EBAIR

EBAIR Has an employer made decisions that have had an impact on your position as an employee? Do you have

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/mystery-challenge-to-andrews-era-corruption-report-revives-calls-for-law-cha...
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Although the case has been listed for a “rapid hearing” at the end of next month, it forced IBAC to shelve its unpublished report into Operation Richmond, an anti-corruption probe in which both Andrews and Marshall were privately questioned about their conduct.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.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/cfmeu-training-arm-cut-from-government-funding-after-audit-20260429-p5zs47.h...
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.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/allegations-of-serious-misconduct-inside-the-latest-anu-controversy-20260414-p5znqv.h...
14/04/2026

https://www.theage.com.au/national/allegations-of-serious-misconduct-inside-the-latest-anu-controversy-20260414-p5znqv.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

When Brian Schmidt left the Australian National University in 2023, academics were fervently hoping the new vice chancellor would be an experienced administrator with a rich history of running a university.

“Sort of a grown-up,” said one former academic, speaking anonymously because he remains in the sector, “is who we were hoping for.”

They got Genevieve Bell, an experienced academic who had never run a university before.

A magnet for controversy during her ill-fated time as vice chancellor that ended in September last year, Bell made headlines as the ANU’s financial position became less and less tenable. She is once more under fire after claims she was suspended pending the investigation of allegations of serious misconduct for allegedly making a friend with no degree a professor.

Andrew Meares, a former Herald photographer, joined the ANU in 2019 after a stint as Bill Shorten’s official photographer. According to the Saturday Paper, he applied for a full professorship in 2023. This was unsuccessful, but in 2024 he found himself in the job despite the fact he has no university qualifications.

Bishop stares down critics as embattled ANU vice chancellor resigns
Sources close to the ANU say that Bell was banned from the university’s grounds during her alleged suspension. While the investigation into Meares’ promotion continues, Bell has returned to campus.

According to the university, Bell is on 12 months’ study leave, part of a settlement package when she left the VC role after two years.

ANU’s council, including then-chancellor Julie Bishop, appointed Bell to oversee the university as its financial position became apparent, much to the anger of staff and students.

Schmidt’s decision to make the ANU a more personable campus led the university down the path of fewer students at a time almost all other universities were relentlessly pursuing international students. It backfired – when the pandemic hit, the university lacked the cash reserves of other institutions, leading to ham-fisted attempts to claw back $250 million in savings.

The animosity in the ANU community grew: Bell faced calls to resign and was subject to a vote of no confidence over her handling of the financial situation facing the university. She ultimately left the VC role in September, although she remained at the ANU, as does Meares.

“Professor Andrew Meares is lead of the Cybernetic Futures group … Andrew leads cybernetic research and education experiences in cybernetic futures, the Cybernetic Imagination residency program, and is a co-investigator of an ongoing research project on Australia’s first digital system, the Overland Telegraph Line,” says his biography on the ANU website.

Sources at the ANU say Meares would have been suitable as a “professor in practice” – a role introduced by Schmidt for people with industry experience that could benefit the university and its students but who lacked formal qualifications.

“That would’ve made sense. It would also make sense if Bell had been involved, because the professor in practice jobs were run centrally through the VC’s office, unlike the promotion of ordinary academics,” said another ex-ANU staffer.

Meares’ ANU research page shows work on one paper from 2025 entitled “National Civil Preparedness in Australia and Civil-Military Coordination”. Bell is a co-author. The university said in a statement that Bell has not been suspended but is on study leave and that it would not comment “on speculative claims that may compromise individual privacy and reputation”.

It said that Meares “is a very well-regarded member of the School of Cybernetics and the College of Systems and Society.”

Meares and Bell were contacted for comment.

The ANU says vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell is on study leave, following the revelation of damning allegations.

https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/abc-staff-set-to-strike-for-the-first-time-in-20-years-20260323-p5rmlz.html...
22/03/2026

https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/abc-staff-set-to-strike-for-the-first-time-in-20-years-20260323-p5rmlz.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

Thousands of ABC journalists and staff members will walk off the job this Wednesday for the first time in two decades after 60 per cent of staff voted against the broadcaster’s latest pay offer.

The ABC’s chief people officer Deena Amorelli informed staff of the results of the vote on the latest enterprise offer on Monday morning, which fell short by 395 votes.

ABC staff will walk off the job this week.
ABC staff will walk off the job this week.Christopher Pearce
In an email to staff, Amorelli wrongly said 60 per cent of the 75.6 per cent of ABC staff who voted, voted yes to the pay offer. She corrected the mistake shortly, informing staff that 60 per cent of staff had voted against the offer, meaning several thousand workers will likely walk off the job on Wednesday morning at 11am, potentially shutting down live radio and television shows.

There are two unions representing ABC staff - the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) and the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU).

The last major strike at the ABC was in 2006, also over a pay dispute. The 24-hour walk off caused severe disruptions to its broadcast operations.

Thousands of ABC journalists and staff members are set to walk off the job on Wednesday for the first time in two decades after 60 per cent of staff voted against the broadcaster’s latest pay offer.

https://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace/worker-dismissed-for-side-hustle-he-claims-to-have-disclosed-20260206-p5o04...
10/02/2026

https://www.theage.com.au/business/workplace/worker-dismissed-for-side-hustle-he-claims-to-have-disclosed-20260206-p5o04m.html

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

A Victoria-based talent acquisition manager has had his unfair dismissal case knocked back after failing to disclose a side-hustle his former employer said conflicted with, and took attention away from, his 9-to-5 job.

The Fair Work Commission last week ruled that Anteo Recruitment Group’s decision to sack Michael McGregor was valid because he had breached his contract by running a personal business alongside his role at the firm without approval.

The Fair Work Commission knocked back the employee’s unfair dismissal claim.
The Fair Work Commission knocked back the employee’s unfair dismissal claim.Tash Sorensen
McGregor, who started a life coaching and counselling business, claimed he had informed his boss, Anthony Wilks, about his coaching activities by bringing it up at weekly team meetings, during one-on-one conversations and over team lunches. “At no point did Mr Wilks express concern,” he claimed in his witness statement.

Research from Westpac last year found more than half of Australians are either earning income from a side-hustle or actively considering starting one, with about three-quarters of those people citing extra income as their main motivation amid cost-of-living pressures.

Wilks said McGregor had never disclosed paid coaching, and that the personal counselling that his employee had referenced was regarding his personal wellbeing rather than business.

One employee at Anteo said in her witness statement that McGregor had often shared updates about his coaching during weekly team meetings and that she had never heard the boss raise any concerns or objections.

However, several other employees who were at these meetings said they had no knowledge of McGregor running his own business until November 2024.

While employed at Anteo, McGregor wrote an 80-page e-book which he attached to an email to Wilks. “There is no expectation of any sort e.g. reading it at all,” McGregor said in the email. “If you do read and there is anything you want to share, I’m open to that – including anything from an Anteo business point of view.”

McGregor also claimed he ran his LinkedIn profile – which had “executive counsellor and coach” for “Mike McGregor Counselling & Coaching” on it – by his boss, who said he would review it but did give his approval.

From our partners
However, Commissioner Mark Perica said neither of these things proved Wilks had full knowledge of McGregor’s business.

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
Examining the book “may have implied the secondary career” McGregor was pursuing, he said. “[But] it falls short of clear evidence … particularly when the e-book was attached to an email which essentially said that he did not have to read it.”

McGregor also ran an Instagram account for his business which Wilks said he discovered had an “excessive amount” of posts.

“I couldn’t work out for [the life of] me how someone could produce as much material and hold down a full-time job … so I had concerns that he was using his time on company time because we had given some flexibility around where Mike would work,” Wilks said, noting he was concerned it had cost his business.

However, the commissioner noted Anteo had, in its evidence, “unhelpfully” failed to include screenshots of [McGregor’s] Instagram account or personal website before laying him off.

In November 2024, Wilks raised his concerns with McGregor, who confirmed he was running sessions for his personal business outside work hours.

After auditing McGregor’s work phone and email, the firm found emails in which McGregor was booking consultations during office hours, sending coaching notes from his Anteo laptop to a private address, and asking Anteo candidates for favours in return for help through his new business.

McGregor said messages he had sent from his work email to personal email contained brief planning notes drafted during his entitled lunch break.

However, the commissioner said McGregor had an obligation to avoid possible conflicts of interest. “Although a coaching and counselling business does not directly compete with the recruitment business of Anteo, it is, at its lowest, adjacent to recruitment activities of his employer,” he said.

Further, because McGregor was employed in a managerial role at Anteo, the commissioner said it was arguable that the obligation to focus attention exclusively on Anteo extended beyond normal business hours.

Workplace
The end of the executive assistant? Corporate giant shifts roles to the Philippines
“The material produced by McGregor to support his parallel business in the form of a website, podcasts, Instagram posts, YouTube videos, and the production of an e-book implies a great deal of his time and attention was diverted to his coaching and counselling business,” he said.

While the ruling acknowledged Anteo may not have given McGregor enough warning about the risk of being dismissed, and didn’t provide him a proper opportunity to respond or rectify the conflict, the commissioner said this didn’t amount to an unfair dismissal.

“The small size of the business of Anteo, the predicament in which Anteo found itself, and the lack of a specialist human resource function explain the defect in the process of the dismissal,” he said. “Further, given the nature of the misconduct and the managerial position held by Mr McGregor, the act of dismissing him on notice was justified.”

Sydney University Professor Emerita Joellen Riley said there was often an “implied duty of loyalty”, with employees expected to pay exclusive attention to the work they were employed to do during their contracted hours.

Employers wanting to have say over what their workers did outside of these hours generally needed a written clause spelling this out in their employment contracts, Riley said, although people in managerial roles were regularly assumed to have an obligation to put the interests of their company first, including refraining from pursuing something that could affect the reputation of their employer or which could conflict with their job.

However, Riley said that in this particular case, there was an explicit requirement for the employee to provide exclusive service, which was fairly standard in professional service contracts.

“He signed an employment contract containing clauses promising exclusive service, then set up a side business of his own which he seems to have spent a lot of time pursuing,” she said, noting the small business employer had given him four weeks of termination notice and relied on a clear breach of the contract. “If there is any lesson in this, it is that if you want to set up your own business, don’t take employment that requires exclusive service.”

A Victorian recruitment manager failed to have his unfair dismissal application accepted after starting a personal business and failing to clearly disclose it.

Address

ALTONA
Melbourne, VIC
3018

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when EBAIR posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to EBAIR:

Shortcuts

Share

Category