Worldly Salvatore Vasta delves into the rich crevices of the English language … Special translation confined to an appendix … Boggo Road drama … Insults … Pete, Pete pumpkin eater … Special from the FCFC 

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v CFMMEU 

Here we find Andrew Blakeley and Luke Gibson, a couple of union organisers, turning up at a Brisbane train infrastructure project at Boggo Road and demanding entry to the site to inspect “some suspected contraventions”. 

They were met at the pre-start area of the site by construction company officers Peter Cullen and Matthew Gallen. 

The usual argy-bargy ensued: 

Gibson: Which ones? I have four. 

Vasta J considered that the unionists were intentionally hindering or otherwise acting improperly, in breach of s.500 of the Fair Work Act. 

This involved detailed consideration of the term “pumpkin eater” which Sal considered a “homophobic slur” and nothing to do with the nursery rhyme from circa 1797:

HH reasoned there was a significant difference between “Peter, Peter pumpkin eater” and “Pete, Pete pumpkin eater” – the later “clearly meant to be an insult”.  

There was “some consternation” at the bar table about this. 

“Counsel, who may have had a somewhat sheltered existence”, did not understand the term to have a homophobic meaning. 

Because Mr Gallen from the construction company asked that there be no name-calling there could be no doubt in HH’s mind about the true meaning of “Pete, Pete pumpkin eater”. 

This interpretation was reinforced because when Blakeley was in the toilet block he claimed that Cullen was trying to look at his penis. 

“These actions speak to a targeting of Mr Cullen; one calls him a pumpkin eater and the other follows up with insinuations that Mr Cullen is looking at his penis. There can be any realistic way to understand this behaviour.” 

Council for the ABCC was non-plussed and did not made a submission about the homophobic ramifications of “pumpkin eater”. 

The judge was at pains to point out that he was no criticising counsel for their unworldly grasp of urban patois. 

The upshot was that Blakeley and Gibson were each fined $12,600, payable personally, while the CFMMEU was fined $126,000 for breached of the Fair Work Act.

Needless to say, the union is appealing. 

Sal remembered his decision from 2015 in Bunning v Centacare, where … 

“I unfortunately had to use terms identifying a number of paraphilias including copraphilia, urophilia and necrophilia. There were many queries afterwards by persons whom I would have considered ‘worldly’ as to what these terms meant. It may be the same is true of ‘pumpkin eater’. Whilst I do not wish to explain this term in the body of these reasons, I have given an explanation in Annexure 1 to this judgement.” 

Thanks Sal.