EBAIR, ALTONA, Melbourne (2026)

07/09/2026

https://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace/minor-change-to-title-costs-worker-her-job-20260907-p60v3b.html?utm_source=theage-web&utm_medium=share_article&utm_campaign=business&utm_content=subscriber+alldigital&utm_term=product_feature

Don't know your RIGHTS@WORK then contact us

The employee was fired after scrubbing the word “senior” from her job title in legal correspondence, showing the importance of a title.

19/08/2026

https://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace/sacked-worker-forced-to-pay-for-using-plain-wrong-ai-in-landmark-case-20260819-p60puw.html?utm_source=theage-web&utm_medium=share_article&utm_campaign=business&utm_content=subscriber+alldigital&utm_term=product_feature

AI is only as smart as the person entering the prompts . Don't know your RIGHTS@WORK then contact us @ EBAIR

A sacked Aldi store assistant who used AI to make a “just plain wrong” argument he was unfairly dismissed has been forced to pay $1230 toward the supermarket’s legal costs in the first ruling effectively punishing a former employee for wasting the Fair Work Commission’s time.

On Wednesday, the country’s workplace umpire, which has highlighted the rise of nonsensical AI-generated applications that have led to an explosion in its workload and slowed down its processes, said the latest case involving AI was one with “no winner”.

The Fair Work Commission said the Aldi worker’s AI-generated claim was not “complete AI slop” but that it made irrelevant arguments.
The Fair Work Commission said the Aldi worker’s AI-generated claim was not “complete AI slop” but that it made irrelevant arguments.Getty
The case is a sharp contrast to a victory for a Macquarie University worker who used AI successfully to become the first casual employee to win orders from Fair Work last week converting him to permanent part-time status, over the opposition of the educational institution’s lawyers.

Wednesday’s case shows a new potential pitfall for workers who rely on AI in making their claims in Fair Work, despite the jurisdiction originally being set up as a free forum to help employees.

Fair Work Commission deputy president Michael Easton said the Sydney Aldi worker, who had used AI extensively to start and continue his unfair dismissal claim, had ignored multiple warnings he might have to pay costs and pressed ahead with his claim when it was clear he could not win.

“I have taken the very rare step of ordering [the man] to pay some of the employer’s legal costs because his unreasonable conduct caused his former employer to incur those costs unnecessarily,” Easton said.

Crucially, the man was not eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim because he had not served the minimum employment period of six months.

He had been dismissed on a date three days short of the minimum requirement, but his AI-generated materials had, from the beginning of the application process, focused on a “different and irrelevant date” according to the judgment.

A week before the hearing was due, Easton reviewed the materials filed by both sides and decided the man’s case was “hopeless” because it failed to meet the eligibility requirements.

The initial application filed by the man was “obviously prepared using AI” Easton said, containing AI drafting notes including: “Here is your **final clean copy-paste version**, with today’s date inserted as the dismissal date.”

Related Article
The nature of relationships is divided by the online and offline world – and all the uncertainties and contradictions this creates.
Unfair dismissal
Employee sacked for failing to return to office despite contract allowing WFH
“I took the time to write to [the man] and explain to him well ahead of the hearing, in plain English, why his case was unlikely to succeed,” Easton said. “[He] was encouraged to discontinue his application, and advised that there could be costs consequences if he continues his claim.”

The man’s AI-generated email reply once again addressed the wrong end date, Easton said, and repeated the same irrelevant AI-generated arguments.

“I took further time to send [the man] another email in the hope everybody’s time and costs would not be wasted by attending a hearing,” Easton said, stating in “much stronger terms” the “very strong likelihood” that his case would not win and that he would have to pay Aldi’s costs, after it applied for compensation.

The man continued his case and sent two further AI-generated submissions that again addressed the wrong end date, Easton said.

It was not until the hearing, where Easton raised the same concerns, that the man, for the first time, agreed that he had not completed the minimum employment period and decided to discontinue his application.

However, the man tried to argue he could not reasonably have been expected to understand the distinction between the date he was notified of his dismissal and the date the dismissal took effect because he “is not a legal expert.”

Easton said the man’s submission was “not complete AI slop, as that term has come to be used,” in that some of the legal arguments presented were “more or less correct, though irrelevant”, and the High Court cases cited were real cases rather than hallucinations.

However, he said the submission still focused on the effective date of the man’s dismissal, which was labelled as being “unresolved” despite there being “no doubt” about it.

The man was ordered to pay $1230 in legal costs Aldi wasted in preparing for and attending a hearing that, according to Easton, “should never have taken place” with losses for both parties that were “utterly preventable”. That represented a small part of Aldi’s overall costs, Easton noted.

Easton said that had the man read the emails from the commission himself, he would have realised the “unfixable flaw” in his case.

“[The man] could have and should have chosen to cut his losses when he had the chance,” Easton concluded.

Aldi was contacted for comment.

For the first time, the Fair Work Commission has forced a worker to pay for wasting its time, fining a sacked Aldi store assistant more than $1200.

15/07/2026

https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/uber-stands-by-sacking-of-driver-who-refused-guide-dog-20260713-p60erz.html?utm_source=theage-web&utm_medium=share_article&utm_campaign=business&utm_content=subscriber+alldigital&utm_term=product_feature

Don't Know your RIGHTS@WORK then contact us @ EBAIR

Uber stands by sacking of driver who refused guide dog

When *Bella opened her Uber app and booked a short ride in suburban Geelong shortly after 9am on a Thursday in March, the wait for a driver to arrive took longer than the five or so minutes needed to drive to her destination.

First, a driver accepted her trip within seconds, but cancelled on her a minute later. Then another driver accepted her trip, and spent eight minutes driving to her, allegedly drove up to and past her, at which point they also cancelled her trip.

Uber is defending its decision to deactivate a driver who it believes cancelled a rider’s trip because they had an assistance animal.
Uber is defending its decision to deactivate a driver who it believes cancelled a rider’s trip because they had an assistance animal. AP
A 10-minute wait for a driver can easily be written off as the frustrating reality of modern rideshare, an industry where drivers are considered not employees but contractors with the right to refuse work.

But what occurred in this 10-minute period has since led to the two drivers who cancelled on Bella being effectively fired from driving for Uber, with a related legal case testing the intersections of discrimination and employment law.

This is because, Bella, who is blind and rides with an assistance dog, believes both drivers cancelled on her because of her companion.

Paula says she had Uber rides cancelled 32 times because she has guide dog. The company is blaming the drivers
Uber, too, backs Bella. After receiving a complaint about her experience that morning, the company began the process of deactivating the drivers from its platform.

After being matched with each driver, Bella sent them both a standard message that she sends before every ride: asking for the front seat to be moved forward to accommodate her dog.

It’s a nice but unnecessary gesture. Any driver who accepts her trip is automatically alerted to her accessibility requirements because Bella has it displayed as a badge on her profile. This feature to pre-emptively identify assistance animals is optional for riders, but can prevent awkward confrontations if a driver objects to a dog on pick-up.

While standard riders need to book a special UberPet ride if they wish to transport an animal, riders with assistance animals do not need to book the special category. Drivers who don’t want dogs in their car for hygiene or cultural reasons, and so recuse themselves from UberPet trips, must still accept assistance dogs.

Yet, despite both Uber’s policies and discrimination law’s clarity on this issue, riders with assistance animals say repeated and consistent driver cancellations remain common.

Unfair deactivation case
After the drivers were notified of their breaches, and deactivated, Bella’s first driver that morning sought to challenge his sacking, lodging an unfair deactivation appeal at the Fair Work Commission.

He argues that Bella’s assistance dog was not his reason for cancelling. In fact, he claims he didn’t even pay attention to the message and badge notifying him of the dog, as he was distracted by simultaneously removing a booster chair from his back seats having just dropped his child off at school. He claims he only cancelled the trip because moments after accepting it, he found his child’s water bottle in his car, and wanted to run inside the school to give it to him.

He also pointed out he has previously driven riders with assistance dogs without issue.

Another part of his claim is that Bella’s initial complaint incorrectly mixed details from both of her cancelled trips that morning and misattributed them, including a claim that the first driver drove past her before cancelling. Mapping the route and timing of a subsequent trip he completed shortly after, he says proves any such allegation a geographic impossibility.

While Uber acknowledged the element of mistaken identity in the complaint, the company is standing firmly behind its decision to deactivate the first driver. It has also submitted evidence that shows the driver opened and read the message about Bella’s assistance dog, as well as the fact that he left his driver app active – and able to accept new trips – at the time he claimed to be running his child’s water bottle into his classroom.

Discrimination and labour laws clash
Uber’s staunch defence of its decision to boot drivers who refuse service to riders with assistance animals marks a significant policy turnaround for a company with a reputation for a hands-off approach.

Last year, Victorian woman Paula Hobley launched Federal Court proceedings against Uber alleging it had breached anti-discrimination laws over 32 trips she claims were cancelled due to drivers realising she had a guide dog.

In response, Uber shot down the allegations of discrimination by claiming it wasn’t responsible for what drivers did. Uber maintained it wasn’t a company that provided transport services, but rather, a technology company that provided users with access to its smartphone application, which matches them with and facilitates payments to drivers, who are independent contractors.

How banned Uber drivers are reinstated, while passenger evidence goes unheard
Uber and Hobley settled their case late last year, which included an agreement from Uber to review its operations related to forcing drivers to comply with their legal obligations to accept riders with assistance animals. Uber now also has an incentive for riders with assistance animals to report drivers who refuse them service: if their complaint leads to the driver being terminated, they get a $35 credit. Bella made note of the credit in her complaint about the driver.

Now, however, Uber finds its new anti-discrimination policy at odds with another set of laws.

Legislation introduced by the Albanese government a year ago to allow gig economy workers to claim unfair dismissal-style protections and appeal their “unfair deactivation” at the Fair Work Commission has seen Uber ordered to reinstate a flood of drivers – including several who had been disciplined over alleged unsafe driving and sexual harassment – in large part due to its policy of not gathering further evidence from complainants to risk re-traumatising them. Uber’s automated, bot-led system to handle complaints has also been savaged by the commission.

Following reporting from this masthead, Workplace Minister Amanda Rishworth last month announced strengthening of the laws to lower the amount of identifying information that platforms need to gather about complainants.

Uber Eats kicks Adelaide restaurant off the app after public protest

Global food delivery giant Uber Eats has kicked an Adelaide restaurant off the app after the burger shop staged a public protest of the platform.

‘Test case’
In Ali’s case, Uber is coming up against a different hurdle. Under the laws, platforms must warn a contractor first, and give them a fair opportunity to respond, before formally deactivating them. Misconduct must be serious to warrant an immediate deactivation.

In upholding its new policy to protect vision-impaired customers, Uber is now worried it will breach worker protection laws, calling this matter a “test case”. Proving a driver’s deactivation was fair, and proving that a rider has been discriminated against for their disability, are different legal arguments.

“This case highlights the practical challenges platforms experience with the Deactivation Code, where Uber has to choose between complying with federal discrimination laws or the code,” said Uber Director of Public Policy Pia Brunner.

“Platforms must be able to act decisively on a reasonable belief of driver misconduct, and urgent change is needed. While we are committed to fair processes for drivers, our priority in this case is defending the right of passengers with assistance animals to travel with dignity,” she said.

Advocacy group Vision Australia is backing Uber’s position, with its chief mission officer Chris Edwards saying: “Enforcing clear consequences for these incidents sends an important message that discrimination will not be tolerated.”

The Transport Workers Union, which is representing the first driver, insists it doesn’t support drivers refusing trips to riders with assistance animals, but believes the evidence against the driver is lacking and overly reliant on automated processes.

“Uber’s reliance on algorithmic management, instead of proper human-led processes, has already been slammed by the Fair Work Commission as illogical and arbitrary,” TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said. “Until it puts decent systems in place, we will continue to see cases like this one that, upon even basic fact-finding, have no foundation.

“Uber has come into the country and engaged swaths of workers. It needs to take responsibility for those workers, as well as its own customers, by having proper, human-led systems in place,” Kaine said.

*Bella is a pseudonym to protect her identity.

Uber is fighting what it says is a “test case” on the limits of anti-discrimination laws and gig economy worker protections.

17/06/2026

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-strict-eligibility-test-for-working-from-home-revealed-in-new-laws-20260617-p607o1.html?utm_source=theage-web&utm_medium=share_article&utm_campaign=national&utm_content=subscriber+alldigital&utm_term=product_feature

Don't know your RIGHTS@WORK then contact us @ EBAIR

The strict eligibility test for working from home revealed in new laws

Employers trying to stop staff working from home will need to prove it has a “significant” negative impact on business or is incompatible with their role under new laws introduced to parliament.

Businesses will also need to buy equipment for workers’ home offices and could be ordered to pay compensation for unfairly denying them the right to work remotely two days a week.

Employers would have to pay for equipment so staff can work from home under the laws.
Employers would have to pay for equipment so staff can work from home under the laws. Louise Kennerley
The legislation establishes the right to work from home for certain employees, in what Premier Jacinta Allan says is a landmark improvement in conditions for working people.

Big business groups have blasted the laws as an unnecessary intervention, given most workplaces already allow working from home where it is practical. Some industrial relations lawyers predict an avalanche of legal disputes over what jobs can reasonably be done remotely.

A full version of the laws, released on Wednesday, spells out a strict test bosses will have to apply in deciding whether they can stop an employee from spending two days a week at home, or a pro rata equivalent for part-timers.

Workers will need to notify their employer in writing that they intend to start working from home. Employers must respond within 21 days and can only refuse or limit flexible work if it is “not reasonable”.

Victorian government spruiks new work-from-home laws

Victoria’s deputy premier has doused rumblings of a leadership challenge as the party turns its attention to bolstered work-from-home laws.

The “not reasonable” decision must be based on specific considerations, including the “inherent requirements” of the role, such as access to equipment or face-to-face interaction with customers.

Other grounds to refuse are:

That it would require the employer to make impractical changes to working arrangements or hire new staff

The work from home legislation is a key plank of Premier Jacinta Allan’s pitch to working families struggling with cost-of-living.
The work from home legislation is a key plank of Premier Jacinta Allan’s pitch to working families struggling with cost-of-living.Ruby Alexander
Employers will also have to pay “reasonable costs” for equipment so workers can do their job from home.

Workers on probation, or on apprenticeship, traineeship or graduate programs are not eligible to work from home under the laws. Casual employees will qualify if they work on a “regular and systematic basis”.

Workers will be able to take their employer to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) for conciliation over work-from-home disputes, and then to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal if not resolved.

Employees already have the right under the federal Fair Work Act to request flexible working arrangements to accommodate specific needs, such as caring for children or having a disability, and employers can only refuse on “reasonable” business grounds.

Natalie Gaspar, an employment partner at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, said the Victorian laws significantly strengthened workers’ ability to secure work-from-home arrangements by making it a default right and setting a high bar for employers to refuse it.

Industrial relations
Business lobby predicts lawyers’ picnic over Victoria’s work-from-home laws
“The use of that language – significant adverse impact, significant decrease in productivity – is deliberate. It demonstrates the intention to set the bar really high,” Gaspar said.

“If there is some productivity decrease, if there is some impact on customer relationships or productivity, that is not a basis [for refusal]. That must be ‘significant’. That’s quite an important and stark point.”

However, Gaspar said workers and employers would still disagree over what constituted a “significant” impact, and many of these disputes would end up in VCAT.

“There will be some helpful guidance for employers that will come out of the early cases dealing with this, but it is a brave new world,” she said.

Gaspar said VCAT could ultimately order an employer who had unreasonably refused working from home rights to pay compensation to workers for transport costs or other expenses incurred coming into their workplace every day.

Ahead of the November state election, the working from home laws are a centrepiece of Allan’s pitch to working Victorians straining under the skyrocketing cost-of-living and being tempted by the right-wing populism of One Nation.

The government claims families can save time and up to $5000 a year in transport costs by working from home two days a week, but that some employers are unreasonably refusing flexible work.

While VEOHRC and VCAT are already struggling to clear their existing case loads, Holding Redlich workplace partner Charles Power said that under the legislation, workers could seek interim orders from the tribunal permitting them to work from home while the matter is resolved.

That, along with the fact that there is no cost to launch action in VCAT, could make it easier for workers to challenge their bosses’ decisions than it is under existing workplace laws.

“The VCAT workload is set for an increase,” Power said.

The Coalition has not indicated if it will support the laws, which will be debated when Parliament returns from its winter break in late July.

If passed, they would come into effect on September 1, however businesses with fewer than 15 employees will have until July 2027 to comply.

Bosses will have to prove a ‘significant’ negative impact before ordering staff back to the office under proposed new laws.

22/05/2026

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/mystery-challenge-to-andrews-era-corruption-report-revives-calls-for-law-changes-20260522-p5zzrl.html?utm_source=theage-web&utm_medium=share_article&utm_campaign=politics&utm_content=subscriber+alldigital&utm_term=product_feature

Don't know your RIGHTS@WORK THEN CONTACT US @ EBAIR

Mystery challenge to Andrews-era corruption report revives calls for law changes

Updated May 22, 2026 — 5:42pm,first published 11:53am

Victoria’s peak anti-corruption body says the latest attempt to stymie a long-running investigation into dealings between former premier Daniel Andrews and a union boss shows it needs greater powers to do its job.

Two mystery parties who cannot be identified for legal reasons have launched Supreme Court action to stop the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission publishing a report into corruption allegations centred on 10-year-old dealings between Andrews and United Firefighters Union national secretary Peter Marshall.

Former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews and United Firefighters Union boss Peter Marshall. Operation Richmond centred on dealings between the Andrews government and the union.
Former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews and United Firefighters Union boss Peter Marshall. Operation Richmond centred on dealings between the Andrews government and the union.Marija Ercegovac

Although the case has been listed for a “rapid hearing” at the end of next month, it forced IBAC to shelve its unpublished report into Operation Richmond, an anti-corruption probe in which both Andrews and Marshall were privately questioned about their conduct.

IBAC Commissioner Victoria Elliott – the third commissioner to have carriage of the Richmond investigation – said her agency’s powers needed to be boosted to enable it to hold more public hearings.

If these powers had been in place when Operation Richmond began, both Andrews and Marshall would have been questioned in open hearings and their sworn testimony widely reported.

Give corruption watchdog teeth to follow the money, government told
“As a general principle of public integrity, Victorians deserve to know more about IBAC’s efforts to expose and prevent corruption and police misconduct – and we want to tell you,” Elliott said in a statement released on Friday.

“But to do that, IBAC’s legislation needs to change, as it currently limits our ability to share what we believe to be in the public interest.

“Victorians want – and should have – greater insight into what is being done to address allegations of corruption and misconduct.”

Under the current laws, IBAC must demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” to hold public hearings and clear significant legal hurdles to publish its findings.

IBAC a ‘haven for politicians’, warns former commissioner Redlich
A preliminary Supreme Court hearing into the fresh legal challenge was told on Friday that IBAC’s entire report into Operation Richmond was provided to one of the unnamed plaintiffs on Thursday. This was done to satisfy the agency’s requirement to provide natural justice to anyone subject to adverse findings.

The latest twist in Operation Richmond has elevated Victoria’s anti-corruption framework, which is substantially weaker than that in force in NSW, to a state election issue. Shadow attorney-general James Newbury said a Coalition government would give IBAC greater powers if elected.

“Corruption is growing in Victoria, and the Coalition will stamp it out,” Newbury told The Age.

“The Coalition will provide IBAC with follow-the-money powers, we will stop hearings from being held almost solely behind closed doors, and we commit to doing whatever it takes to publicly release the Operation Richmond corruption report.”

It was unclear after Friday’s hearing before Justice Claire Harris whether the Operation Richmond report will be published before the November 28 election.

Lawyers for the unidentified plaintiffs failed in an application to permanently conceal their identities – the application was opposed by IBAC and media companies including The Age – but immediately flagged an appeal.

Whatever the outcome of the “rapid hearing” into the substantive issues raised in the case, the plaintiffs will have further appeal rights.

The lawyers behind this latest legal manoeuvre – Slater and Gordon head of industrial and employment law Geoff Borenstein and senior counsel Nicholas Wood, SC – are the same team who took IBAC to the High Court three years ago on a previous challenge against Operation Richmond.

The United Firefighters Union was one of the plaintiffs in that case.

IBAC was poised to publish its final report into Operation Richmond on Monday before the latest legal challenge was launched.

Legal counsel for IBAC Frances Gordon, KC, on Friday gave an undertaking to Harris that the anti-corruption agency would not publish the report, or provide any further advance copies of it to other parties, before the court dealt with the legal challenge.

“I think there is a real public interest in this moving very quickly,” the judge said.

The court on Friday took a series of extraordinary steps to preserve the anonymity of the mystery litigants. The case was filed as “Restricted v Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission”, the court file concealed from public view and part of Friday’s hearing held behind closed doors.

Four years too late, Andrews’ secret week in the witness box may finally come to light

A lawyer representing The Age and other media groups, Justin Quill from Thompsons, was refused permission to remain in court while the identity of the plaintiff was discussed.

“It is hard to imagine a matter in this court that has a greater public interest,” Quill told the judge. “This court is being asked to restrict the flow of information to our parliament. That is an extraordinary thing that your honour is being asked to do.

“The public has an enormous interest in understanding the reasons why … and what is going on.”

This masthead has previously reported that in December 2021, Andrews was privately examined by IBAC in relation to Operation Richmond and three other IBAC investigations.

Four-and-a-half years later, Victorians have been provided no details of what their state’s most senior politician told IBAC in relation to his dealings with a powerful union leader.

IBAC
The longest dispute: How the firefighters’ union took centre stage
Final reports into the other matters – operations Daintree, Sandon and Watts – have all been published. None contained findings of corrupt conduct against Andrews.

Andrews in 2022 refused to confirm whether he had been examined by IBAC. “If you want to know what IBAC has done or hasn’t done, who they’ve done it with, then you should go and talk to them,” he told reporters.

The Operation Richmond investigation centred on a contentious enterprise agreement struck between the United Firefighters Union and the Andrews government in 2016.

In the lead-up to the 2014 state election, which returned Labor to power, firefighters acting on the instructions of the union campaigned for Labor at marginal seat polling booths.

Then-emergency services minister Jane Garrett, who died in 2022, was responsible for negotiating the EBA with Marshall, the union’s long-serving national secretary. She quit her post in protest after Andrews intervened in negotiations and struck a deal with Marshall that gave the union unprecedented influence over the operations of the Country Fire Authority.

Operation Richmond began in 2019 under former IBAC commissioner Robert Redlich and was largely complete when he left office in 2022. The investigation continued under acting commissioner Stephen Farrow and is now being overseen by Elliott, who took over the agency in 2023.

IBAC has agreed to shelve its long-awaited report into the Andrews government’s dealings with the United Firefighters Union until the latest legal challenge is resolved.

29/04/2026

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/cfmeu-training-arm-cut-from-government-funding-after-audit-20260429-p5zs47.html?utm_source=theage-web&utm_medium=share_article&utm_campaign=politics&utm_content=subscriber+alldigital&utm_term=product_feature

Don't know your RIGHTS@WORK then contact us @ EBAIR

CFMEU training arm cut from government funding after audit
Kieran Rooney

A CFMEU training organisation that received millions of dollars in government grants over the past five years has been cut off from the scheme.

The state government put an end to the funding to the controversial union’s training arm in the same year it conducted what it said was a routine “transactional compliance audit” into the organisation, which offers educational short courses for construction industry workers.

A CFMEU training and wellness facility built next to the union’s headquarters.Eamon Gallagher
When asked about its decision by this masthead, a government spokesman insisted it did not identify “issues of concern” with CFMEU Education and Training, saying the government regularly reviewed the Skills First funding program.

It is the first time the organisation has not received this funding since at least 2021.

Last year’s audit came about in the same financial year in which the organisation’s manager Steven Deer was arrested over allegations he had stolen from the CFMEU body.

The revelation has prompted the opposition to urge the government to come clean on the findings of the audit and ensure no taxpayer funds were misappropriated.

Steven Deer, the head of the CFMEU’s training organisation, was arrested and charged last year.
Steven Deer, the head of the CFMEU’s training organisation, was arrested and charged last year.
CFMEU Education and Training is a significant arm of the union that offers specialist training in areas such as asbestos removal and traffic management.

It came under scrutiny in November after Taskforce Hawk, Victoria Police’s specialist unit for construction industry corruption, arrested Deer. He was charged with 21 offences involving allegedly fraudulent invoices dating from June 2024 through to May 2025. The matter remains before the courts.

Responding to written questions about whether the government was continuing to provide funding following these revelations, the Allan government told a parliamentary committee it had not offered a contract to subsidise any training places with CFMEU Education and Training this year.

“CFMEU Education & Training was subject to a business process and transactional compliance audit as part of the Department’s annual planned audit program for this financial year,” the government said.

“The Department has not offered CFMEU Education and Training a 2026 contract to deliver subsidised Skills First training.

“No new students will be enrolled in subsidised Skills First training at CFMEU Education and Training in 2026.”

Skills First is a Victorian government initiative that subsidises educational courses by paying training organisations directly.

When contacted by this masthead, the government said the audit of CFMEU Education and Training did not identify any “issues of concern” but would not elaborate on the contents of the audit or its findings. They said the program was reviewed annually to prioritise investment in key industries.

Related Article

CFMEU administrator Mark Irving (centre) has resigned and will be replaced by Michael Crosby (right), two months after launching an investigation into his former second-in-charge Zach Smith (left).
ExclusiveBuilding Bad
CFMEU rocked: Administrator resigns, real reason for deputy’s departure revealed
“Skills First delivers high-quality training, so Victorians can get the skills they need for the jobs they want,” a government spokesperson said.

“All Skills First training providers are subject to rigorous audits, reviews and compliance requirements.”

Previous compliance audits, publicly available on the union’s site, show it had a contract with Skills First as far back as 2021.

From July 2024 to May 2025, the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions paid the organisation $1.4 million through the program. In 2023-24, the government paid more than $1.45 million, and more than $1 million in 2022-23.

The department has had a relationship with the organisation since at least 2010.

Registered training organisations have become a key source of revenue for unions, particularly when membership numbers decline or flat-line. They can be particularly lucrative when the training they provide can be subsidised by government initiatives designed to fix skills shortages.

In 2024-25, the program provided $840 million in grants across the entire Skills First program.

Opposition jobs and skills spokeswoman Bridget Vallence said the department’s compliance audit must have been damning for the government to cut off funding.

“With the government at pains to say no new students will be enrolled in government subsidised training at the CFMEU, something seriously wrong has occurred,” she said.

“The Allan Labor government must come clean and reveal the audit findings.”

The CFMEU did not respond to a request for comment.

This week, the senior barrister appointed to clean up the CFMEU, Mark Irving, quit and respected union boss Michael Crosby agreed to step into Irving’s national role.

Taskforce Hawk was established in July last year, following the Building Bad investigation into the CFMEU by this masthead, The Australian Financial Review and 60 Minutes, to target criminal behaviour linked to the construction industry.

Having received millions of dollars over the past five years, the controversial union will no longer get taxpayer assistance to offer training to construction workers.

EBAIR

07/09/2026

19/08/2026

15/07/2026

17/06/2026

22/05/2026

29/04/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request