AWU’s Quiet Deals Undermine Construction Workers Nationwide

Unions divided as AWU signs solo agreements with employers, sparking anger across energy and construction sectors

The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) is under increasing scrutiny for its role in quietly signing a series of industrial agreements across major construction and energy projects—deals critics say are eroding hard-won pay and conditions for workers across Australia.

While inflation continues to squeeze workers and the cost of living climbs, the AWU is being praised in employer circles as a union “willing to compromise,” even as other unions dig in to defend national standards.

A Pattern of Undercutting Agreements

Over the past decade, the AWU has signed multiple exclusive agreements on major onshore construction projects, often as the sole signatory union, a practice that effectively sidelines other unions and gives employers favourable terms.

Recent examples include:

Each of these enterprise agreements was submitted to and approved by the Fair Work Commission, often with no participation from other unions such as the AMWU, CFMEU and ETU, all of whom have raised concerns about declining standards and or wage stagnation.

Praised by Industry, Questioned by Workers

In its Winter 2024 newsletter, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA (CCIWA) singled out the AWU for praise during enterprise bargaining talks, noting that the union had taken a “more realistic” approach to wage increases compared to its counterparts.

“All but the AWU appears less willing to compromise on rates moving forward,” CCIWA noted, adding that the union has shown a willingness to settle for lower wage rises, ranging between 2.5% and 4% per annum—below inflation rates at the time of the report’s release and analysis.

While this has drawn support from employers, workers on these projects say the AWU’s approach is costing them real wages and long-term entitlements.

The Roster Debate: Listening vs. Deflecting

Nowhere is the difference in union strategy clearer than in the current debate over rosters and working hours in the Pilbara and similar sites.

As the construction industry transitions away from the 19 days on, 9 days off (19/9) model, most unions are now looking toward a 2 weeks on, 1 week off (2:1) structure, tied to 12-hour workdays.

The three construction unions (AMWU, CFMEU & ETU) have taken a proactive approach, canvassing its members during Right of Entry (ROE) meetings and confirming that the 2:1 roster with 12-hour shifts is not only acceptable but preferred by many, especially when earnings remain comparable to the 10hr days on a longer 3:1 swing.

With recent Pilbara heatwaves affecting working conditions, the ETU has also acknowledged practical constraints—while still backing the shift when safety and pay are maintained.

In contrast, the AWU remains unsure whether such rostering is actually “coming from the floor,” citing seasonal daylight hours and worker fatigue as barriers—without any clear evidence of member consultation.

This disconnect is becoming increasingly stark in negotiations, with workers demanding transparency and representation that reflects their real working lives—not assumptions made in air-conditioned offices.

In contrast, the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) has taken a more confrontational stance, refusing to sign UGAs (Union Greenfield Agreements) when rates and conditions fall short—highlighted in the CCIWA report.

Exclusive Deals Undermine Union Unity

Labour advocates argue that when one union signs exclusive agreements with employers—particularly in large-scale, high-profile projects—it fractures solidarity and enables employers to play unions off one another.

The BHP Western Ridge Crusher Project offers a telling example. The AWU assured other unions that it would not sign the agreement unless there was full consensus. Yet, just two days later, the AWU signed off on the deal behind the backs of the other unions, undermining that commitment.

Worse still, the CPB Contractors Agreement, signed solely by the AWU, locks in rates that set a low benchmark that employers can now point to when seeking to suppress wages across the Pilbara. It’s a move that doesn’t just undercut union solidarity — it undermines the entire bargaining position of the workforce in the region.

Workers Deserve Better Than Quiet Compromise

As the next wave of infrastructure and energy projects comes online, unions will be under immense pressure to balance job creation with fair pay and safe conditions. But the AWU’s strategy of quiet compliance and isolated sign-offs is drawing harsh criticism from those who say it is selling out workers for employer favour.

“Solidarity requires unity in action,” one ETU member told this publication. “When one union cuts a deal behind closed doors, it doesn’t just hurt their members—it hurts all of us.”

With bargaining underway on multiple new agreements across the country, the spotlight is back on the AWU. The question is whether its leadership will continue its strategy of quiet compromise, or finally listen to the growing chorus of voices calling for transparent, collective, and worker-driven negotiation.

NEWS