KICK IN THE JEWELS
Job losses as construction delays hit $1b site
JOB losses have hit the Jewel site as redesigns and construction delays fuel uncertainty at the $1 billion project. One contractor at the Surfers Paradise triple towers has been forced to axe 50 workers.
Another has deployed his crew to other projects, saying he lacks clarity on what work to proceed with at the shining hotel and apartment highrises.
Chinese owners Yuhu Group plan to retender work but say Multiplex remains the “major project partner”. A union meeting of workers yesterday fuelled fears of more job losses to come. Another meeting is scheduled this morning.
“It’s all over the place. There are going to be a lot of job losses,” one worker said.
A LEADING industrial relations expert has slammed the slashing of jobs at the $1 billion Jewel development at Surfers Paradise, saying it was a sign of things to come.
Up to 1000 jobs are at risk, with developer Yuhu group partially breaking its contract with builder Brookfield Multiplex. At least 50 people were laid off yesterday.
But IR expert Dr Jane Coffey said the subcontracting of the workforce meant such sackings would become increasingly common.
“With the way the legislation is, they can do this and from an IR point of view it relates to concerns about the changing nature of work and there is more subcontractor tenders, fixed-process employment and a highly casualised workforce,” she said.
“This means fewer people will be in secure work.
‘This is going to be the future of the work and how unions will deal with it will be a major problem.”
The Curtin University academic, who has more than 30 years of experience in the field, said the workforce was moving to a point where there would be little job security.
A Yuhu Group spokesman told the Gold Coast Bulletin earlier: “The Jewel is about creating jobs and economic opportunity, not costing jobs.”
With the lower levels of the towers yet to be finalised,
Multiplex were told new tenders would be opened for completion while the project is put on hold.
Adam Merlehan (pictured), managing director of the strategy firm Merlehan Group, said the situation was “not uncommon”.
“Without knowing the circumstances of this case, it is not uncommon for major building contracts to include a right for the developer to deduct scope or terminate part of the contract during the project,” he said. “If that occurs, and a builder terminates its subcontracts, the rights of subcontractors to be paid for goods and materials ordered but not yet installed/delivered to site usually depends on the terms of their subcontracts.”