1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.512 - Renewal by existing permit holder for same organisation Application by the CFMEU (Construction and General Division, Western Australia Divisional Branch) for an entry permit for Walter Vinicio Molina (RE2026/470) VICE PRESIDENT GIBIAN SYDNEY, 9 JULY 2026 Application for right of entry permit for Walter Vinicio Molina – Whether fit and proper person to hold an entry permit under the Fair Work Act (2009) (Cth) – Consideration of the “permit qualification matters” in s 513(1) – Mr Molina ordered to pay penalties with respect to contraventions of industrial laws on various occasions – Matters considered in previous decisions of the Commission – Historical conviction for remaining on premises without lawful authority – Conviction subsequently quashed – Non-disclosure of fact of conviction – Commission satisfied Mr Molina is fit and proper person to hold a right of entry permit – Permit issued. Introduction [1] On 13 May 2026, the CFMEU (through the Construction and General Division, Western Australian Divisional Branch) made an application for a right of entry permit to be issued to Walter Vinicio Molina under s 512 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act). Mr Molina is employed as an organiser and has been a member and organiser since 1998. Throughout this period, Mr Molina has been responsible for organising civil and commercial construction sites in the metropolitan area of Perth and has held various state and federal right of entry permits. Mr Molina was issued the entry permit he presently holds on 17 July 2023. His current permit is due to expire on 17 July 2026. [2] In this application, the CFMEU disclosed an historical conviction under s 82B(1) of the Police Act 1892 (WA) for remaining on a premises without lawful authority. Mr Molina was convicted in the Court of Petty Sessions at Perth on 31 May 2000 of the charge of unlawfully remaining on premises. The conviction arose from Mr Molina remaining on a construction site after having been warned to leave by a person in charge. Mr Molina appealed the conviction to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia which resulted in the appeal being allowed and the conviction quashed. This matter had not been disclosed in previous applications for entry permits for Mr Molina. The CFMEU submitted that they understood that there was, and continues to be, no requirement to disclose this matter but that it had been disclosed in this application ‘for the avoidance of doubt’. Additionally, the CFMEU filed an application under s 516 of the FW Act for the extension of Mr Molina’s permit until such time as the s 512 [2026] FWC 2614 DECISION [2026] FWC 2614 2 application is dealt with. It is unnecessary to determine this application given this decision is being handed down prior to the expiry of Mr Molina’s current permit. [3] On 29 May 2026, I conducted a case-management conference in relation to the application. Following this, my chambers sent directions to the CFMEU, Fair Work Ombudsman (the FWO) and the CFMEU Administrator. This correspondence attached the application and directed the FWO and the Administrator to communicate with my chambers if they sought to be heard in relation to this application by 12 June 2026. The directions also provided for the CFMEU to file an outline of submissions and an affidavit or statutory declaration of Mr Molina by 12 June 2026. [4] On 5 June 2026, the FWO communicated with my chambers indicating that it did not seek to be heard in relation to the application. On 12 June 2026, the CFMEU filed an outline of submissions, and an affidavit of Mr Molina affirmed on 9 June 2026. My chambers did not receive any correspondence from the CFMEU Administrator indicating he seeks to be heard about Mr Molina’s application. I have assumed that the CFMEU Administrator supports an entry permit being issued to Mr Molina. Background [5] The background to the application is, in short, as follows. Mr Molina grew up in Guatemala and started work as a carpenter’s apprentice at the age of seven in Guatemala City. Mr Molina’s involvement in the trade union movement evolved out of the poor working conditions he experienced as a young worker in Guatemala, culminating in his attempt to establish a union in his workplace at the age of 17. In his affidavit, Mr Molina set out the consequences of his attempts to establish a union including the loss of his job, his inability to find further work as a carpenter and targeting by the Guatemalan military regime. Mr Molina was thereafter engaged in activism in opposition to the regime as a member of the trade union movement and an advocate for the rights of Guatemala’s indigenous peoples. In 1992, Mr Molina fled Guatemala to Mexico as a political refugee and, in December 1994, he resettled in Brisbane, Australia. [6] In 1996, Mr Molina relocated to Perth and commenced work as a cabinet maker. In 1997, he attended English language classes at Curtin University and continued his work in the construction industry. In 1998, Mr Molina applied for the Australian Council of Trade Unions Organising Works Programme and secured a placement working for the CFMEU as an organiser. Throughout his time at the CFMEU, Mr Molina has been involved in the aftermath of a number of industrial fatalities which he says have impacted him significantly and influenced his approach to safety concerns in his capacity as an organiser. Mr Molina has also been involved throughout his career in engaging with workers of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Mr Molina has also been a member of Unions WA’s International Affairs Committee, travelling internationally and representing the CFMEU at conferences. [7] Mr Molina has held entry permits under federal industrial laws from 1998 until 2021 although, during this period, his permit was suspended for a period in 2008 and conditions were placed on his permit in 2018. In 2021, Deputy President Binet refused the CFMEU’s application for an entry permit for Mr Molina. The Deputy President was not satisfied that Mr Molina was a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit at that time having regard to a number of [2026] FWC 2614 3 instances in which he had been found to have contravened industrial legislation: Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union – Construction and General Division, WA Divisional Branch [2021] FWC 3419 [29]-[52] (the 2021 Decision). Mr Molina did not hold an entry permit under the FW Act between 21 August 2021 and 17 July 2023 although he continued to be employed by the CFMEU. [8] In 2023, the CFMEU made a further application for a right of entry permit for Mr Molina which was again considered by Deputy President Binet. On this occasion, the Deputy President was satisfied that Mr Molina was a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit subject to a condition relating to further training: Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union – Construction and General Division, WA Divisional Branch [2023] FWC 1551 [54]- [62] (the 2023 Decision). In the 2023 Decision, the Deputy President (at [54]) set out the instances in which Mr Molina or the CFMEU had been ordered to pay a penalty under the FW Act or any other industrial law in relation to action taken by him as follows: a. In Radisich v Molina & Ors (No.3) [2012] FMCA 419 being ordered to pay a penalty of $660 for one contravention of section 790(1)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (WR Act) which was found to have occurred on 19 March 2008 (Perth Airport Case). b. In Brookfield Multiplex Engineering and Infrastructure Pty Ltd v McDonald [2014] FCA 389 being ordered to pay a penalty of $7,000 for six contraventions of section 348 and three contraventions of section 417 of the FW Act which was found to have occurred between 25 March 2013 and 27 March 2013 (Mundaring Water Treatment Case). c. In Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2017] FCAFC 53 being ordered to pay a penalty of $9,000 for one contravention of section 348 of the FW Act which occurred on 22 October 2013 (Broad Airport Case). d. In Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union & Ors [2020] FCA 1662 being ordered to pay a penalty of $20,000 for one contravention of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 (Cth) which occurred on 10 December 2018 (Salini Case). [9] Mr Molina gave evidence in the proceedings which resulted in the 2023 Decision (unlike in the proceedings which resulted in the 2021 Decision). In the 2023 Decision, the Deputy President considered that Mr Molina’s evidence demonstrated: [86] His evidence in these proceedings reveal: a. An understanding of why his previous conduct was inappropriate. b. Remorse for his prior conduct. c. The undertaking of specialised training delivered by a highly knowledgeable former Member of this tribunal. d. A clear understanding of alternative methods to resolve issues to avoid future contraventions occurring. e. Credible motivations to avoid further contraventions. f. A record of five years without contraventions [87] The period during which Mr Molina has not held a permit has impacted significantly on Mr Molina personally, on the union and the workers who he might otherwise have assisted. It [2026] FWC 2614 4 is clear that he has reflected on this. If he is as passionate as he says he is about serving the members he will ensure that he continues to avoid future conduct which might put his entry permit at risk. [10] Taking into account the permit qualification matters and an undertaking given by the CFMEU and Mr Molina to notify the Commission if any further findings were made or proceedings commenced in relation to Mr Molina, the Deputy President indicated (at [89]) that she was satisfied Mr Molina was a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. Accordingly, the Deputy President granted Mr Molina’s permit albeit subject to a further condition in relation to completing further training. [11] Since 1998, Mr Molina has also held state entry permits under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA). The permits which have been held by Mr Molina under Western Australian legislation have never been revoked, made the subject of conditions or otherwise had any action taken against them. On 26 June 2026, the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission handed down a further decision in which Commissioner Tsang concluded that she was satisfied that Mr Molina is a fit and proper person to hold a right of entry permit under the Western Australian legislation: Application to issue Walter Vinicio Molina with a Right of Entry Permit [2026] WAIRC 430. Statutory framework [12] Section 512 of the FW Act provides that the Commission may issue an entry permit to an official of an organisation if it is satisfied that the official is a fit and proper person to hold a permit. Section 513(1) provides that, in deciding whether the official is a fit and proper person, the Commission must take into account the ‘permit qualification matters’. The relevant section is as follows: 513 Considering application (1) In deciding whether the official is a fit and proper person, the FWC must take into account the following permit qualification matters: (a) whether the official has received appropriate training about the rights and responsibilities of a permit holder; (b) whether the official has ever been convicted of an offence against an industrial law; (c) whether the official has ever been convicted of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or a foreign country, involving: (i) entry onto premises; or (ii) fraud or dishonesty; or (iii) intentional use of violence against another person or intentional damage or destruction of property; (d) whether the official, or any other person, has ever been ordered to pay a penalty under this Act or any other industrial law in relation to action taken by the official; (e) whether a permit issued to the official under this Part, or under a similar law of the Commonwealth (no matter when in force), has been revoked or suspended or made subject to conditions; (f) whether a court, or other person or body, under a State or Territory industrial law or a State or Territory OHS law, has: (i) cancelled, suspended or imposed conditions on a right of entry for industrial or occupational health and safety purposes that the official had under that law; or (ii) disqualified the official from exercising, or applying for, a right of entry for industrial or occupational health and safety purposes under that law; [2026] FWC 2614 5 (g) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant. [13] The Commission may issue an entry permit under s 512 only if it is satisfied that Mr Molina is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit and to exercise the powers, functions, and responsibilities associated with the holding of a permit: Re Maritime Union of Australia [2014] FWCFB 1973; (2014) 241 IR 216 at [23]. The phrase fit and proper person in s 512 is directed at an inquiry as to fitness and propriety for the purposes of holding an entry permit: Maritime Union of Australia v Fair Work Commission [2015] FCAFC 56; (2015) 230 FCR 15 at [18] (North, Flick and Bromberg JJ); Re Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2015] FWC 1522 at [32]. Although any conduct that casts light on the general integrity, conduct or personal characteristics of the official may be relevant to whether they are a fit or proper person to hold an entry permit, conduct in relation to the obligations of a permit holder or under industrial laws is likely to be most relevant. [14] Each of the permit qualification matters set out in s 513(1) are required to be taken into account in assessing whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a permit. Those matters must be given ‘proper, genuine and realistic consideration and appropriate weight’: Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2014] FWCFB 4397 at [23]. They must be treated as matters of significance in the decision-making process: Edwards v Guidice (1999) 94 FCR 561 at [5] (Moore J); Re 4 Yearly Review of Modern Awards — Penalty Rates [2017] FWCFB 1001; (2017) 265 IR 1 at [115]. Whilst they are mandatory considerations, there is no statutory prescription of the weight to be attached to each matter, and it is for the decision-maker to determine the appropriate weight to be given to each: Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Minister for Environment (No 3) (1997) 77 FCR 153 at 187-188 (Hill J); Re Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, [2015] FWC 1522 at [32]. [15] Section 513(1)(g) requires the Commission to take into account any other matter that it considers relevant. A matter will be relevant if it could rationally affect the assessment of whether the individual is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit: Re Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2015] FWC 1522 at [32]. Consideration [16] The object of Part 3-4 of the FW Act is to establish a framework for officials of organisations to enter premises that balances the right of organisations to represent their members in the workplace, hold discussions with potential members and investigate suspected contraventions and the right of occupiers of premises and employers to go about their business without undue influence. The requirement that rights of entry be exercised only by officials of organisations who the Commission is satisfied are fit and proper persons to hold an entry permit is an important aspect of ensuring that an appropriate balance is maintained. In assessing whether I am satisfied that Mr Molina is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit, it is necessary to take into account the permit qualification matters to which I now turn. [17] In relation to the matter in s 513(1)(a), the application filed by the CFMEU attached a certificate of completion issued to Mr Molina for the Federal Right of Entry training on 13 May [2026] FWC 2614 6 2026. Also attached to the application was a certificate of completion issued to Mr Molina for WA Right of Entry Permit Holder training on 26 May 2026. I am satisfied that Mr Molina has received appropriate training about the rights and responsibilities of a permit holder. This weighs in favour of a finding that he is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. [18] With respect to s 513(1)(b), the application states, and I accept, that Mr Molina has not been convicted of an offence against an industrial law. Mr Molina has been an organiser with the CFMEU since 1998. This factor weighs in favour of a finding that Mr Molina is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. [19] In relation to s 513(1)(c), the application discloses Mr Molina’s historic conviction of unlawfully remaining on a premises under s 82B(1) of the Police Act 1892 (WA). By way of brief explanation, the circumstances which led to the first instance conviction are that Mr Molina, in his capacity as a CFMEU organiser, attended the construction site at Canning Vale prison on 10 August 1999 to respond to safety concerns raised by a member. The principal contractor at the site, BGC, did not itself directly employ any CFMEU members, but members were employed by subcontractors. Mr Molina was warned not to enter the site by representatives of BGC but remained after the warning was given. In his affidavit, Mr Molina says that he had understood that he was entitled to be on the site to deal with the safety complaint by a member employed by a subcontractor under clause 40 of the Building Trades (Construction) Award 1987. [20] Mr Molina was charged with the offence and convicted in a Court of Petty Sessions in Perth on 31 May 2000. An appeal to a single judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia was dismissed: Molina v Zaknich [2000] WASCA 390; (2000) 102 IR 316 (Hasluck J). A further appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia was allowed and Mr Molina’s conviction was quashed: Molina v Zaknich [2001] WASCA 337; (2001) 24 WAR 562 (Malcolm CJ, Templeman and McKechnie JJ). The primary question at issue before the Full Court was whether Mr Molina had a right to enter the site because it was the ‘premises of the employer’ in circumstances in which only subcontractors employed union members at the site and the occupier of the site did not. The members of the Full Court each concluded that the phrase ‘premises of the employer’ includes any premises where an employer who employs union labour is carrying out work. In circumstances in which subcontractors employed labour working at the site, Mr Molina was entitled to have access to the site and his presence was on the site was pursuant to lawful authority: at [9]-[11] (Malcolm CJ) and [56]-[57] (McKechnie J, with whom Templeman J agreed). [21] Although it might be said that Mr Molina has been convicted of an offence involving entry onto premises if s 513(1)(c) were to be read literally, I accept the submission of the CFMEU that there has been no conviction in circumstances in which Mr Molina’s conviction was quashed on appeal. In Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Cavanough (1935) 53 CLR 220, Rich, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ said (at 225): The effect of the reversal of a conviction by proceedings in error has long been settled, and the same effect is produced by quashing it, or setting it aside upon a statutory appeal. The conviction is avoided ab initio. “The judgment reversed is the same as no judgment” (per Coleridge J., R. v. Drury). [2026] FWC 2614 7 [22] If a conviction is set aside on appeal, the position at law is as if the conviction never occurred: see also Battenberg v Union Club [2005] NSWSC 242; (2005) 189 FLR 206 at [41]- [42] (Campbell J); Easterday v State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 105; (2005) 30 WAR 122 at [22]-[25] (Steytler J). The initial conviction of Mr Molina in 2000 is not now a conviction for the purposes of s 513(1)(c) because it was quashed. There is no evidence of Mr Molina has been convicted of any other offence of a type referred to in s 513(1)(c). This fact weighs in favour of a finding that Mr Molina is a fit and proper person to hold a permit. [23] In relation to s 513(1)(d), Mr Molina and the CFMEU have been required to pay a penalty under the FW Act and other industrial laws in relation to conduct engaged in by Mr Molina on the four occasions to which I have referred above being the Perth Airport Case, the Mundaring Water Treatment Case, the Broad Airport Case and the Salini Case. Those instances have been considered by Deputy President Binet and, in the 2023 Decision, the Deputy President was satisfied that Mr Molina was a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit having considered Mr Molina’s conduct. Notwithstanding the conclusion reached by Deputy President Binet, s 513(1)(d) requires that I independently take into account that Mr Molina and the CFMEU have been ordered to pay penalties under the FW Act and other industrial laws in relation to actions taken by Mr Molina. [24] I have considered the decisions of the respective courts which concluded that Mr Molina contravened relevant industrial laws and that penalties should be imposed on him and the CFMEU with respect to his conduct. Attached to the affidavit made by Mr Molina for the purposes of these proceedings is a statutory declaration made by Mr Molina with respect to the proceedings before the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission dated 13 January 2026. In that statutory declaration, Mr Molina reflects at length on the nature of the conduct which resulted in penalties being imposed in each case and expressed his regret in relation to his conduct. I accept that Mr Molina had demonstrated genuine remorse with respect to his past conduct as well as insight into the nature of his conduct, the requirements of the law and the importance of complying with the law as a union representative. [25] The conduct of Mr Molina that resulted in penalties being imposed on him and on the CFMEU under the FW Act and other industrial laws is serious and weighs against a finding that he is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. The conduct is of particular significance because each instance involved conduct by Mr Molina in his role as a union representative. I have taken those instances into account. I also accept, however, that the weight to be attached to Mr Molina’s conduct in this respect is, to some extent, reduced having regard to the remorse and insight he has demonstrated and that fact that no further penalties have been imposed arising from conduct by Mr Molina since 2020. The last conduct on his part that has attracted a penalty took place in 2018. I also note that Mr Molina has said that, since his most recent permit was issued by the Commission in 2023, he has exercised his rights of entry on over 400 occasions and that, to the best of his knowledge, no concerns have been raised in relation to his presence or conduct on construction sites on those occasions. [26] With respect to s 513(1)(e), I am required to consider that Mr Molina has had a permit issued under the FW Act or a similar Commonwealth law revoked, suspended or made subject to conditions on three separate occasions. The first two are described in the 2023 Decision (at [65]-[68]). Mr Molina’s entry permit under the then Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) was suspended for a period of two months and conditions were placed on his permit for twelve [2026] FWC 2614 8 months in 2008: Radisich v Michael Buchan, Doug Heath, Walter Molina and Construction, Forestry Mining and Energy Union [2008] AIRC 896. The suspension and conditions arose from allegation Mr Molina misused rights conferred by the grant of a permit. I have taken those events and the fact that Mr Molina’s entry permit was suspended into account. However, I do not consider great weight can be attached to the conduct at this time in circumstances in which the suspension and conditions were imposed 18 years ago. [27] In 2018, Deputy President Binet imposed conditions on Mr Molina’s entry permit requiring that he undertake training approved by the Commissioner in relation to ‘emotional management’: Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union-Construction and General Division, WA Divisional Branch [2018] FWC 2817 at [63]-[64]. Mr Molina subsequently undertook that training. I have also taken this instance into account, but I do not believe significant weight can be attached to that condition in circumstances in which Deputy President Binet was satisfied that Mr Molina complied with the conditions imposed on previous permits and that while the conditions imposed weighed against a finding that Mr Molina was a fit and proper person, his compliance and the historic nature of the conditions imposed were mitigating factors. Mr Molina’s present right of entry permit was subject to the condition placed on all CFMEU permits by the Commission that the permit holder not exercise rights under Subdivision AA of Division 2 of Part 3-4 of the Act until completing appropriate training in relation to that subdivision and he has filed a copy of the training certificate to the Fair Work Commission. I consider this to be a neutral factor. [28] Turning to s 513(f), there is no evidence before me that Mr Molina has had a right of entry under a State or Territory industrial or occupational health and safety law cancelled, suspended or had conditions imposed or that Mr Molina has been disqualified from exercising or applying for a right of entry for industrial or occupational health and safety purposes. Mr Molina has held permits under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) since 1998 and was recently granted a new permit. These factors weigh in favour of a finding that Mr Molina is a fit and proper person for the purposes of holding an entry permit. [29] Finally, s 513(g) requires that the Commission take into account any other matter that it considers relevant to deciding whether Mr Molina is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. The CFMEU submits that the following matters are relevant to whether Mr Molina is a fit and proper person: (a) That Mr Molina was granted an entry permit in 2023. (b) That Mr Molina has complied with his rights and responsibilities as a permit holder since 2023 including, in particular, that since 2023 Mr Molina has exercised federal and/or state right of entry for discussions or to investigate suspected safety contraventions over 400 times, Mr Molina has been on sites at the invitation of the employer or occupier without needing to exercise right of entry on many occasions and that no adverse concerns have been raised about Mr Molina relating to his presence and conduct on construction sites at these times. (c) That, since 2023, Mr Molina has been responsible for mentoring three trainee organisers in the early stages of their employment and training, which involved [2026] FWC 2614 9 the trainee organisers accompanying Mr Molina on site visits at the invitation of the employer or under right of entry, Mr Molina explaining and demonstrating how to firmly but courteously enforce right of entry in compliance with industrial laws and Mr Molina sharing his own past contravening conduct as a ‘cautionary lesson’ for the trainees to impress upon them the adverse consequences that can result for the organisers, the union, and workers if they do not comply with industrial law. [30] The fact that Mr Molina has continued to perform work as an organiser for the CFMEU since 2023 and that there is no evidence of any further concerns being raised in relation to his conduct, is a consideration that weighs in favour of a finding that he is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. I also accept that Mr Molina’s role, as a senior employee of the CFMEU, in mentoring trainee organisers is to his credit and supports a conclusion that he is a fit and proper person to hold a permit. [31] Even though I have concluded that Mr Molina’s initial conviction in 2000 for remaining on premises without lawful authority does not constitute a conviction for the purposes of s 513(1)(c), it is appropriate to consider whether those events are nonetheless relevant to the assessment I am required to make. That might have two dimensions. First, it is possible that, although Mr Molina’s conviction was quashed, the underlying conduct might nonetheless reflect upon whether he is a fit and proper person to hold a permit. I do not consider that to be the case in this instance. The consequence of the decision of the Full Court is that Mr Molina was lawfully on the premises. He was entitled to refuse to leave. In those circumstances, there was no unlawful or otherwise inappropriate conduct on the part of Mr Molina. I would, in any event, accept Mr Molina’s evidence that he understood he was within his rights to remain at the premises to investigate the health and safety complaint. [32] Second, the fact that Mr Molina was initially convicted of remaining on premises without lawful authority was not disclosed in later applications made for entry permits for Mr Molina. The permit regime requires applicants, and persons seeking to be granted a permit, to make full and careful disclose of any matter that might be relevant to the Commission’s consideration. A failure to disclose a potentially relevant matter to the Commission may well itself be germane to whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a permit. In his affidavit filed in these proceedings, Mr Molina explained the failure to disclose the fact of the initial conviction as follows: 9. To the best of my knowledge and belief, prior to this application, the quashed conviction was never disclosed in right of entry permit applications relating to me. It has always been my understanding, and I had always understood it to be the CFMEU’s understanding, that the quashed conviction did not need to be disclosed because it was quashed and therefore there was no wrongdoing or conviction to declare. 10. In about early May 2026, I was contacted by Thomas Meagher, who is employed as a Lawyer by the CFMEU, C&G Division, WA Divisional Branch. Thomas told me he was assisting with the preparation of this application and conducting searches for any adverse decisions about me, and asked if there were any matters that might be relevant to be disclosed that had not been disclosed. Since 2001, there has been a great deal of changeover in the leadership of the CFMEU and its legal team. I Thought the current people would have eight forgotten about, or in Thomas’ case not been aware of, the quashed conviction or the circumstances surrounding it, and so I mentioned it to Thomas in response to his query. [2026] FWC 2614 10 [33] When making an application for an entry permit, it is advisable to err on the side of greater rather than lesser disclosure. It is prudent to disclose any event or circumstance that might conceivably be considered relevant. However, I do not attach any fault to Mr Molina in relation to the non-disclosure of initial conviction in 2000 in later permit applications. I accept that Mr Molina understood that the quashed conviction did not need to be disclosed. That understanding was not unreasonable. I am far from convinced that the quashed conviction is a matter capable of being relevant to the permit applications made for Mr Molina, particularly in circumstances in which Mr Molina’s conviction was quashed on the basis that the conduct involved was entirely lawful. Conclusion [34] Having carefully taken into account all of the permit qualification matters in s 513(1) of the FW Act and the other relevant matters to which I have referred, I am satisfied that Mr Molina is a fit and proper person to hold an entry permit. The application by the CFMEU for an entry permit to be issued to Mr Molina is granted. [35] A permit will be issued separately. VICE PRESIDENT Appearances: L Fraser Hardy and D Rafferty of Eureka Lawyers for the CFMEU. Hearing details: 29 May 2026. Sydney (using Microsoft Teams). Final written submissions: 12 June 2026 Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR811958>