT, or a federally-registered union or employer organisation).

Unlawful industrial action is defined as industrial action that is not protected action. “Industrial action” is defined in similar terms to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), and includes various forms of action by employees as well as employer lockouts. The definition of “protected industrial action” in the Bill also follows that in the FW Act, with the important difference that industrial action for a proposed enterprise agreement will only be protected if it is engaged in by protected persons. Protected persons include:

  • employee organisations that are bargaining representatives for a proposed enterprise agreement;
  • members of such organisations who are employed by the employer and will be covered by the proposed agreement;
  • officers or employees of such organisations acting in that capacity; and
  • employees who are bargaining representatives for the proposed agreement.

This means that the involvement of individuals who are not protected persons will invalidate the protection afforded to the relevant industrial action, marking a return to provisions that previously existed under the BCII Act.

An unlawful picket includes action that:

  • has the purpose of preventing or restricting a person from accessing or leaving a building site or ancillary site;
  • directly prevents or restricts a person accessing or leaving a building site or an ancillary site (e.g. persons intentionally blocking access to building work); or
  • would reasonably be expected to intimidate a person accessing or leaving a building site or an ancillary site.

Ancillary sites are locations from which goods are transported or supplied to building sites; locations from which building industry participants are transported to building sites or perform work relating to building work on a building site; or an offshore platform (e.g. transporting supplies by vessel from an onshore supply base).

In order to constitute an unlawful picket, the action must be industrially motivated, i.e.:

  • motivated for the purpose of supporting or advancing claims against a building industry participant in respect of employees or the engagement of contractors by the building industry participant;
  • motivated for the purpose of advancing industrial objectives of a building association; or
  • otherwise unlawful.

The unlawful picketing provisions are drafted broadly, and are aimed at a number of recent instances of disruptive picketing by construction industry unions – including the CFMEU blockade of Grocon’s Myer Emporium Project and the Geelong Little Creatures Brewery dispute.

Chapter 5 of the Bill also extends the operation of the prohibitions on payment during periods of industrial action (e.g. strike pay) under Part 3-3 of the FW Act, with modifications.

Penalties and injunctions against unlawful industrial action or picketing

The penalties for unlawful industrial action are increased under the Bill to $34,000 for individuals and $170,000 for corporate entities (including unions). The same penalties apply for unlawful picketing. The Government states that these increased penalties are needed to “act as a deterrent to unlawful behaviour” and “blatant disregard for court orders”.

A court can grant an injunction (including an interim injunction) in terms it considers appropriate. The court must be satisfied that unlawful industrial action or an unlawful picket is:

  • occurring; or
  • threatened, impending or probable; or
  • being organised.

The courts will therefore have wide-ranging injunctive powers under these provisions, including the power to injunct on the basis of a union’s threat of a picket. Additionally, the power of a court to grant an injunction may be exercised irrespective of whether:

  • the defendant has previously engaged in the conduct complained of or intends to engage in similar conduct again; or
  • there is imminent danger of substantial damage to any person as a result of the unlawful industrial action or picketing.

Coercion and discrimination

Chapter 6 of the Bill provides that it is unlawful for a person to take (or threaten to take) action with the intention of coercing another person to:

  • employ, or not employ, a particular person as a building employee; or
  • engage, or not engage, a particular independent contractor as a building contractor; or
  • allocate, or not allocate, particular duties or responsibilities to a building employee or building contractor (e.g. as a full-time shop steward or health and safety representative (HSR)); or
  • designate a building employee or building contractor as having, or not having, particular duties or responsibilities (e.g. as a shop steward or HSR, or to reflect work demarcations between unions).

With the exception of protected industrial action, it is also unlawful to take action to coerce another person to agree or not agree to make, vary or terminate a building enterprise agreement.

Employers are protected from coercion or other action being taken against them because their employees are covered, or not covered, by a federal industrial instrument (e.g. a modern award or enterprise agreement). However, employers should be aware that it is also unlawful to coerce or place undue pressure on employees as to who will be their bargaining representatives for a proposed agreement.

Individuals who cause or encourage others to take coercive action will also be deemed to have contravened relevant provisions of Chapter 6 of the Bill.

As with industrial action, coercion or discrimination must have some connection with a constitutionally-covered entity to be caught by the prohibitions in Chapter 6. The penalties for unlawful coercion or discrimination will also reflect the higher penalties applicable to industrial action under the Bill (see above).

Finally, Chapter 6 prohibits project agreements whereby unions seek to secure standard employment conditions across a particular site or sites, because in the Government’s view these agreements “inhibit genuine enterprise bargaining”.

Reverse onus provisions

If it is alleged that a person has taken or engaged in action with a particular intent that would amount to coercion, discrimination or unlawful picketing, then it is presumed that the action was taken for that reason unless proven otherwise (except in an application for an interim injunction). This mirrors the reverse onus provisions relating to adverse action in section 361 of the FW Act.

The reverse onus provisions will make it easier for employers and the ABCC to prove breaches of relevant provisions of the Bill. Further, where multiple reasons for the taking of unlawful action exist, a person will be deemed to have taken action for a particular reason as long as it is found to be one of the reasons for that action.


Chapter 8 of the Bill confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court, Federal Circuit Court and certain state courts in matters involving alleged breaches of the civil remedy provisions of the Bill.

ABC Inspectors and persons affected by an alleged contravention (among others) may apply to a court for the imposition of pecuniary penalties, damages, injunctions and other appropriate orders (including orders for the sequestration of assets).

Individuals will also be liable where they are found to have aided and abetted a contravention of the Bill. Any action taken by the management committee, officers or agents of a building association acting in that capacity will be taken to have been taking by the association itself, unless it can demonstrate that it has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the action.

Provisions in the FWBI Act which prevented FWBC from bringing or continuing proceedings, where the parties had settled the issues in dispute, do not form part of the Bill (therefore the ABCC will be able to bring enforcement proceedings in these situations).

Building Code

Chapter 3 of the Bill allows the Minister for Employment to issue a Building Code by legislative instrument, containing further obligations that must be complied with by building industry contractors and other building industry participants. Those bound by the Code must also report on their compliance with it, when requested to do so by the ABC Commissioner.

The issuing of such a Code would replace the Building Code introduced by former Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten MP, with effect from 1 February 2013.[1] Building industry contractors and participants must comply with this Code in order to be eligible for Commonwealth-funded construction projects.

The Coalition’s pre-election industrial relations policy outlined its intention to re-visit the Building Code and Supporting Guidelines, to ensure consistency with state building codes following litigation arising from the interaction of Victoria’s Construction Code and the adverse action provisions of the FW Act.[2] The Second Reading Speech for the Bill confirms that the new Code is currently being developed.

Federal Safety Commissioner and Accreditation Scheme

Chapter 4 of the Bill retains:

  • the role of the Federal Safety Commissioner, to “promote work health and safety in relation to building work”; and
  • the existing Australian Government Building and Construction Industry OHS Accreditation Scheme which applies to Commonwealth-funded building work.[3]

What should building industry employers do next?

The Bill has been referred to an inquiry by the Senate Education and Employment Committee, which is due to report on 2 December 2013.

While the Government intends the re-established ABCC, the new Building Code and other features of the Bill to commence operation from 1 January 2014, this is highly unlikely given the opposition of the ALP and Greens which will prevent passage of the Bill through the Senate. The Government will have better prospects of securing passage of the Bill after 30 June 2014, when the composition of the Senate changes.

In anticipation of the provisions of the Bill taking effect some time next year, construction employers/head contractors might consider re-assessing industrial relations management plans and associated legal contingency plans, to deal with unlawful industrial action, unlawful picketing and coercion and to provide for use of the new remedies that become available.

It will also be important to assess and ensure compliance with any new Building Code once it is introduced, to ensure continued eligibility for work on Commonwealth-funded projects.

For now, employers and head contractors in the building industry should monitor developments (we will provide updates in future Corrs In Briefs).

[1] See here.

[2] See here.

[3] See here.

Find a Member

View or print a complete ELA member list »

Client Successes

Altra Industrial Motion Inc.

Altra Industrial Motion Inc. has multiple locations in the U.S., as well as Central America, Europe, and Asia. The Employment Law Alliance has proved to be a great asset in assisting us in dealing with employment issues and matters in such diverse venues as Mexico, Australia, and Spain. We have obtained excellent results using the ELA network for matters ranging from a multi-state review of employment policies to assisting with individual employment issues in a variety of foreign jurisdictions.

In one instance, we were faced with an employment dispute with a former associate in Mexico that had the potential for substantial economic exposure. The matter had been pending for over a year, and we were not confident in the employment advice we had been receiving. I obtained a referral to the ELA counsel in Mexico, who was able to obtain a favorable resolution of the dispute in only a few days. Based on our experiences with the ELA, we would not hesitate to use its many resources for future employment law needs.

American University in Bulgaria

In my career I have been a practicing attorney, counsel to the Governor of Maine, and CEO of a major public utility. I have worked with many lawyers in many settings. When the American University in Bulgaria needed help with employment litigation in federal court in Syracuse, New York, we turned to Pierce Atwood, the ELA member we knew and trusted in Maine, for a referral. We were extremely pleased with the responsiveness and high quality of service we received from Bond Schoeneck & King, the ELA's firm in upstate New York. I would not hesitate to recommend the ELA to any employer.

David T. Flanagan
Member of Board of Trustees 

Arcata Associates

I really enjoyed the Conducting an Effective Internal Investigation in the United States webinar.  We are in the midst of a rather delicate employee relations issue in California right now and the discussion helped me tremendously.  It also reinforced things that you tend to forget if you don't do these investigations frequently.  So, many, many thanks to the Employment Law Alliance for putting that webinar together.  It was extremely beneficial.

Lynn Clayton
Vice President, Human Resources

Barrett Business Services, Inc.

I recently participated in the ELA-sponsored webinar on the Employee Free Choice Act.  I was most impressed with that presentation.  It was extremely helpful and very worthwhile.  I have also been utilizing the ELA's online Global Employer Handbook.  This compliance tool is absolutely terrific. 

I am familiar with several other products that purport to provide up-to- date employment law information and I believe that this resource is superior to other similar compliance manuals.  I am delighted that the ELA provides this free to its members' clients.

Boyd Coffee Company

Employment Law Alliance (ELA) has provided Boyd Coffee Company with a highly valued connection to resources, important information and learning. With complex operations and employees working in approximately 20 states, we are continually striving to keep abreast of specific state laws, many of which vary from state to state. We have participated in the ELA web seminars and have found the content very useful. We appreciate the ease, cost effectiveness and quality of the content and presenters offered by these web seminars.  The Global Employer Handbook has provided our company with a very helpful overview of legal issues in the various states in which we operate, and the network of attorneys has helped us manage issues that have arisen in states other than where our Roastery and corporate headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon.

Capgemini Outsourcing Services GmbH

As an international operating outsourcing and consulting supplier Capgemini has used firms of the Employment Law Alliance in Central Europe. We were always highly satisfied with the quality of employment law advice and the responsiveness. I can really recommend the ELA lawyers.

Hirschfeld Kraemer

Stephen HirschfeldAs an employment lawyer based in San Francisco, I work closely with high tech clients with operations around the globe. Last year, one of my clients needed to implement a workforce reduction in a dozen countries simultaneously. And they gave me 48 hours to accomplish this. I don't know how I could have pulled this off without the resources of the ELA. I don't know of any single law firm that could have made this happen. My client received all of the help they needed in a timely fashion and on a cost effective basis.

Stephen J. Hirschfeld

Hollywood Entertainment Corporation

As the Vice President for Litigation & Associate General Counsel for my company, I need to ensure that we have a team of top-notch employment lawyers in place in every jurisdiction where we do business. And I want to be confident that those lawyers know our business so they don't have to reinvent the wheel when a new legal matter arises. With more than 3400 stores and 35,000 employees operating in all 50 U.S. states and across Canada, we rely on the ELA to partner with us to help accomplish our objectives. I have been delighted with the consistent high quality of the work performed by ELA lawyers. I encourage other in-house counsel to use their services, as well.

Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro is the world's largest technology distributor, providing sales, marketing, and logistics services for the IT industry around the globe. With over 13,000 employees working throughout the U.S. and in 35 international countries, we need employment lawyers who we can count on to ensure global legal compliance. Our experience with many multi-state and multi-national law firms is that their employment law services are not always a high priority for them, and many do not have experts in many of their offices. The ELA has assembled an excellent team of highly skilled employment lawyers, wherever and whenever I need them, and they have proven to be an invaluable resource to our company.

Konami Gaming

Our company, Konami Gaming, Inc., is growing rapidly in a very diverse and highly regulated industry. We are aggressively entering new markets outside the domestic U.S., including Canada and South America. I have had the recent opportunity to utilize the services provided by the ELA. The legal advice was both responsive and professional. Most of all, the entire process was seamless since our Nevada attorney coordinated the services and legal advice requested. I look forward to working with the ELA in the future, as it serves as a great resource to the legal community.

Jennifer Martinez
Vice President, Human Resources

Nikkiso Cryo, Inc.

Until recently, I was unaware of the ELA's existence. We have subsidiaries and affiliates throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. When a recent legal issue arose in Texas, our long-time Nevada counsel, who is a member of the ELA, suggested that this matter be handled by his ELA colleague in Dallas. We are very pleased with the quality and timeliness of services provided by that firm, and we are excited to now have the ELA as an important asset to help us address employment law issues worldwide.

Palm, Inc.

The ELA network has been immensely important to our company in helping us address an array of human resources challenges around the world. I strongly encourage H.R. executives who have employees located in many different jurisdictions to utilize the ELA's unparalleled expertise and geographic coverage.

Stacy Murphy
Former Senior Director of Human Resources

Rich Products

As the General Counsel for a company with 6,500 employees operating across the U.S. and in eight countries, it is critical that I have top quality lawyers on the ground where we do business. The ELA is an indispensable resource. It has taken the guesswork out of finding the best employment counsel wherever we have a problem.

Jill K. Bond
Senior Vice President/General Counsel, Shared Services and Benefits

Ricoh Americas Corporation

We have direct sales and service offices all over the U.S., but have not necessarily had the need in the past for assistance with legal work in every state where we have a business presence. From time to time, we suddenly find ourselves facing a legal issue in a state where we have no outside counsel relationship. It has been a real benefit to know that the ELA has assembled such an impressive team of experts throughout the U.S. and overseas.

A few years ago, we faced a very tough discrimination lawsuit in Mississippi. We had never had to retain a lawyer there before. I was absolutely delighted with the Mississippi ELA firm. We received an excellent result. They will no doubt handle all of our employment law matters in Mississippi in the future. I have also obtained the assistance of several other ELA firms around the U.S. and have received the same outstanding service. The ELA is a tremendous resource for our company.

Roberts-Gordon LLC

Our affiliated companies have used the Employment Law Alliance in connection with numerous acquisitions, and have always been extremely pleased with our ability to obtain the highest quality legal advice on due diligence issues from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have found the Employment Law Alliance firms to be not only first rate with respect to their legal advice but also responsive and timely in assisting us with federal and state law issues critical to our due diligence efforts. We consider the Employment Law Alliance to be an important part of our team.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

We have partnered with many ELA firms on the development and execution of case management strategies with very positive results. We have been very pleased with the legal advice and counsel provided by the law firms we have utilized who are affiliated with the Employment Law Alliance. The ELA firms we have worked with are customer focused, responsive, and thorough in their approach to handling labor and employment law matters.

Elizabeth Daly
Assistant General Counsel


Sanmina-SCI has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world. Our customers expect that we will provide them with the highest quality and most sophisticated services in the marketplace. We have that same expectation for the lawyers with whom we do business. With operations in 17 countries, we need to be certain that we have a team of lawyers working together to address our employment law needs worldwide. The ELA has delivered exactly what it promised-- seamless and consistent high quality services delivered in each locale around the globe. It has quickly become a key asset for our human resources department.


We own, manage, and franchise hotels throughout the U.S. and in more than 90 countries. With more than 145,000 employees worldwide, ensuring that we comply with the complex web of local labor and employment laws in every one of these jurisdictions is a daunting task. The Employment Law Alliance has served as an important resource for us and we have benefited greatly from its expertise and long reach. When a legal dispute or issue has arisen in some far-flung place, Employment Law Alliance lawyers have always provided responsive, practical, and cost-effective assistance.

Wilmington Trust Corporation

Wilmington Trust has used the ELA to locate firms in California, Washington State, Georgia, and Europe. Our experience with the ELA lawyers with whom we have worked has always been one of complete satisfaction and prompt, practical advice.

Michael A. DiGregorio
General Counsel