In recent years, concerns have been raised about the Australian Workers Union (AWU) signing enterprise agreements (EAs) that deliver inferior outcomes for workers while including clauses that benefit the union financially through associated services. A key example of this practice involves the inclusion of income protection insurance provided by Chifley Financial Services; a company linked to the AWU.

Under several enterprise agreements across industries such as mining, manufacturing, and construction, the AWU has negotiated the inclusion of mandatory income protection insurance. This insurance is automatically applied to workers covered by the agreements, with premiums paid by the company. Chifley Financial Services, the income protection provider included in many of these agreements, is financially affiliated with the AWU, with profits from policies contributing revenue to the union.

This creates a conflict of interest. By securing Chifley’s products into enterprise agreements, the AWU gains a financial stream independent of membership dues, while workers bear the cost through lower rates of pay and conditions, regardless of whether they wanted the insurance or could have obtained better coverage elsewhere.

Many enterprise agreements signed by the AWU have traded away key conditions such as overtime rates, penalty rates, or roster protections. In some cases, agreements have resulted in wages below industry benchmarks, while delivering industrial peace for employers and guaranteed revenue streams for the union via Chifley-linked insurance.

Because of the AWU’s broad coverage, they are able to sign off on Greenfield agreements even if all other unions decline. As a result, the AWU continues to earn revenue from projects where they have no members and never attend the site.

An investigation by Fairfax Media in the late 2010s revealed that the AWU had secured multiple agreements across companies that prioritised income protection clauses while compromising on core conditions. These agreements were sometimes approved without strong consultation or genuine bargaining processes, raising further questions about who truly benefited.

The AWU has defended its practice, stating that income protection is a valuable benefit for workers, and that the agreements reflect the realities of bargaining in difficult economic conditions. However, worker advocates and rival unions have criticised the deals as undermining broader wage standards and entrenching employer-friendly conditions.

Income protection is not inherently bad and is a valuable condition of employment, unless the income protection takes precedence over other key claims such as wages increases.

The Fair Work Commission has occasionally scrutinised such agreements, but unless legal challenges succeed in proving lack of genuine agreement or breaches of bargaining laws, these agreements remain enforceable.