Posts

Casual Wage Theft Under Fair Work Commission’s Watch

,

Thousands of “casual” miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are each owed an average of $33,000 per year in back pay for every year of service for wage theft.

When inquiring with the Fair Work Commission about applying the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT), I asked if they would expect the pay under an Enterprise Agreement (EA) to at least match that under the relevant Award. Mr. Furlong confirmed that the EA would indeed be compared with the Award. I highlighted that there are workers under EAs who are earning significantly less than the Award, with these EAs being sanctioned by the Fair Work Commission and devised in collaboration between employers and the CFMEU.

I reiterated to Senator Watt that I could not support legislation that goes against the interests of workers and conceals the wrongdoing of unscrupulous unions. Minister Burke is shirking his responsibilities by refusing to deliver justice for thousands of workers ensnared in the casual rort stemming from enterprise agreements crafted in collusion with the CFMEU and labor hire firms, resulting in the largest wage theft in Australian history.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here. Good to see you again, Mr Furlong. When the Fair Work Commission assesses the application of the better off overall test, the BOOT, to a proposed enterprise agreement, would it be a normal expectation that the pay rate under the enterprise agreement should be clearly equal to or above that of the relevant award? 

Mr Furlong: As you are aware, and as we have discussed in previous estimates, the agreement making process involves a statutory decision-holder, a member of the commission, looking at the facts of the matter and then applying a legal test, the better off overall test. There are some other elements that they are required to satisfy. On the basis of that, they make a determination about whether or not the agreement is to be approved or not. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be a normal expectation that the pay rate under the enterprise agreement should be clearly equal to or above? That is a normal expectation? 

Mr Furlong: Yes. The better off overall test— 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are there circumstances in which, when considering the better off overall test, the BOOT, for an enterprise agreement, the Fair Work Commission would not do a comparison against the relevant award? 

Mr Furlong: The answer to that question is that there would be an award that they will refer to in terms of the application of the better off overall test. Through that process, they will determine whether or not that agreement as made is better off overall than the underpinning agreement. 

Senator ROBERTS: So they would do a comparison against the award? 

Mr Furlong: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If the enterprise agreement pay rate were not equal to or above the relevant award, and instead paid substantially less than the award, what would be the criteria used to justify that the enterprise agreement still passed the better off overall test, the BOOT? 

Mr Furlong: It’s not a line-by-line comparison. 

Senator ROBERTS: No. What would be the criteria? Broad criteria? Line by line? Whatever you want? 

Mr Furlong: It is the better off overall test. The Fair Work Act prescribes what the member must take into consideration in determining whether or not that agreement meets the requirements that have been approved. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are pay rates prescribed in there? 

Mr Furlong: They will be. The decisions of the members—the independent tribunal members—will outline the reasons for the approval of those agreements, including whether or not they satisfy the better off overall test. 

Senator ROBERTS: That is a wonderful point. Thank you so much. Even if the award excluded certain classes of employees from its provisions, would that exclusion create the legal circumstances to pay such excluded classes of employee less under an enterprise agreement than what they would or could earn under the award if the class of employees were not award excluded? Just to be clear, I’m not posing a theoretical question here. I refer to the black coal mining industry award exclusion of casuals as an example. Casuals are not specifically referred to in the black coal mining industry award. 

Mr Furlong: I understand that. As we have discussed in previous estimates, the fact that there are no casual coalminers under the black coal mining award doesn’t preclude an enterprise agreement being made. 

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. I am talking about the pay. If an award excluded certain classes of employees in the coal industry—casuals—from its provisions, would that exclusion create the legal circumstances to pay such excluded classes of employee less under an enterprise agreement than what they would or could earn under the award if the class of employees were included in the award? 

Mr Furlong: Senator, I have tried as hard as I can to be helpful in terms of the second part— 

Senator ROBERTS: You are being helpful. 

Mr Furlong: that we have provided. My role as the general manager is to provide administrative support to the president on the efficient running of the tribunal, in essence. The matters that you are going to now traverse instances or occurrences that may end up before tribunal members for their determination. I can’t answer that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. That’s fine. Thank you. Minister, what would be the attitude of the government where workers working under enterprise agreements were paid less than the award even though the workers were doing exactly the same job they would under the award? 

Senator Watt: Well, I would want to know more about the circumstances there. In general, the idea behind enterprise bargaining is for people to obtain pay and conditions above the award level. 

Senator ROBERTS: Why is Minister Burke shirking his responsibilities and refusing to provide justice for thousands of workers caught in the permanent casual rort that is the result of enterprise agreements agreed between the CFMEU, now known as the Mining and Energy Union, with some labour hire firms, all with the Fair Work Commission’s approval? When will Minister Burke address this, the largest wage theft in Australian history? 

Senator Watt: Well, as we’ve discussed many times, Senator Roberts, Minister Burke is not avoiding that. In fact, Minister Burke has led the government’s efforts to address and fix the permanent casual rort, including through the legislation that we passed only last week. I actually don’t remember how you voted in that legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS: I voted against it because it would not address the issue that I am talking about right here. It buries the issue and buries the culpability of the unions. 

Senator Watt: I thought you probably voted against that legislation last week, because One Nation has pretty consistently voted against the legislation that has been designed for workers. 

Senator ROBERTS: We vote against it, as I explained, because it doesn’t address the issue. It buries the issue. 

Senator Watt: Just as you voted against the closing loopholes bill last year, which is all about trying to put labour hire workers on an even footing with other workers. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not true, Minister. 

Senator Watt: Well, One Nation has consistently voted against these things. 

Senator ROBERTS: You are consistently avoiding the issue of thousands of casual coalminers in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland, our own state. I want that addressed. 

Senator Watt: I’m not. We’re not. We’ve gone over this ad nauseam. 

Senator ROBERTS: To make a point here concerning the validity of an enterprise agreement that removes the minimum statutory protections of any award, I quote the following paragraph from the full bench Federal Court decision in One Key Workforce Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, decided in 2018. I go to paragraph 227. This is from the court decision: 

It is uncontentious that, where a statute requires an administrative decision-maker to reach a state of satisfaction about a matter, the opinion as to the state of satisfaction must be reached by a rational, reasonable and logical process. 

I will go to paragraph 204. I quote: 

It is an error of law to fail to have regard to relevant material in a way that affects the exercise of power. An administrative decision-maker who makes such an error exceeds his or her authority and acts without jurisdiction. 

I’m going to read— 

CHAIR: If we keep to the time line, I am giving you a heads-up. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m nearly done. I have two questions and I will read some material. We had a team of workplace lawyers—I emphasise the plural—consultants and coalminers review and analyse five significant labour hire coal mining enterprise agreements and their work roster, which is complicated. The CFMEU, now the Mining and Energy Union, was involved in, was a party to or signed off on all five agreements. The Fair Work Commission approved all five agreements. The enterprise agreements all underpay the award dramatically. Specifically, in the core staff enterprise agreement 2018, the yearly underpayment for casuals working under that award is estimated at $22,623. It is wage theft. The FES agreement in 2018 has yearly underpayment estimated at $27,563 of wage theft for casual workers. The WorkPac agreement in 2019 showed yearly underpayment for casuals estimated at $33,555. Wage theft. The Chandler Macleod agreement 2020 has yearly underpayment estimated at $39,341. Wage theft. The Tesla group agreement 2022 yearly underpayment is estimated at $40,645. Wage theft. The Fair Work Commission has ruled that at least five black coal mining industry enterprise agreements exceeded their authority. Minister, what avenues will Minister Burke and your government take to restore basic entitlements lost under agreements that the CFMEU, the Mining and Energy Union, signed with various employers and that the Fair Work Commission approved? 

Senator Watt: Well, Senator Roberts, I have personally sat through probably at least half a dozen estimates committee hearings where you have raised these issues repeatedly. Various officials have answered these questions repeatedly. The matters have been investigated, as I understand it, and dealt with. I understand that you are not satisfied with those answers, but I can’t add to what we’ve said about these things before. 

Senator ROBERTS: Does it bother you that I have explained that the Fair Work Ombudsman has used a fraudulent document that has been deemed fraudulent by the Australian Taxation Office as evidenced against five others? It is solid evidence, including a court hearing. 

Senator Watt: If that were true, of course I would be bothered by it. 

Senator ROBERTS: You would be. Okay. 

Senator Watt: But I’m not sure that is true. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. This is my last question. Why has the process that the Fair Work Commission has adopted since 2010 in approving coal industry enterprise agreements that remove the minimum statutory protections of the black coal mining industry award clearly devoid of any form of rationality, reasonableness or logic? 

Senator Watt: What was the beginning of that question? 

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the process that the Fair Work Commission has adopted since 2010 in approving coal industry enterprise agreements that remove the minimum statutory protections of the black coal mining industry award—its entitlements, pay rates, the wage theft that I’ve just illustrated—clearly devoid of any form of rationality, reasonableness or logic, as the Federal Court requires? 

Senator Watt: That is obviously your opinion, Senator Roberts. I know that it is a strongly held opinion. I don’t think that opinion is shared more broadly. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/by

What is Coal LSL Hiding?

Simon Turner, a coal miner from the Hunter Valley, suffered a workplace injury and has missed out on his entitlements, including long service leave, for 9 years. I have consistently questioned Coal Long Service Leave (LSL) at previous Senate Estimates and did so again in October.

The CEO of Coal LSL, Ms Darlene Perks’ responses to my questions were clearly not co-operative and were defensive.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. You have the last gig, as usual!

Senator Watt: We’re saving the best for last!

Senator ROBERTS: At estimates on 30 May this year, right here, I asked Ms Perks for the contracts between Coal LSL and AUSCOAL for the years 1993 through to 2017. I was eventually provided with only three
unredacted contracts for the years commencing 1 July 2006, 1 July 2008 and 1 July 2012. That’s only three out of the 25 documents. Why were the rest not provided?

Ms Perks: The three contracts that have been provided were the documents that we have been able to access from the archives. The contracts were for more than a one-year term, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that 25 were missing. But it is fair to say that the three we have provided are the three that we have been able to access from the archives.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s all?

Ms Perks: They are the three that we have been able to access.

Senator ROBERTS: You could only access those three?

Ms Perks: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Wow! Is there any other place that you can look—any other source?

Ms Perks: We’ve exhausted our resources.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I place on record your noncompliance with the original request and your reason is now on record as well. Why did Coal LSL pass on the administrative responsibilities of Coal LSL to AUSCOAL?

Ms Perks: I can’t comment on a decision of the board back in that period of time.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you meet with the board? Or did you meet with the board at that time? When the board met, were you in attendance?

Ms Perks: Senator, you’re talking about a period which was before my employment. I think this was part of the discussion—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s true. Did the responsibilities that the board of Coal LSL passed on to AUSCOAL include collecting long service leave levies from employers?

Ms Perks: The contracts that have been shared with you certainly included the collection of levies as one of the responsibilities included in the outsourced administration contract.

Senator ROBERTS: When did that first happen, and over which years? Right from the start of the contract, was it?

Ms Perks: My recollection is that AUSCOAL, as a service company, were contracted by the entity from 1993.

Senator ROBERTS: Right from the start. It was reported in annual reports that over those years Coal LSL had no employees—is that true?

Ms Perks: That was my answer at the previous estimates.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. So you were employed by AUSCOAL during those years?

Ms Perks: I answered that question at previous hearings, and the answer doesn’t change.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you cease working for Coal LSL—I don’t think we’ve asked this question before—when employed by AUSCOAL? I’m guessing that would be yes.

Ms Perks: Coal LSL only started employing employees from 2017. Again, that was the information I provided in the previous hearing.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know why AUSCOAL ceased providing services to Coal LSL?

Ms Perks: Sorry, AUSCOAL providing services to Coal LSL? Is that your question?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why did they go to Coal LSL doing its own work?

Ms Perks: That was a decision by the board of Coal LSL at the time, to insource the operations.

Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t necessarily on the board, but you were present as general manager then?

Ms Perks: I was not part of the board discussions.

Senator ROBERTS: So you weren’t sitting in on the board meetings?

Ms Perks: Not when the decision was made.

Senator ROBERTS: So you were then re-employed by Coal LSL?

Ms Perks: Coal LSL ran a national search for the role of CEO. I applied, I was successful through that process and I was appointed into the role of CEO.

Senator ROBERTS: AUSCOAL was part-owned—50 per cent—by the CFMMEU. When was that changed from the original statutory—

Ms Perks: I can’t comment on the shareholding structure.

Senator ROBERTS: It was before your time?

Ms Perks: I can’t comment.

Senator ROBERTS: Just thinking about it now, my recollection is it was quite a while ago. Do you know if AUSCOAL collected the levy and made a profit from holding the accumulated funds under a government
scheme?

Ms Perks: I can’t comment on AUSCOAL’s profit and loss. I didn’t have visibility of it. It wasn’t part of my role.

Senator ROBERTS: The CFMMEU is one of the owners of AUSCOAL. It has a 50 per cent share?

Ms Perks: It’s not part of my role to be concerned with the shareholding of AUSCOAL.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know, though?

Ms Perks: I am not going to comment on that.

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I think the question—

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have seen Ms Perk’s reluctance to answer.

Senator Watt: That’s not fair. She is here, as all other witnesses are, to answer questions about the activities of the organisation she is representing, not provide information about shareholdings in companies external to the organisation.

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to ask which entities made a profit from this arrangement based on moneys paid by the coal companies, but it’s outside your purview. Minister Watt, I don’t know if you would know the
answer to this, but it is not a question for Ms Perks. Is it true that 2011 legislation under the auspices of Bill shorten enabled casuals to be covered by Coal LSL arrangements? They actually changed the Coal LSL
legislation, I understand, even though casuals are not covered under the black coal award.

Senator Watt: I don’t know the answer to that. That is talking about events from four or five Prime Ministers ago.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct, but it’s affecting miners right now. Prior to that, there was no way that someone who was a casual could be on Coal LSL.

Senator Watt: I don’t know the answer to that question.

Senator ROBERTS: Bill Shorten’s legislation, I understand—I was hoping for confirmation—opened the door for that.

Ms Perks: The change of legislation in 2011 did change the eligibility rules under the scheme, and the eligibility rules that are still current under section 4 of the admin act talk about the duties of the employee. That is
the explanation I’ve provided in several hearings—that the eligibility rules do not refer to the employment relationships and industrial relations of the employee. So, yes, they were the changes in 2011 that were
implemented as part of the administration act amendment.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

“Closing Loopholes” Split Shows Labor Doesn’t Actually Care About Workers

I spoke in support of Senators’ Pocock and Lambie pulling out sections of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 and dealing with them urgently. These are all worthwhile, all simple, and all carved out of the original legislation. This isn’t controversial. It is worthwhile legislation that needs to be dealt with now.

The Closing-Loopholes Bill is a cover-up and combining the bills under the ‘loopholes’ tag is a trick. There are some fantastic elements in this package but they’re using those to hide the flawed elements of the bill.

Despite the Labor party lies:

– One Nation will always support workers getting redundancy entitlements.

– One Nation will always support workers’ rights when they are suffering domestic violence.

– One Nation will always support workers safety against silica and asbestos.

– One Nation will always support our first responders receiving injury compensation for the PTSD they got from work.

Labor hates this move to split-out elements of the bill, because it proves they have abandoned the workers.

Labor is no longer the party of the workers. One Nation is the new party of the workers.

Transcript

We absolutely support these elements of the so-called closing-loopholes bill that we are now dealing with, that we will deal with. And I want to commend Senators Pocock and Lambie for their initiative in pulling out these four sections of the bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, because the bills that we’re dealing with this morning, which are carved out from the original fair work bill, are the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, and the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023, including access to PTSD compensation. These are all worthwhile, all simple, all carved out of the original legislation from Labor—exact copies.

The motion to reorder allows a sensible amount of time for debate, given that these are not controversial issues and they’ve so far received wide support from stakeholders. I agree with Senator Lambie that the closing-loopholes bill, in its entirety, is just a cover-up, a trick. That’s all they’re doing. Combining the bills under the ‘loopholes’ tag is dishonest, and that’s what the Labor Party is doing with this bill. It’s fundamentally dishonest. They are protecting and covering up the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter Valley, the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman, Coal Long Service Leave Corporation, and Minister Burke and his staff, who were aware of some illegalities, some crimes, that have been committed in the topics that I’ve been discussion for the past four years in this place.

That’s why this bill is being lumped in, Senator Cash. We’ve got a lovely title, ‘Closing Loopholes’. There are some fantastic elements of it; I agree with Senator Lambie. But they’re hiding it under a dog. They’re protecting their own rackets.

Ensuring that all questions on the bills are put at 11.30 today will ensure that we get these sensible measures passed, as Senator Cash and Senator Lambie have said. It would be nice to pass some legislation in the Senate. That’s another reason why we need this suspension of standing orders motion. The government has been stuck on its non-sensical sea dumping bill, now in its fourth day. I heard Senator Pocock talking about it the other day. Why would you call it a sea dumping bill—putting pollution in the form of phosphates, nitrogen and iron into the ocean as an experiment? They can’t even name their bill correctly, using a decent term. Maybe it is correct, Senator Pocock, through you, Chair. It’s a sea dumping bill—that’s your title—and you can’t withstand the scrutiny that your own sloppy sea dumping bill has brought upon you. You can’t withstand the scrutiny, and you’re still going. That is what is happening with this motion. The Senate is slapping the government and saying, ‘This is how you get some legislation through.’ So I want to thank Senators Lambie and Pocock again.

We need to pass this motion for the insolvency practitioners that will be done over when the headcount falls below the small business threshold and will miss out on entitlements. This has wide industry support and is an aberration. We should deal with it now, as this motion proposes. People who are suffering from family and domestic violence should have access to protections in the Fair Work Act—sooner rather than later. That isn’t controversial. We need to deal with it now, as this motion proposes. We need to get on with the job with these four bills. I commend Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock, and we support this suspension of standing orders.

/by

ABC Interview: Union bosses neck deep in casual exploitation – Closing loopholes

, ,

The union bosses claim that Labor’s latest Industrial Relations legislation will “close the loophole” of casual workers being paid less than permanents, especially in the mining sector.

You can’t step on site without a union enterprise bargaining agreement, so how are casual workers getting ripped off when they’re working under union negotiated agreements?

The answer is that some union bosses are getting kickbacks from labour hire companies in exchange for passing through dodgy agreements that allow casuals to be exploited.

The Fair Work Commission is meant to stop this, but they’re either asleep at the wheel or deliberately not doing their job.

Transcript

1 November 2023

Presenter

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment, known as the, “Closing Loopholes Bill,” held its hearings in Rockhampton this week. Announced by the federal government in September, the Closing Loopholes Bill aims to criminalise wage theft, introduce minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, close the forced permanent casual worker loophole, and close the labour hire loophole.

It’s all about that thing that we’ve been talking about for yonks, and that is, if you’re doing the same job as someone else, you should get the same pay. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts is in Rockhampton for the hearings, and he’s been raising the issue of the exploitation of the permanent casual workers in CQ miners for years. Frazer Pearce asked him if the proposed legislation would provide a better outcome for miners.

Malcolm Roberts

Look, my position on this Fair Work Act for a start, the current act as it stands, without Labor’s latest draft amendments, is 1,200 pages long, and they’re wanting to add another 800 pages. It already makes the workers vulnerable because there’s no way any single worker or small business can understand it; and it helps the IR club. All regulations in that help the major groups like the major banks, the big pharma, and the Industrial Relations Club.

That’s the lawyers, the Union bosses, the Industry Associations for multinational companies. It hurts the workers. I’ve seen that firsthand in Hunter, the Hunter Valley, and in Central Queensland. The second point I’d make is that we wouldn’t be having this inquiry if it wasn’t for the fact that the cross bench has moved it to extend the opportunity, to extend the reporting date from October through to next February. We would not be here listening to the views of industry unions and individual workers, if it wasn’t for the fact that we got an extension till next February.

The Labor Party voted against that extension. They don’t want to listen to people. We voted in favour of it. It’s a very important bill. It’s a huge bill. Big ramifications for workers as well as all players in the industry. The third point I’d make is that current employment in the coal industry at least, is that illegal employment of casual, supposedly casual, in coal is only possible, only possible, with a mining and energy union endorsed enterprise agreement.

We’ve seen that. I can go into detail if you need, but this is probably not the time. But the Mining Union in the Hunter Valley in particular, and to some extent in Central Queensland, has been passing enterprise agreements that do not protect the basic rights of workers. They don’t meet the award criteria as a basic minimum. They don’t meet the National Employment standards as a basic minimum.

They have been selling out workers in the coal industry and what we need for a solution is just a simple enforcement of the Fair Work Act. Now, early on in the proceedings and dealing with these issues, I proposed the, “Same work, same pay” bill. It’s very simple bill. But what I’ve since realised in doing more work, listening to miners, is that all that’s needed is to enforce the current Fair Work Act.

Frazer Pearce

What’s the level of, do you think of exploitation against these workers? Are you saying it’s widespread or it’s just isolated?

Malcolm Roberts

Yes, it’s widespread and it varies in severity. They’re paying well below the award and as I said, the award is the basic minimum. They have not done , they’ve not done the boot test, which is the, “better off overall test”. And that’s how these dodgy agreements have got through that are shafting coal miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. They have left out basic leave entitlements.

They don’t pay casual loading. Casuals are not legally allowed to be employed in the coal industry other than in a dodgy agreement, which is unlawful in itself; because they bypass the normal processes. People are missing out on leave entitlement. People are, as a result of being hired casual, short term, are threatened with dismissal at any time, people are afraid to raise safety incidents.

There’s a culture of fear there. There’s a culture of fear at many mines from people standing up and and afraid of standing up. There’s also been a lack of reporting of injuries. New South Wales in particular, we suspect also Queensland. There’s a, basically there’s a loss in some cases of workers insurance, workers’ compensation, accident pay. These are fundamental rights.

Frazer Pearce

Is this going to be a strong platform for you in the next election? Was it a vote winner for you in the last one?

Malcolm Roberts

We don’t do things to get votes. We do things because they’re right.

Presenter

That’s One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts having a chat with ABC Capricornia Frazer Pearce, talking about the closing loopholes bill. The hearing’s being held in Rockhampton at the moment. It’s a couple of minutes to eight.

/1 Comment/by

Coal LSL Under Question

,

At the May/June Senate Estimates I asked questions of the Coal LSL Board to establish that a person working under an Enterprise Agreement contract cannot receive benefits less than the agreed award for the same category.

Under the Black Coal Award there’s no category for casuals because casuals are not allowed to be employed under the Black Coal award.

The Board confirmed that they do not check which category a coal miner works when calculating long service entitlements, merely accepting what the employer tells Coal LSL.

All this contributes to coal miners being exploited in not getting their entitlements.

/3 Comments/by

Why is the FWO taking so long to confirm a casual miners employer?

For more than three years now I have been trying to seek justice for casual coal miners who have been robbed of their entitlements.

In this session the Fair Work Ombudsman reveals the vital tool for identifying the true employer in a disputed relationship: the humble ABN in conjunction with ATO data can identify possible wage theft and other dodgy practices of employers and unions.

The question I have then, why is it taking so long?
/5 Comments/by