THE ANMF MEETING ON 23 JANUARY 2014
172 I deal here in more detail with the matters referred to in para 38 above.
173 I should say at the outset that the tone of the meeting on 23 January 2014 was, inevitably as it seems to me, set by the unusual and ambiguous circumstances which surrounded the preparation of the grievance letter of 2 December 2013. The idea of sending such a letter had come from the ANMF meeting on 15 November 2013, at which a small fraction of the membership, and only one of the three job representatives, had been present. It would not have been problematic for one or more of the nurses at that meeting to have decided to lodge a grievance about their work in the emergency department. But the process which followed went much further than that. It was in her capacity as an ANMF job representative that the applicant prepared and submitted the letter. The signatures which she collected on the letter were not confined to those of the nurses who had attended the meeting. The applicant was undoubtedly acting in her representative capacity, rather than as one of a number of individuals. Yet she did not extend to all of the nurses in her constituency the opportunity to provide an input into the letter. Indeed, she seems to have been at pains to ensure that only a limited number of nurses would even know that the letter was being prepared. Although it was their own choice not to attend the meeting on 15 November 2013, the exclusion of Ms Graham and Ms Tran from the process was, on any view, most unfortunate. Whatever the applicant's reasons for proceeding in this way, for her to have excluded her two colleagues, who had presumably been chosen by nurses in the emergency department to be their representatives, was, in my respectful view, indefensible. That there came to be a sense of resentment in the department as to the process employed in the preparation of the letter was, in the circumstances, not only unsurprising, it was inevitable.
174 This was the background to the perception held by all who gave evidence about the ANMF meeting on 23 January 2014, that the grievance letter had split the emergency department in two. On any objective assessment of the applicant's project, there could not have been any other result. If the applicant felt the ire of other nurses at the meeting, it was, surely, no more than she ought reasonably to have expected. In this proceeding, she has taken the contributions of two of them, one an ANUM and the other a CNE, as the subject of allegations of unlawful conduct for which she seeks to hold the respondent responsible. With respect to those involved in advising the applicant so to proceed, this is an adverse action case with a difference.
175 Turning to the evidence, the ANMF itself was represented at the meeting by Mr Gilbert, Ms Smith and Megan Reeve, an industrial officer. They sat at a table at the front of the lecture theatre.
176 As to the course of the meeting, I commence with Ms Smith, as she made a file note, the following day, about the meeting. I shall refer to that presently, but, in her oral evidence, she said that, at the start of the meeting, Mr Gilbert spoke about occupational violence and aggression; and "the history of where we were at with the emergency department and the concerns that were raised by the members in the months prior." Then he mentioned the report from Ernst & Young, and the investigations which the respondent itself had undertaken, into the allegations in the grievance letter of 2 December 2013. From there, "the meeting quickly went into discussions from staff … about their concerns of what that process had done to the department." At first, the members raised matters to which Mr Gilbert and Ms Smith herself responded, based on meetings which they had had with management. Then, "it appeared to be a to and fro from members within the meeting." The applicant was distressed. She made it clear that the grievance letter was not hers - it had been put together by a group. Ms Morey said something to the effect that "the unit had been broken, that it needed to rebuild". In saying that, Ms Morey was speaking towards the front of the lecture theatre, where the applicant was sitting. In Ms Smith's perception, in her mannerisms and the way she spoke, Ms Morey conveyed "a feeling of blame towards that area of the room", and "a concern that the letter that had come from the staff had created such an issue for the unit that … she didn't feel that it could recover." Mr Connell was very angry towards the ANMF at first, asking, "Are you going to drop this now? Is that enough? We don't want to do this anymore". The gist of his view was that the ANMF ought to leave the allegation of data manipulation alone and move on; there had been an audit, and that ought be the end of it; and damage had been done to the department, and it was time to move on. Looking towards where the applicant was sitting, he said that, if the Ernst & Young report had found that allegation not to be valid, then the grievance letter should be changed. Asked in chief what Ms Moseby had said, Ms Smith said that "they were all along the same lines about, 'It has got to stop. You've hurt the department. You've got to take it back. You've forced people to sign'." In saying "they were all along the same lines", Ms Smith meant to convey that the contributions of a number of those present, including Ms Moseby, were along the same lines. Counsel for the applicant pressed her to recall what Ms Moseby specifically had said, but Ms Smith's response was, "it was clear to me that both [Ms Morey] and [Mr Connell] had made the assumption, and it appeared to be the assumption that carried on for some time - that [the applicant] had written a letter and had signed - had made people sign the letter." When asked what it had been that gave her that impression, Ms Smith said that it was because the speakers were "directing" to the applicant. Asked if she had any recollection of the words used, Ms Smith said, "Not a clear recollection, but it was along that line."
177 It appeared to Ms Smith that, in its "culture and the collegiality", the emergency department had effectively fractured into two camps, one of which was associated with the applicant and the other of which was associated with Ms Morey (the latter including Mr Connell and the other two ANMF job representatives, Ms Graham and Ms Tran).
178 Ms Smith's file note, which she stressed was based on her recollection rather than being "descriptive", was as follows:
Brief report of events to date given by Nicole Smith
• Members meeting 31/10
• Resolution to management
• DTC collective grievance
• ANMF meetings with many individual units
• Consultative committee meeting with management 19 Nov 2013 - not effective/adversarial
• Collective grievance ED
• Letter leak to Herald Sun
• Internal investigation
• Ernst & Young investigation
• Correspondence exchange from ANMF/MH
• Meeting with Siva scheduled for early Feb
PG
Discussed pressure on bed numbers across state and what consequence it had for nursing care. Discussed Frances report
Members
• Teary
• Expressing anger at ANMF
• Broken and fractured unit
• Issues starting to be dealt with since the letter
NS
• Confirmed ANMF involvement was to assist with the grievance process. Management had not been listening to any of the complaints and members requested assistance
• MH have listened to staff with internal investigation and it was out understanding that focus groups have been initiated to deal with the major themes of the complaint
• Of concern is that the current climate is one of blame rather than looking at the issues and trying to resolve them
• Communication is the key
• DH consultative committee meetings now ensured via exec to occur every month (last year they were cancelled every time scheduled by Danddnong hospital management)
• Of further concern is that at the Network consultative committee meeting DON suggested that all was well at DH, all staff were happy. This is not reflective of the issues that members are calling the ANMF with
PG
• Discussed suggestion of external mediator/relationship builder for unit would be made with Siva
• That ANMF would still request clarity surrounding the audit. As per the media release ANMF remain unconvinced that a full and transparent audit could occur when 85000 records were viewed and only 4 staff (1 x signatory to letter) were interviewed)
Many questions and statement of anger made by nurses from ED
Job rep upset that not all were kept in the loop. Discussion of confidentiality, collective grievances was had
(errors in original)
179 Mr Gilbert gave evidence, but his recollection of the meeting on 23 January 2014 was so general, and his ability to identify the personalities involved and their various contributions so imperfect, that I have found the evidence of no assistance in resolving the issues in the case which arose from that meeting. To the extent that the applicant might otherwise have been criticised for not calling Mr Gilbert, that criticism is not available.
180 I turn next to the evidence of the applicant. She said that, at the meeting, she sat "about midway back, just on a corner seat." Asked what she recalled of the meeting, she commenced by referring to Mr Connell's contribution. He was at the back of the meeting with Ms Morey, Ms Moseby and some of the other educators. He expressed his disgust that the ANMF had caused a grievance letter to be written without Ms Morey having been apprised of what was in the letter before it was sent. He said that Ms Morey had been taken by surprise by the information in the letter, adding that he was very concerned for her welfare. He said that the release of the letter to the media had broken the department. He said that the trust of patients, and as well as the trust existing within staff relations, had been compromised. He also expressed the view that the morale of the nursing staff and management staff "was at a great low". He expressed concern for the ongoing workings of the emergency team. He said that both the author and the ANMF had acted irresponsibly, which had had a detrimental effect on Ms Morey's health. The applicant said that Mr Connell's remarks were directed towards Mr Gilbert and the other ANMF officials sitting at the desk at the front of the meeting.
181 The applicant then related what had been said by Ms Moseby. She (Moseby) said that "the author should be … disgusted with themselves or embarrassed that they've written this letter." She said that the information in the letter was inaccurate, and that the ANMF should withdraw the comments made in the letter regarding Symphony and the four-hour KPI. She said that the results of the Ernst & Young audit were not "in keeping" with the grievance letter. She said that the author of the letter should be ashamed of herself, and embarrassed. She said she was disgusted. She reiterated a lot of what Mr Connell had said. She pointed out that people had not had the chance to see the letter; and that senior staff had been intentionally kept from viewing the letter. Most of the time while speaking, Ms Moseby was looking at the applicant, who herself was looking at Ms Moseby because she was the speaker. She was "quite animated and her tone was quite angry towards not only the ANMF people, who she was addressing at times, but also towards the author of the letter …."
182 The applicant said that Ms Morey was visibly upset at the meeting on 23 January 2014. She asked the ANMF officials why they had not helped her during this difficult period. Mr Gilbert asked her whether she had contacted the ANMF, and she replied in the negative. Mr Gilbert said that the ANMF would have more than willingly helped and assisted her if she had contacted them. Ms Morey "expressed a great deal of anger to the person who wrote the letter". She said, "The ANMF have helped Kelly all the way through this, and nobody has been helping me." Mr Gilbert indicated that the ANMF were available for her if she needed any help. Ms Morey said that people should work on what needs to be worked on, and that the emergency department should all come together as a unit.
183 On 6 February 2014, the applicant sent the following electronic message to a nursing colleague of hers:
Tanya was an absolute disgrace at the anf meeting when Paul Gilbert attended a week or so ago. It was disgusting. I will have to tell u when I see u but it was full on and she and Leslie Cathy cliff just ripped into the anf and me for a solid hour and a half and Tanya wanted the anf to apologies and admit they were wrong about us falsifying disch times. While we all sit there knowing we have all been asked to do it ffs. Leslie said she wanted to make it known that she knew a certain other job rep had bullied people on the floor to sign the letter and was lying to people about the independent audit as she knew people had been asked to be interviewed for it and refused. The … industrial chick who went with me to the meeting said to her that's odd because we have it in writing from Ernst and Young that Kelly was the only signatory interviewed or asked to be interviewed other that 3 staff members who's names were supplied by management. She was like oh oh well that's not what I'm being told. Nicole was like well maybe u should get your facts straight before the Union spread incorrect information about other staff and the situation
(errors in original)
"Tanya" was Ms Moseby, "Leslie" was Ms Graham, "Cathy" was Ms Tran, "cliff" was Mr Connell and "Nicole" was Ms Smith. The "industrial chick" was the ANMF industrial officer who had accompanied the applicant to her interview with Ernst & Young.
184 I turn next to Ms Morey's evidence. She said that she arrived at the meeting in the company of an NUM (like herself, a member of the ANMF) from another area of the hospital. They sat in about the middle of the tiered lecture theatre. Ms Morey recalled that, when the applicant entered, she sat in the front, or second-front, row. She said that Mr Gilbert started the meeting with some general comments, including a report on the work which the ANMF had been doing on the number of closed beds in the State, after which the conversation came to the emergency department. Ms Morey described the mood in the room as "sombre".
185 According to Ms Morey, Ms Smith spoke about the concerns which the ANMF had about the breadth of the Ernst & Young report. Mr Gilbert made the point that there was a distinction between data being inaccurate at times, on the one hand, and data being systematically manipulated, on the other hand. A number of people then spoke. Ms Morey recalled that one of the nurses, Janet Hamilton, said that she was upset and saddened that there was a division in the department, and that the letter had caused that. She said that another nurse, Sue Taylor, said that she felt that a resolution had been "starting to happen" since the ANMF became involved, that the model of care change had come in very quickly, and that staff were still trying to get used to the changes. She recalled Mr Connell making a contribution, and said that he spoke very well. He wanted the department to move on, and to try to join together for a better outcome for the staff. Under cross-examination, Ms Morey rejected the suggestion that he was angry or aggressive. He spoke in a calm manner. He mentioned the division in the staff which had resulted from the letter having been made public. Ms Morey herself spoke at the meeting. She said that she did not want the letter to continue to divide the staff, that she wanted the staff, as a group of people, to be able to move on and work towards a resolution, and that they were never going to be able to move on as a team if they let the letter be the issue that divided them. Ms Morey said that she directed her comments to everybody in the room, not to the applicant. She did not mention the applicant. She recalled that Ms Moseby spoke, but she did not recall what she said.
186 During the meeting, Ms Morey made some "dot point notes" on her mobile phone. Those notes, and Ms Morey's explanation of them given in her evidence, follow below:
Closed state beds
Discussed by Mr Gilbert as mentioned above.
Talking about manipulating data.
Discussed by Mr Gilbert and Ms Smith as mentioned above.
Concerns about EY report times frame scope.
Mr Gilbert and Ms Smith were talking about the timeframe in which the Ernst & Young review was happening and the breadth of their report.
Meeting with Siva.
That was Mr Sivarajah, the Chief Operating Officer of the respondent.
Lack of depth of investigation.
That was Mr Gilbert or Ms Smith speaking of their concern about the depth of the investigation (Ms Morey was unsure whether this was a reference to the Ernst & Young investigation, the internal investigation, or both).
Kim states patient still in beds 10 mins after LD time.
That was Kimberly Mifsud, a registered nurse in the emergency department. "LD" was Ms Morey's abbreviation for "left department", and "LD time" was the time recorded in Symphony as when a patient had been discharged from the emergency department. What Ms Mifsud was saying, in other words, was that patients were still physically in the department 10 minutes after it had been recorded on Symphony that they had left.
Paul state[s] doesn't never happen stats will be manipulated. Does it happen rarely, regularly or all the time.
It was at this point that Mr Gilbert acknowledged that there would be times when it would be recorded that a patient had left the department when that had not occurred, but he was questioning whether it happened rarely, regularly or all the time. Was it the manipulation of data or something that happened on occasions?
Early discharging, discharge lounges
As a part of the ward improvement processes, there was a focus on discharging patients earlier in the day than what had usually been happening. The wards were trying to discharge patients well before 10 am to create capacity at the beginning of the day for incoming patients. A discharge lounge was a specified area within the hospital, not under the "governance" of the emergency department, to which the wards would discharge their patients.
Sue T. MOC changed [very] quickly. Since ANMF involved more proactive approach much better.
A reference to Ms Taylor's contribution as mentioned above.
Cliff spoke very well about changes.
A reference to Mr Connell's contribution as mentioned above.
Kelli hands in head.
A reference to the applicant having, as I would understand it, her head in her hands.
What is end point
Ms Morey did not recall why she made that note.
187 In her evidence, Ms Morey estimated that five or ten minutes were occupied in discussing the rights and wrongs of the letter, within which period she made her own contribution, referred to above.
188 In her evidence, Ms Moseby said that she entered the lecture theatre with Mr Connell (and another companion) and they seated themselves a couple of rows behind Ms Morey. She noticed the applicant sitting right at the front. She described the mood in the room as "apprehensive", and that there were people there with "very different opinions". She said that the secretary of the ANMF (whose name she could not recall, but it was clearly Mr Gilbert) said that the initial auditing of the Symphony process and backdating times had revealed that the times had actually not been backdated. But he added that they (presumably the ANMF officials) were not "happy that the audit had come out like this and they were going to get the auditor audited". At that point Ms Moseby herself said, "Well, when does this stop? Are you going to …", when she was interrupted by Mr Connell who said, "Where will this stop?". When Ms Moseby spoke, she did not look at anyone in particular, but addressed her remarks to the ANMF officials at the front of the room. The tone and volume of her voice were, she said, about the same as when she was giving evidence in court. She did not mention anyone by name. Under cross-examination, she emphatically rejected the suggestion that she had said that the author of the letter should be disgusted with themselves or embarrassed that they had written the letter. Indeed, she rejected the suggestion that she knew, at the time of the meeting, that the applicant had been the author of the letter. She rejected the suggestion that she said that the information in the letter was inaccurate and that the ANMF should withdraw the comments made in the letter, including comments relating to Symphony and the four-hour KPI; and that she had said that the author of the letter should be ashamed of herself and embarrassed and that she was disgusted that people had not had the chance to read the letter. She accepted that, at the time, she did believe that people had not had that chance, but she said that she was "disappointed" about that rather than "disgusted". She was disappointed, she said in her evidence, "at the letter and the way the letter was handled" and (in this respect accepting the way it was put to her by counsel) "about the way the letter had been handled because the process that was followed, in [her] view, broke the department." But she did not express that sentiment at the meeting. As to Mr Connell, Ms Moseby said that he spoke in his "normal tone", albeit that he was "passionate" in expressing his concern about "where do we go from here if we're going to do the same steps of auditing auditors?" When Mr Connell spoke, he addressed the room, rather than anyone in particular. Ms Moseby did not recall Ms Morey saying anything at the meeting.
189 Mr Connell gave evidence about the meeting. He said that he arrived unaccompanied, and sat "probably around the centre of the lecture theatre: maybe just a touch towards the back." He recalled Ms Morey being at the meeting, but he could not recall where she was sitting. During the meeting, he did not see the applicant: he noticed her only when the meeting had finished. Mr Connell said that much of the meeting was occupied with Mr Gilbert discussing the Ernst & Young audit, saying that it had not been enough, and that more was needed. The ANMF did not agree with the results of the audit. Mr Connell himself spoke towards the end of the meeting. The subject of his contribution was to ask, what else did they want? There had been an independent audit of some of the allegations in the letter, and that had "come out as negative". No discrepancies had been found, "but the ANMF still wanted more." He said that they had "quite a bit of work to do to put our team back together." Under cross-examination, he accepted that he may have said that the department had been broken, but he rejected the suggestion that he had indicated that he was disgusted that the ANMF had caused the grievance letter to be written without Ms Morey having been apprised of the details of it. He did not recall referring to the letter having been released to the media. He did not recall saying, but he thought he did not say, that the trust of patients, and the trust within staff, had been compromised. He rejected the suggestion that he said that the author of the letter should have approached Ms Morey. Indeed, while he had heard that the applicant had collected signatures for the letter, he did not know that she had drafted the letter. He rejected the suggestion that he said that both the author of the letter and the ANMF had acted irresponsibly, and that that had had a detrimental effect on Ms Morey's health. Mr Connell directed his comments to the ANMF officials at the front of the lecture theatre. The volume of his voice was, he estimated in his evidence, probably a bit louder than he was using in the witness box, because he was in the middle of a large lecture theatre. The tone of his voice was "quite emotional … if anything, … probably a pleading tone." By "emotional" Mr Connell meant that his tone was "close to tearful", or "quivery", rather than angry: "more through, if anything, sadness, I guess, would be the most appropriate emotion". In fact, he rejected the suggestion put to him under cross-examination that he had been angry in the meeting. Mr Connell did not recall either Ms Morey or Ms Moseby speaking at the meeting: indeed, he said that he did not see Ms Morey at the meeting.
190 In this part of the case, the applicant's allegations are as follows:
On or about 23 January 2014:
a. Ms Moseby demanded that the ANMF and the author of the 2 December 2013 letter admit that they had lied about staff backdating discharge times and removing patients from the "Symphony" IT system; and
b. Ms Moseby and Mr Connell berated the applicant for preparing and sending the 2 December 2013 letter of complaint ….
Despite the substantial volume of evidence that was led about what had been said at this meeting, the applicant's allegations focus on particular contributions alleged to have been made by Ms Moseby and Mr Connell.
191 It is difficult to trace the course of the meeting on 23 January 2014 by reference to the recollections of participants given so long after the events concerned. Even the contemporaneous jottings of Ms Morey, and the roughly contemporaneous notes of Ms Smith, do not line up sufficiently to provide a consistent picture. But I would accept Ms Morey's jottings, made at the time as they were, as the more reliable source. The sense I get from them is that it was only after considerable discussion, and contributions from those who appear to have been sympathetic to the position expressed in the grievance letter of 2 December 2013, that anything was said that implied criticism of that position. The contributions of Ms Mifsud and Ms Taylor, for example, were sympathetic. The other early theme of the meeting was the concern of the ANMF officials as to the reliability of the results of the Ernst & Young investigation, and the suggestion that it might be necessary to do further work in that area. That led, although not directly, to the contributions of Ms Moseby and Mr Connell. Understandably, Ms Morey's own contribution is not referred to in her jottings.
192 Ms Smith's notes tended to stress the position expressed by the ANMF officials (as she accepted in her evidence) and are, in my view, a less reliable indicator of the general flow of the meeting. What she said under the heading "members" was, for example, compendious in the extreme. But that section of her notes is not inconsistent with the evidence of other witnesses. Although I have not mentioned it above, there was evidence that members were "teary". Ms Morey herself was one of these. In a broad sense, "anger" was expressed towards the ANMF (although I do not accept that any of the witnesses who has given evidence in this case was "angry" in his or her demeanour). It was said that the emergency department had become "broken" as a result of the submission, and the external publication, of the grievance letter. And there was at least one member who acknowledged that some of the issues which had been of concern had started to be dealt with since the letter was submitted.
193 As to Ms Moseby's contribution, the evidence of what she said was given by the applicant, by Ms Smith and by Ms Moseby herself. It is of some significance that Ms Morey recalled that Ms Moseby spoke, but could not recall what she said, and Mr Connell could not recall Ms Moseby speaking at all. Had Ms Moseby been saying what the applicant claimed she did, and doing so in an angry and animated way, it is unlikely that these two witnesses, whom I regarded as credible, would not have recalled it. Doubtless the applicant would want to be understood as putting the veracity of the evidence of Ms Morey and Mr Connell in issue, but the applicant received little support from Ms Smith, her own witness, whose recollection of what Ms Moseby had said specifically was, I would have to say, imperfect. Even the applicant did not give evidence that would make good the allegation as pleaded, namely, that Ms Moseby had demanded that the author of the letter admit that "they" had lied about staff backdating discharge times and removing patients from the Symphony system.
194 The electronic message to which I referred in para 183 above was tendered by the respondent. Unsurprisingly, there was no objection by the applicant. Although in other circumstances it might have been regarded as self-serving, as things happened it provides solid, broadly contemporaneous, evidence as to at least one aspect of Ms Moseby's contribution in the meeting on 23 January 2014. The applicant was cross-examined with a view to having her accept that the message was replete with exaggerations, but, save that she accepted that the reference to "a solid hour and a half" was an exaggeration, she adhered to what she had written. However, in point of content, the message does not take the applicant very far. The only reference in it to what Ms Moseby had actually said is that she wanted the ANMF to apologise and to admit that they were wrong about the nurses in the emergency department falsifying discharge times. I accept that Ms Moseby did make such a comment. To the extent that her evidence contained denials of having done so, I reject them. Otherwise, I do not accept the applicant's evidence that Ms Moseby said anything that was critical of the applicant herself. I allow for the possibility, although I do not find, that Ms Moseby referred to the "author" of the letter, but I accept her evidence that she did not then know that the applicant had been the author. Whether used by Ms Moseby or by anyone else present, I believe that such a reference was, if anything, an impersonal way of dealing with a sensitive matter - one which permitted a view to be expressed on matters of content without causing antagonism at the individual level. Ms Moseby did not berate the applicant.
195 Thus I do not accept the applicant's allegation against Ms Moseby as pleaded, and neither do I accept that anything said by Ms Moseby altered the applicant's position to her prejudice, injured her in her employment, or discriminated against her.
196 As to Mr Connell, I should commence by saying that he was an impressive witness who gave his evidence thoughtfully and without embellishment. I accept his evidence as set out in para 189 above. With respect to aspects of that evidence where Mr Connell was uncertain, I accept the applicant's evidence that he said that the release of the letter to the media had broken the department - a factual, albeit metaphorical, assessment at the time - and that he referred to the trust of patients and staff having been compromised. He spoke emotionally, but not angrily. Nothing he said was directed to the applicant individually - he referred to her neither by name nor as "the author". The focus of his criticism was the ANMF, not the applicant. I accept that Mr Connell had heard that the applicant had collected signatures for the letter, but he did not know that she had drafted it. Even the applicant herself did not perceive his comments to have been directed at her, as distinct from the ANMF officials at the front desk. I accept the evidence of Ms Morey and Ms Moseby that the thrust of Mr Connell's contribution was a positive one, with a focus on repairing the damage that had been done to the emergency department by the differences of opinion which had emerged since the letter had been sent.
197 I reject the allegation that Mr Connell berated the applicant at the meeting on 23 January 2014; and I reject the contention that his contribution at that meeting altered the applicant's position to her prejudice, injured her in her employment, or discriminated against her.
198 I would add that, in my view, nothing said or done by any of the speakers at the meeting on 23 January 2014 was the act of the respondent, or said or done on behalf of the respondent within the meaning of s 793(1) of the FW Act. This was an ANMF meeting, called, organised and conducted by ANMF full-time officials. The respondent had nothing to do with it. For the respondent to have instructed nurses as to what they should say, as would have been its entitlement if they were at the meeting on its behalf, would have been unthinkable. I appreciate, of course, that the fact that managerial nurses, such as Ms Morey, attended and participated might have blurred traditional distinctions to an extent, but that was no more than the inevitable result, as it seems to me, of the representational penetration of the ANMF itself. Those who spoke at the meeting, even those in managerial roles, were doing so as ANMF members.