Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Abetz. Has the minister seen reports of an attempt by the Textile Clothing & Footwear Union to obtain money from employers in the fashion industry by demanding $30,000 to settle legal action? What is the government's attitude to this practice?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm to Senator Bernardi that I am aware of the reports to which he refers regarding attempts by the textile union to seek money from 23 employers. Their tactic is to issue legal proceedings against the employer. The union then invites the employer to settle these proceedings in return for the employer paying the union $30,000, and that is for all 23 of the employers—talk about one size fits all!—to settle all the claims in one go, each one just pays $30,000. The message from the union is very clear: pay us $30,000 in go-away money, and the legal action will go away.

I am in receipt of a letter which sets out the terms of the offer and it states: 'if you agree to the proposal, the union is prepared to settle the claim against you and the matter will not proceed further.' And attached to the letter is a deed of settlement which includes the following terms: 'the employer'—and listen to this carefully—'must provide to the union a list of all names, street addresses and phone numbers of persons that the employer contracts with to perform work'—talk about a ham-fisted recruitment drive, if ever there was one. And then the next item includes this: 'the employer will arrange a meeting between up to three union representatives and all employees or home-based workers engaged by the employer to allow the union to explain the settlement that the employer has signed'—once again, a barefaced recruitment drive. This is at a time when the union has run for two consecutive years at a financial loss. I wonder what the motivation might be, Mr President.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I thank the minister for shedding light on this grubby business, and I ask a supplementary question: Minister, are you able to inform the Senate who would actually get this money, were employers to succumb to this rort? Would it be fashion industry outworkers, or the textile workers union itself?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can inform Senator Bernardi that the letter from Slater & Gordon Lawyers, the union's lawyers, makes no mention of any of this $30,000 going to workers. Instead, it states that the money will go to the union for the union's activities. The purported settlement money does not go to needy outworkers, nor to compensation for anyone who may be disadvantaged by award breaches; the money will go towards subsidising the union and its activities. If all of these employers agreed to the demands, this would provide a very cool $600,000 to $700,000 in additional revenue for the union—at a time when it is running a loss. This appears to be a union simply shaking down employers to boost its cash flow and to provide an additional income stream.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question: what is the government's position towards employers who receive threats from lawyers acting for the Textile Clothing & Footwear Union?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Employers who have received the letter from the union may be being seriously misled in relation to the effect of their paying the $30,000 demanded by the union. Accordingly, I suggest that they seek their own legal advice. The union letter demands that the employer pay the money—$30,000—as a supposed payment in lieu of penalty. However, it could well be that the Fair Work Ombudsman or indeed individual workers can still take a claim and the court impose a penalty, and therefore there is very real concern about the probity and robustness of the legal letter provided by Slater & Gordon to the 23 employers. I simply suggest to the 23 employers confronted with this standard letter that they seek their own legal advice to ensure that no money is extorted out of them.