MUA and Offshore Marine Services ordered to pay Perth couple $723,000 for ‘closed shop
THE Maritime Union Australia and a labour hire company have been ordered to pay a WA couple more than $723,000 compensation after refusing to give them offshore work because they were not union members.
Bruce and Lynne Love were awarded the compensation last week over the 2009 ordeal.
The MUA was fined $79,200 in the Federal Court and was ordered to pay $723,300 in compensation to the married couple.
Skilled Offshore was ordered to pay the MUA one-third of the compensation for its role in denying the couple employment.
The court found that Skilled Offshore (Australia), previously known as Offshore Marine Services, had made MUA membership a pre-requisite for employment and told the couple they had to obtain membership before they could be employed as stewards.
The MUA then refused the couple’s applications for membership, which ensured the jobs went to existing MUA members.
The Fair Work Ombudsman started legal action in June 2011.
In May 2012, OMS was fined $7500 after admitting its contraventions, but the MUA defended the allegations.
The couple were told to do a Union training course and join the MUA in order to get the jobs, which would have got them a combined income of $220,000.
The Loves completed the training, but were twice denied membership and eventually the jobs went to MUA members.
Federal Court Judge John Gilmore found the couple were victims of the MUA’s “closed shop” .
“The Loves were seeking, and taking proactive steps to obtain, employment on a vessel, with the assistance … of OMS,” he said.
“The MUA’s conduct prevented each of the Loves from obtaining that employment.”
Justice Gilmore said Mr Love had lost weight to pass the medical examinations and the couple spent their own money for training courses.
“The Loves regarded their potential jobs with OMS as a way to rebuild their financial position following some financial setbacks in relation to small business ventures in which they had been involved,” he said.
“They reasonably saw the OMS jobs as a way to set themselves up for retirement, which, as at 2009, was not an option for them for many years into the future given their then financial position.”
Justice Gilmore found “The MUA’s conduct involved deliberate acts which resulted in the contraventions” of the Workplace Relations Act and Fair Work Act.
