gE TET RTE or Re EE ME TE Tn on rn ee co mer ee ee ee v &

gE TET RTE or Re EE ME TE Tn on rn ee co mer ee ee ee

Industrial Law - dasmissal of unxzon member - whether

dismissal of employee because of his propensity as a union member to "stir up trouble" is a dismissal "by reason of the circumstance" that he is a member - whether "act ... for the purpose of furthering or protecting the industrial interests" of the union includes act for the purpose of doing sa indzrectly - whether "authority expressly conferred ..." under unzon rules.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 - ss.5 (1)(a), 5 )

nn BD er ee a a A et ee et = ~me - _ - - - - o - ~~ e eee 20"

pen Ween we ede De ae RE Rl ea Manel Se A lt al al ahi a al eens na aterm nhann anna at - fm

This is an information under s.5 of the Conciliation

and Arbitration Act 1904 (the Act) by Donald Sutherland (the prosecutor) who was at all material times a member of the Amalgamated Metal Workers! and Shipwrights' Union (the unxon). As amended by consent it charged that on Thursday 25 March, 1982 Hzlls Industries Limated (the company) at Edwardstown

dismissed the prosecutor from x1ts employ by reason of the

"(a) Was a member and/or delegate of the Amalgamated Metal Workers' and Shzpwrights" Union an organisation registered pursuant to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 as

amended; (b) Beang a member of the said Union whsch is seeking to (sic) better industrial

condatztons was and is dissatisfied with his conditions;

eee tren eee etree Pater en wre ene game OE anne mae ne a erent ome wees mw mmm Se ree a a me

ere an ee rire Net A ee ke alo gtent ue metre ante ee

tet we ca ae tee heer mrad tee om UE aN er tllteee Aet n mrad Aen) ate nmi™ ms Tat entra

• Union had done and proposed to do an act or thing which is lawful for the purpose of furthering or protecting the industrial interests of the organisation and its

the limits of the authority expressly conferred on him by the said Unaan in

Paragraph (b) of the charge, based upon s.5(1)(d) of the Act, has not been made cut in my opinzon and can be dealt with briefly. Although Mr. Sutherland gave evidence that he

was "dissatisPied with his condztions", he conceded that he

was not aware of "any claims that have been made by the union

on the company in respect of wages" after a national agreement as to wages and hours of work was reached in December 1981 between the union and employers in the industry generally and incorporated xnto the award by variation; nor of any union claiam on the company as to "the nature of training or supervision people should undertake for new work"; nor of any claim, subsequent to the national agreement, made on _ the compary by "the union from its registered office" (as distinct from members of the union) "relating to the implementation of the 38-hour week"; nor had there been any "claim by the union

Each of these concessions was made by Mr. Sutherland

frankly and without hesitatzon. Throughout hiss long stay in

the witness box, (including about 609 transcript pages of ecross-examination) he impressed me as being a very honest witness wha went to considerable pains to qualify his

statements where it was necessary to do so in the interests of

accuracy. In the light of the concesszons to which I have

referred, xt has not been proved that the union was "seeking

better industrial conditions" in the sense used in s.5(1)(d)

i.e. seeking identified industrial conditions and not merely having a general objective of seeking better industrial

t evidence at an early stage of the hearing, I expressed my

agreement, with respect, with the following statement by Northrop J. in the Australian Industrzal Court in Heidt v.

Chrysler Australia Ltd. (1976) 26 F.L.R. 257 at pp.269-270 :-

"One of the chief objectives of any organization of employees is to seek better industrial conditions for its members. The words '''an organization which is seeking better industrial condations' contained in s.5(1)(d) do not refer to this general objective but must refer to identified industrzal conditions which the organization is seeking ta better."

It is not necessary for me to deal with the matter referred to in the next sentence in that judgment and I would prefer to reserve my opinion on that question for a case in which it is necessary to decide it and an opportunity exists for a fuller

argument than has occurred in this case. Perhaps I should

mee ee eee oe eee tee . 7 . en ne ee em ee ee eee ee

add, however, that in my opinion his Honour, in saying tn that next -sentence "... the employee member must be dissatisfied with the same industrial conditions ...", was not intending to convey that the member must be shown to have been dassatisfied with each and every one of the identified industrial condsations the subject of a claim by the union, but rather

that the member must have been dissatisfied wxth some of the same industrial conditions which the union is seeking to

As to the word "delegate" appearing in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the charge (as amended), during his final address Mr. Johnston {].C., who appeared with Ms. NeLean for the prosecutor, conceded that on the evidence the defendant company had not been shown to have been aware of the fact that Mr. Sutherland was a delegate and therefore "could not have taken into account, in dismissing him, the fact of his being a delegate, or the fact of his having done anything in the capacsty of a delegate.". Accordingly it was common ground that the court did not have to determine whether Mr. Sutherland was a delegate; however, Mr. Johnston did not concede that he was not a delegate and Mr. Bleby, who appeared

with Miss Harrison for the company, did not concede that he

member of the union and was employed as a second class

he ae oe aie ene ra nt a ad NN eA te tally A A et ai tm ee RRR

machinist by the company in its commercial antenna division (the division) at Woodlands Avenue, Edwardstown. The company's work in that division was "jobbing" work involving little repetitsve work and including the production of

(1) The union was a registered organization of employees within the meaning of the Act.

(2) The company was incorporated under the Companies Act (S.A.) 1962.

(3) The company was bound by the Metal Industry Award 1971 (as amended) by virtue of its membership of the Metal Industries Association of South Australia, a registered organization of employers within the

(4) The rule book tendered in evidence contazned the

unformed of his dismissal by Mr. Pfarr, the foreman of the

diviszon, and that another employee, Mr. Weissenbock, was

dismzssed at the same time. The following evidence was given by Mr. Sutherland as to the conversation he had with Mr. Pfare

"I sard 'Why?' and he said 'We just do not have enough work.' ... I said, 'I don't understand,' and the reason why I sazd that, which I elaborated to him although I am not reproducing the exact words, was that usually when there is a problem of this nature the company calls a meeting of all workers and explains the situatzon - where there is a serious situation, whether st be about

re-organization an the factory or whatever - and I did not understand. Then I said, 'Has it got

anythsng to do with my work?' and he most strongly assured ,me and said, 'No, no; definitely it has nothing '*o do wrth your work', at whach I was relieved. Once again I am reproducing this part of the conversation exactly: I said, 'Could you repeat that, please?! and he said, 'It has

defanitely not got anything to do w2zth your work',"

The statement to Mr. Sutherland that the dismissal had "definitely not got anythang to do with your work" may be compared with the evidence of Mr. McComish, the manager of the divzsion. He gave evidence that Messrs. Sutherland and Weissenbock "seemed ta be slaw in the actions they were dorng", and "their attitude to their job was not as good as the others" - matters he said that he had previously remarked

Pfarr sazd to him as being accurate, notwithstanding the

wad OD saan ARO VER shed TOP fin, Ge SUD NIA ASN ORR Bence Toh STAM A tal Ome fa atte meee Werte anon ae on Pee a

persistent challenge made to xt in cross-examination. Qn the day following the giving of that evidence by Mr. Sutherland (3.e. after an opportunity to read the transcript of his evidence and obtain specific instructions) Mr. Sutherland was cross-examined as to whether anybody had told ham that it was

not because of his work performance. Mr. Sutherland answered that Mr. Pfarr had told him that the dismissal was not because of the qualaty of his work. Immedzately after the luncheon adjournment Mr. Bleby returned to the same subject and,

"T put to you that at no stage during any of the discussions you had which involved Mr. Pfarr, either at the time when he told you that you were dismissed or in the subsequent dzscussions, that Mr. Pfarr said that the dismissal had nothing to do with the quality of your work or work

putting to me that those words were never used by Mr. Pfarr?

Yes? ~--- No, that is not correct, he did use those words."

In opening the case for the defendant, Mr. Bleby stated that no-one had said to Mr. Sutherland at that time that his work was satisfactory. Further, in his evidence Hr. Pfarr initially expressly denied that he had made any such

"Did he ask you at any stage during the course of that interview if the dismissal was anything to do with his work? --- No.

TN TEV ne ree TE Re nee eM eS PT ST em ee tte ee men Ff orem ee

Sn hehe De mens Pe dtm fet Nama ta apache tn Annee elo la LARLY i ns A oh nn a Ek ee er ert

TR EN re en ene ee mera Fr MTT FE I TET Ripe ee Re ee ee tee aa armen cat me Em er

Did you otherwise comment on the nature and qualaty or the satisfactoriness or otherwise of his work? -~- No."

However, he said that, in a conversation later on the same day with Mr. Donnon ~ an organizer of the union - Mr. Sutherland and others present, he had saad to Mr. Sutherland words to the effect that he had "no complaint about (the presecutor's) work record", Mr. Sutherland had already given evidence that a similar statement was made during discussions that day between Messrs. Pfarr, Johns (a personnel officer), and Fitzpatrick on behalf of the company and Messrs. Sutherland, Wezssenbock and Donnon.

The company contended that it had become necessary to retrench two employees from its commercial antenna division by reason of a general reduction in orders being receszved by the company. Mr. Pfarr said that he had the power to dismiss

employees xn the factory but that he "would get confirmation

From Mr. McComish before exercising that power". Mr. Pfarr

gave evidence in considerable detail as ta how he went through the list of employees by himself and the various considerations he took into account in the selection process that he said resulted in the decision to dismiss Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Weissenbock. It is not necessary to set

out in detail the many criticisms that can be made of that

evidence. However, his evidence was particularly unconvincing when he gave "examples whach weighed in (his) mind in the selection pracess", He said that on the day 'before the dismissals he told Mr. McComish who "agreed with my conclusions.". Mr. McComish gave evidence, which I accept, that it was his deczsion to dismiss Mr. Sutherland but that he made that decision in conjunctzon wath Mr. Pfarr who made the

On the evidence, Mr. Sutherland, who joined the union shortly after he began working for the company in July 1979, was probably the farst of the employees (approximately 15 including the foreman and leading hands) in the company's commercial antenna division to do so. He told the union that he wished to receive notices of meetings and other information and was put on the shop stewards' distribution list. He received from the union printed or roneod material which from

to time he was distributed ta ather employees or placed on a

notice board. In December 198i he attended two stop work meetings called by the union - after notifying the foreman of his reason for taking time off. On the matter of the

implementation of the 38-hour week Mr. Sutherland went to Mr. McComash and tald him that he "had been asked by the other workers in the lunch room to speak to him about these matters", Shortly after ttis Mr. McComzsh and Mr. Johns attended the lunch room to speak to the employees on that

There was "considerably increased discussion about and interest in the union tn the early part of 1982" and five workers joaned the unszson although not all of them stayed at the company; previously "the largest number of members of the union" was two although there "may have been a brief perizod of a month where there were three", About 10 days before his dismissal Mr. Sutherland handed out application forms for membership of the union to each of the production workers wha were not already members. He handed them out apenly in the lunch room, including handing them to both leadang hands, "and the foreman (Mr. Pfarr) knew it was happening". He also "chased up" a "couple of the workers (who) were not in the lunch room" at the time. Mr. Sutherland gave evidence that he had "been active in attempting to enrol people" from the diviszon into the union, that he had enrolled four employees as members of the union, that he discussed "membership of the union wath various ... fellow workers" and that he was proposing to continue his "efforts in that respect". Mr. Sutherland had expressed to Mr. Pfarr his dissatisfaction with "the level of union membership in general terms in the Hills

In his evidence Mr. Pfarr saxd that, at his initial interview xn about August 1981 with the then manager, Mr. John Fitzpatrick, he (Mr. Pfarr) asked "is the shop covered by (a)

unxon" and was told "there xs only one unson member as far as

wR ee Te etm a nn te pee meee tern ee oe een tee eo ee me ote oe

ee ee en A Mie tee fae ie ee ee Lee ee mt a ne Nc tet Le Me a AR wee

SRD et eh Re SL ree den eee Rent tS maternal erleninieh +a Aaa Tatne ante Adie haa Rr medias rier nee dennante Mattei emate Salina Sal Femied nce etna cmrntrt A et Rt oma etme he ES Het ek eee ee eat hk tL ERY as CAE

Neen ee ee en nn nn en ne eee demnemeincsatendemiensiedia estormeetanemndineematasmeemnseminnentiaennanendesntieeiemennmenenaae

he (Mr. Fitzpatrick) knows, which was Don Sutherland". Under crogs-examination he agreed that when he started in the division he was told that Mr. Sutherland was the only union member and that "there were no major unzon problems in that division". He volunteered that the fact that there were "only about 2 per cent of the work force unionized at Hills" was "one of the reasons why I joined" the company as a foreman. He later said that "before accepting the job" he inquired of Mr. Fatzpatrick and was told that the company overall "was practically ununzonized" and agreed that "that information was ane of the reasons why ¢he) took the job". y

Me. Pfarr volunteered during cross-examination that he "would prefer to work in a non-closed shop to a closed shop". It was suggested to him by Mr. Johnston that "there was no question of a closed shop" but he answered "that was the impression I had - the union was after it at Hxils". On his evidence as a whole, including the last answer quoted, I have no doubt that Mr. Pfarr was very concerned at the increasing "unzxonization" of his division, that he considered it likely that more employees would join the union if Mr.

Sutherland remazned as an employee in the dzvisizon and that he

Mr. Pfarr agreed that, having been told that Mr. Sutherland was "handing out, or putting around" application

forms for union membership, he "would have" spoken "to Mr.

weeds SRE ws AL eee tk ee, ek eel RT de Rm eee dled ae eth eles nN A EKO ne ae she ne RNY WWE Ade? RENE APL Mee

not so", or something that conveyed the same sort of attitude? --- Basically, yes." aSoS ES a TRE eS i ee a eR eR an ee ee em ee

McComish on the subject", but sasd that he "could not give you a date", Referring to Mr. Sutherland's handing out of the application forms, Mr. Pfarr said "when Graham Kempster told me about it he said nobody was interested, and I passed that

on" to Mr. MceComxsh. The following passage is from the cross

"When you said Mr. Kempster had said that nobody was very interested, did Mr. McComish say, "Well, that is good."? --- He would have favoured that response, yes, but I cannot recall that he dxd say, "That is good."

Anyway, he said something which indicated that was a pleasing fact, as far as he was 'wconcerned? --- Yes.

This news that perhaps Edge and _ perhaps Rzezkowski and perhaps Weissenbock had jozned the union, I suppose you passed that informatzon on to Mr. McComish, did you? --- Yes.

I take it that Tardrew (a leading hand who gave evidence on behalf of the company) dad not say all on the one day, "Look, I think these three may have joined the union", but it came to you in dribs and drabs over a perzod of time and, each time you got a bit of information concerning one or other of them, you passed it on to Mr. McComish? ---Yes.

What did Mr. McComash say on those occasions? --- That he had not been told anything

officzrally about exther and basically adopted a wait-and-see attitude.

nameart te gehen de eh eee ee PN et ee Nh a en hematent a Koa ar aerate mata nha BE MAhEYomg tw

Mr. McComzsh was asked in cross-examination whether he had been told by Mr. Pfarr that Mr. Sutherland "had handed out application to join the A.M.W.S.U. cards". He said :-

not know beforehand. He did tell me, yes, but only after Don had left us.

Did he tell you that Gary Rzezkowski was a member or might be a member? -- Only after Don had left, did he mention that he thought Gary might be a member of the union, ...".

Mr. McComzsh used the words "after Don (Mr. Sutherland) had left" three times un the passage just quoted and also used the same words on a number of occasions during later eross-examxination. For example, on the subject of Mr. Pfarr's interview with Mr. Fitzpatrick before accepting the position as foreman (to which I have referred earlier) the

"Well, did he convey to you - were you aware that one of his reasons for taking the job was that zt was not a union shop? --- Nao, I was

after Don had left, but I was not aware of that before, no.

Did you also become aware that as far as he, Pfarr, was concerned, that was one of the reasons why he took the jyob, which moved him to take the job? --- He did say that to me after the event; yes, he did use those words ...".

SALT Tam readasnied $ An Sota hort ern eae a - - =. he Ne a I ee =

I reject as a deliberate attempt to mislead the court Mr. McComish's evidence that he did not know that Mr.Sutherland had handed out union membership application cards until "after Don had left". I accept Mr. Pfarr's evidence quoted earlier that Mr. McComish "said something which undicated that it was a pleasing fact as far as he (Mr. McComish) was concerned" that "nobody was very interested" in the union membership application cards which Mr. Sutherland was handing out. I a}jso accept Mr. Pfarr's evidence that, when he gave ihformation to Mr. McComish "in dribs and drabs" over a period of time that some employees might have joined

the union, Mr. McComish said "something to the effect, I hope

In some discussions between Mr. McComish, Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Pfarr the word "stirrer" was used in referring to Mr. Sutherland. The transcript of Mr. Pfarr's

evidence on this aspect includes the following passages :-

ever discussed between yourself and Mr. McComish, yourself and Mr.. Fitzpatrick or yourself and Mr. Johns or any combination of the group: Mr. Sutherland's unzon membershxzp beyond the fact that he was a member? --- Occasionally it came up, yes.

Over what period of time? --- Ever since I started.

By occasionally, how often do you mean, once a month? --- Once every three months or perhaps once every sxx months.

twice while you were there? --- It was not very often.

What was said on those occasions beyond the fact of his membership? --- That he could be a stirrer, could be stxzrsring. That was about the extent of it."

"It would only be Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. McComish and myself. It was not complimentary, no."

"Who used the word "stirrer" or was it used by all "three of you? --- It would have been more used by Mr. Fitzpatrick.

It was used by him of Sutherland on more than one occasion? --- He was the one who had known Mr. Sutherland longest.

He applied that word to him on more than one occasion, did he? --- Yes.

In discussions with these men did you apply that word to him? --- No.

Did you agree with Mr. Fitzpatrack? --- I always reserve my own judgment, on my own observations.

When Mr. Fitzpatrick on more than one occasion referred to hxm as a stirrer, did you agree, or say nothing, or disagree? --- I felt he was entitled to his opinion, and that was xt.

What did you say to Mr. Fitzpatrick? --- I did not agree, or disagree.

But Mr. McComish used the word? --- I cannot recall, I do not think sa.

Dad Mr. Fatzpatrack use zt in the presence of Mr. McComish? --~ That xs his normal way of talking."

RE eT eg AA eT ne roe Sterna ee Re ee re re een en een ee a

ac wee a ark lan ote mt ere ae ES lt Nl ae ad et el a ll eae teal athe Mat teenie Retin ent Rll led deetd LaR i Nabe mera ttl A Ants A A EI art

Pees peg Fe nie en rere oR Ry ee GT ee nm ee ee 8 ne meme on oom ae

In those answers as to the use of the word "stirrer", Mr. Pfarr was not entirely frank but nonetheless his answers may be contrasted with the evzdence of Mr. McComzsh. Asked in cross-examination whether Mr. Fitzpatrick had said to ham that Mr. Sutherland " is a stirrer" Mr. McComish said : "Not that I recollect; he may have done but not that I can recollect". Later he told the court that Mr. Fitzpatrick had not described Mr. Sutherland to him "as a starrer" until "after Don (Mr. Sutherland) had left"; he alsa said that Mr. Fitzpatrick had never said to him that Mr. Sutherland "was stirring". Mr. McComish's evidence conflicts with Mr. Pfare's and I reject as untrue both his earlier elaim that he could not "recollect" and his later statement

that the remark was not said until "after Don had left".

In my opinion both Mr. McComish in deciding to dismiss Mr. Sutherland, and Mr. Pfarr in making the recommendation for dismissal, dzd so for reasons which included, as a substantial factor operating on their minds, the fact that Mr. Sutherland was at the time a member of the union and as such was likely, if he remained in the company's employment, to enrol and to seek to enrol other employees as members of the union, a situation which plainly they both wished to prevent (cf. Mr. Pfarr's "impression" that "the

unzon was after" a closed shop in Hills - referred to

TG ate ale nk ee el ae ae te tna tne Lariat tin Nhat eet nnn nant nek Nala Ae Mate met td ret aM Ray La RITA RANE

In those answers as to the use of the word "stirrer", Mr. Pfarr was not entirely frank but nonetheless his answers may be contrasted with the evidence of Mr. McComish. Asked in cross-examination whether Mr. Fitzpatrick had said to ham that Mr. Sutherland " is a stirrer" Mr. McComish sazd : "Not that I recollect; he may have done but not that I can recollect". Later he told the court that Mr. Fatzpatrick had not described Mr. Sutherland to him "as a stirrer" until "after Don (Mr. Sutherland) had left"; he also said that Mr. Fitzpatrick had never sazd to him that Mr. Sutherland "was stirring". Mr. McComish's evidence conflicts with Mr. Pfate's and I reject as untrue both his earlier claim that he could not "recollect" and his later statement that the remark was not said until "after Don had left".

In ny opinion both Mr. McCaomish in deciding to dismiss Mr. Sutherland, and Mr. Pfarr in making the recommendatzon for dismassal, did so for reasons which included, as a substantial factor operating on their minds, the fact that Mr. Sutherland was at the time a member of the union and as such was likely, z2f he remazned in the company's employment, to enrol and to seek to enrol other employees as members of the unzon, a situation which plainly they both wished to prevent (cf. Mr. Pfarr's "impression" that "the union was after" a closed shop in Hills - referred to

metab Bh cart ae Laie ate Seater att appeal mea navel RA Rabiar et

. In Cuevas v Treeman Motors Ltd. (1975) 25 F.L.R. 67

"There are, of course, active shop stewards and passive shop. stewards. It is apparent that an actzve shop steward may be responszble for recurring Bneidents irritating to management and creating in the mind of the employer a desire to be rid of the employee because although otherwise he may be a satisfactory workman, nevertheless as a shop steward his capacity for stirring up what the employer regards as trouble ts to the employer quite intolerable.

If, in such a case, the employer dismisses the employee not because of any particular stem of conduct but because of his propensity as such to stir up such trouble then, :n our opinzon, the dismissa'i must be characterized as a dismissal arising by reason of the circumstance that the

employee 38s a shop steward. In a sense such a dismissal arises out of past conduct as a shop steward, but xt is more than _ that. It 2s a

dismissal to escape trouble arising from conduct and situations lskely to arise in the future out of the circumstance that and because the particular employee holds the position of shop steward."

Their Honours were, of course, dealang with a charge under s. 5(1)(a) that the dismissal was by reason of the circumstance that the employee was a shop steward; the part of the charge presently being considered (also under. s. 5(1)(a)) is that the dismissal was by reason of the circumstance that the employee was a member of the union. However, in my opznzon the principle 2s the same and applies to the present case where (using their Honours' words) the employer dismzssed Mr. Sutherland "because of his propensity as" a member te stir up trouble. Mr. Sutherland's dzsmissal

was "to escape trouble arising from conduct and situations

Re ener AT ee I RT PR See Rane Sete om ee ere ee en eee me wer ae

Leeann Pel Lh at ca apn nt aetna tt ane Lat Nee Kalen mann fen rine rt abst mma mas temetnatma lel

POR ee te Se att tte cle tite ate eterno Wendin Hatt

seta title mnian nhamentaltthedts tet em etek eee ee et rt ee

18, likely to arzse in the future out of the circumstance that and because the particular employee" was a membér. On the evidence. as a whole I am quite satisfied that both Mr. McComash and Mr. Pfarr deliberately took advantage of the opportunity, presented by the need to retrench two of the employees in the division, to dismzss Mr. Sutherland. In deciding to dismiss him - instead of another employee - Shey were motivated to a large extent by the fact that, as a member of the un2zon, he was likely to continue to enrol fellow employees as members with the resultant danger ~ in their eyes - - that a majority of the employees in the division

would soon become members of the unzon - a division which,

when Mr. Pfarr started work in August, 1981 had only one

Mr. McComish and Mr. Pfarr both denied on oath that Mr. Sutherland had been dismissed for any of the reasons alleged in the charge. On quite a number of occasions Mr. Pfarr was less than frank in answering questions ~ despite certain admissions as to his attitude towards unions in a

factory. I do not accept his denial that "the fact that Mr. Sutherland was a member of the (union had) any bearing at all

PPR LA RP EERE REET TE rn ee me Re re TD ee ee ee re on ~ ee

ah ade A Sel a a pn ein tl ley Nee nee see te LA a takes Ao ORY

wks case ce belt ete Nerotn eR fom amen ent mer aA SR Na Ti

ALTE en ard lie nnn nentenn ane St Re Ne meet er A Leet ert arreeattaey "hm Qa tr mary eR ae eens

In his evidence in chief Mr. McComish was asked did

he know that Mr. Sutherland had attempted to enrol other

"No, no, I did not know that he was attempting to, I would imagine he would have tried that but I dad not know.

difference to your decision? --- No, not at all. Had any influence on it at all? --- No."

In the cross-examination quoted earlier, he denied that he knew that Mr.''Sutherland "had handed out application to join the A.M.W.S.U. cards" until "after Don (Mr. Sutherland) had left us". I reject as untrue the statement that he did not

know that fact until "after Don had left us" (which is contrary to Mr. Pfarr's evidence). I also reject as untrue his denial that any such knowledge "would have made any

I have treated as irrelevant the evidence of certain statements made by Mr. Ling, the managing director of the company, which were said to be critical of unzons. However, it follows from what I have said as to the evidence of Mr. McComzsh, who made the decision, and Mr. Pfarr, who made the recommendation on the matter, that the defendant

company has failed to satzsfy the court on the balance of

Leah dnisioia <a bhi ton Raatertad aeeeneneee matemnaneaiedenenedl - - oon a. me ee ee tre " - ed

. 3 . S ' seaioaCiauuasarrah? ! weet nd abe AE ot LORD OTL NG te Det ALI Se at Basha SN aie rR Al A Det ante teat tosis iChat IPL AL em arda RR nes aman te a Ltn iNet aed rath mand attr Ulatart alltel alien Nmam adi vin neko

Saati. apereineud La hin: 42 cheeses etan ieteetarnatenaaes toameainemaan dant aeaeeataiiedemnediahamemmemmemntatanetmenaenmiatedntiehiaatan ene - - - een

probabilities that it was not actuated by reason of the circumstance that Mr. Sutherland was a member of the union.

Accordingly the company has committed an offence against s.

It is desirable, however, that I also consider the charge based upon s.5(1)(f) of the Act - set out earlier as paragraph (c) of the charge. Mr. Johnston relied upon the "acts" done by Mr. Sutherland, as a member, in enrollzng and seeking to enrol fellow employees in the division as members. Mr. Bleby submitted that "evidence as to the prosecutar's activity an 'Snrolling members" was not relevant to this aspect of the charge. The evidence was admitted subject to objection, Mr. Bleby agreeing to the question of

Mr. Johnson submitted that these were acts which were "lawful for the purpose of furthering or protecting the andustrizal interests of the organization or its members". Mr. Bleby did not dispute that the acts were lawful but put two major submissions. First, he submitted that such acts

were not "for the purpose of furthering or protecting the

industrial anterests of the organization or' axts members". He emphasised that the "interests" must be "industrial interests". He submitted that the effect of the word

SAL mL cal nel AL eed Pt NGL A el a ee RY one a Nn mm lt i Nl en - _ - ~ -

"that the act or thing which is lawful must be somethzng that one normally does, or has accepted as being done, by way of pursuing the industrial activities of the union. Typical of such an act or thang would be the attendance at a stop work meeting, or voting in favour of pressing certain claims; perhaps even going on strike in certain circumstances in support of claims which can be said to be in industrial interests of the organization."

He submitted that enrolling members was "just in the general

"may indirectly be in the industrial interests of the organization in the sense that the more members there are in the organization, the stronger the orgamization is going to be and therefore the more success it is likely to have in pressing its claims."

fd tite read team nat vt Cont mele ai let Ger Leena NPN Ria, Cea Bah Ente emt OK Rita A a

He contended that the section in saying "the act or thing ... for the purpose of furthering or protecting the industrial interests of the organzzation or its members ..." did not prohibit the dismissal of an employee by reason of the circumstance that he had done an act which was done only indirectly for that purpose and that an act which was done only andiarectly tn the industrial interests of the union was

too remote to come within the scope of the sub-section.

As s.5(1)(f) 2s a statutory provision imposing criminal penalties, if "there appears any reasonable doubt or ambiguzty" it must be resolved in favour of the defendant

Investments, Ltd. v Attorney-General (1953) 1 W.L.R. 312 per

metal RS ke ten atta alte cians ae alae Dit AN ae ot a iintae ReaeAE Lahn Relea AaB tine

ANE me eer erm e ge ere Se mee ram ge er ener mn are ee es Stet rt pen

Upjohn J. at p. 319 - cited in Maxwell The Interpretation of

Statutes 12th edition p. 239). However, I do not consider there is "any reasonable doubt or ambiguity" in the meaning of the words. Having regard to the purpose of the provision,

as explained by Mason J. (with whom Stephen and Jacobs JJ.

12 A.L.R. 605 at p. 616, I consider that the section did not intend to exclude from its prohibition, a dismissal which was otherwise within the sub-section but which related to an act which was done "for the purpose of furthering or protecting the industrial interests of the organization or its members" in the sense 'Sf strengthening the organization by increasing the number of its members and of increasing the organzzation's bargaining position with the particular employer by reason of the intended increase in the number of employees who were members and as such directly represented

Mr. Bleby also submitted that there was no evidence as to Mr. Sutherland's purpose in enrolling the members. However, Mr. Sutherland gave evidence as_ to his dissatisfaction wath the extent of union membership in the

dzvision and that he had from time to time "requested the

hab weroEthe Panaracer i Pete's imaal bet NAM tans apart anis http ca mans ttle ann tito acne aL! Lit LN tenet mab So bie nce rae SOA th SAR Ur mT a var alse oh Lah OS aattek,

union to produce material urging employees, generally speaking of the company, but zncluding the employees in (the) division to jozn the unzon". I am satisfied on Mr.

Sutherland's evidence as a whole that his acts in enrolling

re ENTREE He eer ne en ee pene et en mw pe wee eS eee eee em wes

a ate et i eee es SeenON Nineties anteaters Segal A wa A anna! ta ala

and in seeking to enrol fellow employees as members were "for the purpose of furthering or protecting the industrial

seeking to enrol his fellow employees as members of the

union, Mr. Sutherland was doing acts which were "within the limits of authority expressly conferred on him by the organization in accordance with the rules of the organizatian." He submitted that the "authority" was conferred by the rules 4nd relied in particular upon sub-rule

1. of rule 45° and upon the rule setting out the objects of

sign a standard applicatzon form which must be Forwarded by the applicant, or the member enrolling

him/her, together with the Entrance Fee and Contrabutions to the State Office of the Union. Such applicatxon forms shall be sent to the National Council within three months.

2. The State Secretary, having ascertained that the applicant is engaged in an occupation covered by the Union and is otherwise suitable and qualified to be a member, shall then allocate the new member ta the Branch nearest to where he lives and shall advise the Branch Secretary and the new member accordingly."

sae hs bonita nk en ane iterated anak ontiatenene cee tema ma adameenmetaaeaaan meer an ietmmetaah tedieetenm iementanadoaiad aeetieaeatanatentneineines em enenlitel

The organisation of all workers qualified for membership ...".

Mr. Johnston submitted that, by reason of the words "forwarded by ... the member enrolling him" ain rule 45 sub-rule 1, Mr. Sutherland's actions, as a member, in enrolling and seeking to enrol fellow employees as members each constituted "an act or thing done within the limits of authority expressly conferred on him by the organization in

Mr. Bleby conceded that the requisite authority "may be conferred expressly by the rules themselves" and that it is not necessary that the authority be given by a resolution of an appropriate body in accordance with the rules. However, his second major submission was that rule 45 does not "expressly" confer on a member the authority to enrol members but is merely "giving recognition to the implied authority to a member to enrol someone", which recognitxon, he conceded, is given expressly. He also agreed that there would be an "authority expressly conferred on ham" within the meaning of s. 5(1) (f) if the rule said "All

members of the union are hereby authorized to enrol and seek