Jenkins, Roy Anthony v. Gleeson, Jennifer Ruth [1981] FCA 177

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Fox, Blackburn and Keely JJ DATE OR ORDER: 94 SEP 1981 WHERE MADE: Canberra

1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The orders made in the Supreme Court be set ° aside.
3. In lieu thereof, the order nisi be discharged,
4. The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the

hearing before the Supreme Court and of this appeal.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Kelly J) making absolute an order nisi for certiorari to quash a decision of the appellant made on 20 July 1979 to stand down the respondent from her employment as an officer of the Common- wealth Public Service. His Honour at the same time made a declaration declaring the decision to have been void ab initio.

The grant of the writ of certiorari was sought on the basis of denial of natural justice, which in this case

amounted to an alleged failure to give the respondent-

prosecutrix an adequate opportunity to be heard in her own

defence before the order to stand her down was made.

The standing down arose out of an industrial dispute. There had, as at 19 June 1979, been a series of stop work meetings by members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA), and the Commonwealth Public Service and Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) in protest against certain provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. Various resolutions had been passed including some directed to the placing of bans. The federal executives of the two organisations had approved the imple- mentation of bans on "ministerial" correspondence and com- munications, and members had been encouraged to consider further bans. On 19 June the Public Service Board notified the Deputy Public Service Arbitrator, appointed under the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1978, that pursuant to s.12C of that Act "the industrial action taken or threatened by members of the two organisations concerned could seriously affect the conduct of ministerial and government business and

could have detrimental effects on members of the public".

the matter, and heard representations from the relevant bodies. In a determination dated 16 July 1979 he found that work bans did in fact exist, and had done so for some time. He found

that "In their initial form the bans involved a refusal to handie what are known as 'ministerials' - that is documents

originating in the offices of Ministers of State or which

require referral to him; but in time spread to include refusals to carry out customary day-to-day duties". The term "ministerials" had received a wider definition in a bulletin of the Victorian Branch of the ACOA, but that does not matter for present purposes. Later in his reasons the

"There may be some truth in the second argument about 'real evidence (that the bans exist)'; some sectional heads might have done more to test the bans, but taken in its entirety the evidence indicating the existence of the bans is overwhelming.

Jf I have any reservations about the wisdom of issuing stand-down orders in the present cir- cumstances it is because in some cases such a measure would be, as Mr. Munro says 'draconic'. I have in mind where, say, a telex operator refuses to send one message out of a hundred because it is a ministerial. In such a situation the only alternative would appear to be to authorise a proportional reduction for the duration of the bans. Such a solution is logical but would raise a host of problems relating to proportionality."

His orders, leaving aside formal matters, were as follows:

• "1. THAT the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and The Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers), organisations of employees within the meaning of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 and the members thereof employed in any Department of State are hereby directed to cease the conduct that constitutes the said

industrial situation namely the application of bans or limitations or restrictions on work including that involved in the handling of Ministerial correspondence and any other matters connected with Ministers.

2. THAT the said Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and The Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) and their members employed in any Department of State are hereby prohibited from engaging in conduct that would constitute the said industrial situation referred to in paragraph 1 of this Order and from applying bans or limitations or restrictions on work including that involved in the handling of Ministerial correspondence and any other matter connected with Ministers.

3. THAT this Order shall be binding upon the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and The Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) and their members thereof employed in any Department of State and the various Ministers of State and the Public Service Board.

AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that as from and uncluding July 17 1979 the Chief Officer

may stand down from duty any officer or employee employed in any Department of State who refuses to perform or fails to perform the whole or any part of his duties and may deduct payment for any day or portion thereof during which such officer or employee 1s stood down."

The respondent (the prosecutrix below) was a librarian class 2 employed in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and in that capacity had a small staff under her control. She was a member of ACOA, and one of the "sectional members" of that organisation in the Department. She agrees that she was at the time familiar with the activities of ACOA so far as they pertained to members in the Department. At about 4 pm on 20 July 1979 she attended as requested at the office of Mr. Sullivan, the First Assistant Secretary, Management Division of the Department. Others were present. Mr. Sullivan said: "Well, Jenny you know what this 1s all about." She replied: "Yes.'' He then read a direction to her from a document dated 20 July, which he handed to her.

MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE, BRIEFING MATERIAL, ETC.

You are hereby directed to instruct all staff under your control to action any Ministerial correspondence presently held by them and, as well, to prepare such other briefing material

and documents required to be provided for the Minister.

She did not at the time, nor did her staff, have any of the

office at his request. Mr. Sullivan then read again the

notice set out above and asked: "W1ll you carry out this

direction?" The prosecutrix replied: "I consider this a hypothetical situation and I refuse to reply.'' This was possibly a reference to the fact that on 19 July 1979 the Secretary had said that, to use the language of the prosecutrix' affidavit:

do it, before being liable to be stood down." The notice was not hypothetical because it required action on her part, but 1t was the fact, as already noted, that no ministerial work was then current, or, seemingly, about to be received by the library. Mr. Sullivan went on to say: "You cannot avoid the issue by refusing to answer.'' The respon- dent said: "I refuse to answer the question", and Mr. Sullivan said 'Well, I'll have to regard your reply as a refusal to carry out the direction. I'11 have to ask you to

go and see Mr. Jenkins for him to issue a stand-down order."

The respondent was then accompanied to the office of a Mr. Jenkins, Assistant Secretary, Management Services Branch of the Department, who was the Chief Officer. Mr. Jenkins read the direction again and asked: "Do you still maintain this attitude?" to which the respondent answered: "Yes.'' The question was twice more repeated, each time with more emphasis. In answer to the first of these questions, she replied: ''Yes'', and on the third and final occasion she

said: "I've taken legal advice and I'm not going to change

my mind.'"' Mr. Jenkins then stood her down with effect from 4.52 pm that day and he signed and gave to her a document

In accordance with the authority given to me by the Chief Officer, you are hereby stood down from duty, with effect from 4.92 pm Friday 20 July

1979 for refusing, declining or failing to perform the whole or part of your duties as directed as an employee employed in this Department, in that:

You have failed to comply with directions to instruct staff under your control to undertake work associated with Ministerial correspondence and/or briefing material.

Furthermore, you are required to leave the work place immediately and you shall not report for

During this stand down period, by virtue of Section 12D of the Public Service Arbitration Act, you are not entitled to any salary, wages or other remuneration. Further, such period does not break continuity of service but does not count as service. Provision is also made

. for adjustment to recreation and sick leave credits under Section 12D of the Public Service Arbitration Act."

been stood down; it is agreed that she was absent for nine

working days. Nothing 1s known as to the terms upon which she returned. We do not know whether some agreement had by then been reached between the unions and the Public Service Board. It would be the normal consequence of being stood down that she would not receive pay during the period of the stand down, and this appears to have been what happened in the present case. The learned judge inferred from the fact that the respondent was absent for nine working days (and no other explanation being offered as to the reason for her absence) that this period was stipulated by the Chief Officer. ., This does not seem to me to be a safe, or, indeed, a permis- sible inference. The power to authorise a stand down 15 in s.12D(2)(c) of the Act, which is in the following terms.

concerned in or affected by, the industrial situation."

(a) the refusal or failure to perform work, including (without limiting the generality of the preceding words of this paragraph) the refusal or failure to perform work in a particular manner, at a particular place or ata

particular time or while particular circumstances exist;

(b) the unauthorized interruption, delaying or obstruction of, or any unauthorized limitation on, the performance of work;

(c) the performance of work in an unauthor- 1zed manner or at an unauthorized time, being a manner or time so different from the usual manner or time of the per- formance of that work that there would be a limitation or restriction on, or a ten- dency to limit or restrict, the amount or volume of work performed or the output or production of work; or

(d) the unauthorized adoption of such a practice in relation to work that there

would be a limitation or restriction on, or a tendency to limit or restrict, the amount or volume of work performed or the

It seems to me that a stand down under the section 1s not for a penal purpose but for an industrial purpose, and will usually continue until the industrial problem is resolved. This may be by compromise agreement, or by one side or the other yielding its position. The respondent, so far as appears, may have decided to comply with the instruc- tion or there may have been some compromise, with herself personally, or with the union. There is no evidence to the effect that the stand down was for a time certain. Nor is there any reason to believe that the respondent believed that 1t might be possible to have a time limit fixed at the time

she was confronted with the prospect of being stood down.

The learned judge expressly rested his judgment on the fact, as he found, that the respondent had not been given a hearing on the period of her stand down. His approach 1s, as I read his judgment, displaced by the con- sideration already mentioned, namely that the stand down was not in fact for a period of nine days, or any other fixed period. It might be argued that she should have been able to ask for a limited period, but, as I have said, this was not something which she expected or could reasonably expect to get. The period of the stand down was in this case necessarily indefinite, its duration depending on a variety of contin- gencies. I do not think that there was any obligation to

Assuming that the rules of natural justice, and in particular the rule expressed as audi alteram partem, were applicable, it seems to me that the respondent was given adequate opportunity to represent any case she had as to why she should not be stood down at all, - or, for that matter as to why she should only be stood down for a limited period. The rule of law does not require a formal hearing, or any particular form of words. What is necessary depends upon the circumstances of each case. If she had wanted to obtain further legal advice, or legal representation, she could

The evidence shows clearly that refusal of the order she was given would in all probability be followed by

her being stood down. It was, I think, a lawful order.

Whether in the circumstances she acted wisely, or sensibly,

1s not for me to say. I am however quite satisfied that

she was not denied a hearing; on the contrary, by clear implication, she was on several occasions invited to say

what she wished, as to any reason affecting her why she should not be stood down. As to reasons affecting the union of

which she was an active member, the Deputy Public Service

The respondent was given leave to file during the hearing of the appeal a notice of contention, as required by Order 52, rule 22(3). The argument was then advanced that the learned judge was in error in finding that the notice given to Miss Gleeson was justified by the determination of the Deputy Arbitrator. The assumption made here, which I will accept for the purposes of the argument, is that the only power to stand down had its source in the determination, and that the relief obtained below could only be supported on this ground. The judge took a view of the notice which is apparent in the following passage from his judgment:

I am not as sure as the learned judge apparently was, when he

used the phrase "in due course", that the notice related to a

possible future situation as well as a present one. It is

in this respect ambiguous. However, it seems to me that on either construction, it was authorised by the Deputy Arbitrator's determination. The relevant part of the order reads: "...the Chief Officer may stand down from duty any officer or employee employed in any Department of State who refuses to perform'or fails to perform the whole or any part of his duties.." It was part of the duties of the respondent that she give the instruction, even although, in her assess-

ment, it could not have any immediate practical operation.

I agree also with the learned judge that the order standing down the respondent sufficiently accorded with the notice. I can see that the respondent might conclude that the notice was a "loyalty test", as was apparently put to the judge on her behalf by counsel. I do not have enough know- ledge of the total situation to be able to form any conclusion of my own on this matter, but 1t really would not affect the result. If Miss Gleeson was given a lawful order to carry out

her duties, she was in the circumstances obliged to comply,

In my view, therefore, the appeal should be allowed. The order absolute and the declaration granted in the Supreme Court should be set aside. In lieu thereof it

should be ordered that the order nisi be discharged. The

respondent should pay the appellant's costs of the hearing

I certify that this and the /Z preceding pages are a true copy of the

Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Fox

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY No. ACT G10 of 1981 DISTRICT REGISTRY

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Coram: Fox, Blackburn and Keely JJ Canberra 24 September 1981

reasons given by him. , { certify that this and - tie

peemeditg pa-es-ete a true copy of the \heasous for Judgment herein of his Honou. 'Mr. Justice Packburn

ON APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

KEELY J.: This is an appeal from the whole of a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory dated 30 March 1981. The judgment made absolute an order nisi for a writ of certiorari, ordered that a writ issue to quash the decision of the appellant on 20 July 1979 to stand down the prosecutrix (the respondent in this appeal) from the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia and declared that decision to have

enero ener mnnrreey ine perenne aro tA NO tN fe ep are ne eer mt carn ty eo Lm mnt nate oe ~ $0

STRAT ROLE TEE AREER RENE ATE E:T NTT re en eI arctan Mowatt same rn ance ane A TG TT EOI TS ts

peta tian ene Aedtaeinee tsar teen oar ak en tt tea eee ee ee ee are

The respondent was at all material times an officer of the Public Service employed in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (the Department) in the Australian Capital Territory as a Librarian Class 2. Her duty statement set out, inter alia, that she was to "ensure the provision of efficient and economical library services" and there were working under her supervision a Library Officer Grade 2 and two clerical assistants. The library contained a wide range of books, periodicals and written publications and was the only primary source within the Department for a person seeking access to such

publications and statistical material relating to the work of

On 19 June 1979 the (Australian) Public Service Board

gave notice under s.12C of the Public Service Arbitration Act

"industrial situation exists involving the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and Australian Public

the one hand and the Public Service Board and the various Ministers of State on the other."

The particulars given in that notice included a statement

have approved the implementation of bans on ministerial correspondence and communications and

have encouraged members to consider further bans. The industrial action taken or threatened by

Sean dnt Mates Senn get ean en mee cad nee te ne mnt eee ten marten ne Retna emanate Samm Meee a AN nat thant ce meee me remem

members of the two organisations concerned could seriously affect the conduct of ministerial and

government business and could have detrimental effects on members of the public."

The Act defined "industrial situation" as meaning, inter

"(a) the refusal or failure to perform work, including (without limiting the generality of the preceding words of this paragraph) the refusal or failure to perform work in a particular manner, at a particular place or at a particular time or while particular circumstances exist;"

Mr N. A. Taylor, a deputy Public Service Arbitrator (the Arbitrator) held a conference in the matter in Canberra on 26 June 1979. The Arbitrator said in his decision that hearings in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, held over the period 2-12 July 1979, were largely taken up with the gathering of evidence from witnesses as to the nature and extent of the original bans on "ministerials" and that between the Melbourne and Perth hearings the bans were extended to include stoppages by Association members at Sydney international airport and in Mercantile Marine

On 16 July 1979 the Arbitrator made an order in the

"1. That the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association Commonwealth Public Service and The Australian Public Service Assocation (Fourth Division Officers), organisations of

CECH MEET TREO ENE EARS mene Sears fem Ah ANN mt wma eens enter = areamaryemen ema ue - o no oeoe ae

lineage nen en nee ne ee Fe a ek Ae am en cn a ar nce Sate He pace sow 1s Hattie

employees within the meaning of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 and the members thereof employed in any Department of State are hereby directed to cease the conduct that constitutes the said industrial situation namely the application of bans or limitations or restrictions on work including that involved in the handling of Ministerial correspondence and any other matters connected with Ministers.

2. That the said Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and The Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) and their members | employed in any Department of State are hereby prohibited from engaging in conduct that would ' constitute the said industrial situation referred to in paragraph 1 of this Order and from applying bans or limitations or restrictions on work including that involved in the handling of

Ministerial correspondence and any other matter connected with Ministers.

3. That this Order shall be binding upon the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and The Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) and their members thereof (sic) employed in any Department of State and the various Ministers of State and the Public Service Board.

And it is hereby further ordered that as from and including July 17 1979 the Chief Officer as defined in the Public Service Act 1922-.or any officer authorised by the Chief Officer may stand down from duty any officer or employee employed in any Department of State who refuses to perform or fails to perform the whole or any part of his duties and

May deduct payment for any day or portion thereof during which such officer or employee is stood down."

On 20 July 1979 Mr Sullivan, First Assistant Secretary, Management Division of the Department, read to the respondent a

REE ER RENIN REYNE EET SEER aC AO ee RR, Ns Ro 6m Am RA I

Wet i tenn ciintnae eel baad! manne hae nt att ne nretnmm AA KAN SPR RE Ne? UN Sy ea

"Ministerial Correspondence, Briefing Material, Etc

You are hereby directed to instruct all staff under your control to action any Ministerial

correspondence presently held by them and, as well,

to prepare such other briefing material and documents required to be provided for the Minister."

The learned trial judge found that the respondent refused to obey the direction. Upon maintaining that refusal before Mr Jenkins, Assistant Secretary, Management Services Branch of the Department, who was the appropriate "chief officer" for the purpose of the Arbitrator's order authorising the stand down,

she was stood down "with effect from 4.52 pm" on 20 July 1979.

Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of the notice of appeal were related and, as developed in argument, were in substance that on the facts of this case, the appellant was not obliged to give to the respondent an opportunity to be heard before deciding to stand her down. The Act required that the Arbitrator, having been notified of an "industrial situation", call a conference of persons including representatives of any "organization members of which are, or are likely to be, concerned in or affected by the situation". The Arbitrator was empowered, inter alia, to "make such orders as he thinks necessary or desirable for putting an end to or preventing ... the situation". It was conceded by Mr Sully Q.C., who appeared with Mr Purnell for the appellant, that the principles of natural justice applied to the

hearing by the Arbitrator which preceded the making of the

iat eeatntntncitce mceeatianeneneittenendeemeatiaemteaminnameieneeienennen aaetdanesmneneabtemmmeimmenetetinetieneennmemtiannainnenaaesanananenmmnieanenennmenmnasneannn nena enna 3)

ROL te Re mene a enemies sate att eee Nm A ne eer net meiner Deen eee hen a tat Se San toe ae a et bn nt Men meh Per a LaF id nt es ne mammaire 'Bren

orders set out above. It was not suggested by the respondent

that there had been any breach of those principles in the

The Arbitrator had made orders directing an organization of employees and its members (including the respondent) to cease conduct found to constitute the "industrial situation", and also had ordered that the chief officer "may stand down from duty any officer ... who refuses to perform ... any part of his duties ...". In my opinion the Act manifested a legislative intention that in those circumstances a member was not entitled to be

heard on the question of whether he should be stood down from

duty upon refusing to perform any part of his duties nor as to

ee Nee ge RN OL AL ctl at ee tne ee a ten tent EMR a pe eae le

the length of time for which any such stand down should operate.

In my view this case falls within the class referred to

by Bowen C.J., Deane and Kelly JJ. in Dixon v. The Commonwealth of Australia and others (judgment delivered 18 June 1981 - as

"There may be cases in which the nature of a Statutory power adversely to affect the rights, property or legitimate expectations of another precludes the applicability of the rules of natural justice. There may be cases in which those rules are applicable but the nature of the relevant power operates to exclude or limit the audi alteram partem rule."

In R. v. Wilson, ex parte Donaldson (1977) 19 A.L.R. 235, Bowen

C.J., with whose reasons for judgment Blackburn J. agreed, said

eR RR RR RE ET EIT Re CA te Re RC fe tres ea Hh - -- reece er ae

mance jan yarn nee ene ee a acne te eee ne ce ant ae ee he ee anne en ln Oh

"In this case, the circumstances suggest that Natural justice should be afforded and the presumption thus raised 1s not rebutted by the fact that the legislation is deliberately silent on the

Had the legislature set up an elaborate code of procedure with which action under s 45(2) had to comply, it would be more difficult for the court to supplement that procedure than where, as _ here, there is a bare grant of power unhedged by any legislative safeguards."

In my opinion natural justice did not require that the appellant afford to the respondent, at the point of time immediately before she was stood down following upon her refusal to obey the direction given to her, an opportunity to be heard as to whether

she should be stood down or for what period of time.

To my mind there is nothing unfair or unjust in a legislative provision under which the Arbitrator, after a hearing to which the principles of natural justice are applicable, authorises the chief officer of a Department to stand down any officer who refuses to perform all or any part of his duties and to do so immediately after such a refusal and without affording the officer any opportunity to be heard at that stage. The legislation requires that, before any such stand down can occur, the circumstances relating to the "industrial situation" will have been investigated by the Arbitrator in a hearing in which the officer and his fellow members will have been represented before the Arbitrator by the

OTT SERPENT ITT CREE PPR IST TOE ERLISTE A rT etry, empresa erm aer ecm ms hy iy Me ey ame mm ta 2a et ae I TN

pea Nenana tease aie mena neltnunt tenets "ees tn teere seen Samrat

After the Arbitrator has made, inter alia, an order directing that the organization of employees and its members cease the conduct concerned and an order authorising the standing down of any officer who refuses to perform the whole or any part of his duties, the chief officer of the Department still has a discretion as to whether to use the power to stand down any officer. The exercise of that discretion might involve considering whether it is in the interests of the Department to do so but would not require a consideration of whether it is desirable in the interests of any officer concerned. In my view

the officer is not entitled to be heard at that stage.

Through the organization of employees to which he belongs, the officer has already had, at the hearing before the Arbitrator, an opportunity to be heard to oppose the proposal that the Department should be authorised to -stand down officers including himself. Once the Arbitrator, after a hearing to which the principles of natural justice are applicable, has decided to authorise the standing down of any officer who refuses to perform any part of his duties, the only question remaining in which the officer has an interest is whether there has been such a refusal by him. If he has so refused then there is no point at issue remaining between him and the chief officer on behalf of the Department and there is no matter upon which

RRR ONO ee RO AE Oe YneY a tn Ne ee RY Rea me NR MI TTS my om Pe

Ainepeattt masSitartese? wna nm-ererd Woes se cece tends wt Samet ge Sees dm oun th ee i ee ee er line mene otk ent eet mt meet tere oe ee ee)

nh hapwenne ne man late et 6 Ramet an aredeetaceetetie Uitiearats aman a dseatrnestnan ee ts Scatee sameeren es oe A

RETIRE RETESET Rea er Sete tn te epwtNttnmt eiantnyinteagne Me terete mamma, ny me

Of course, if the chief officer has purported to stand down from duty an officer who has not in fact refused or failed to perform any part of his duties, then the chief officer has purported to take an action which is not authorised by the order of the Arbitrator and the officer concerned would have remedies in respect of that unauthorised action by the chief officer. In my opinion in the circumstances of this case it was not necessary for the appellant to give to the respondent an

opportunity to be heard before deciding to stand her down.

Grounds 4 and 5 of the notice of appeal were that there was no evidence before the learned trial judge reasonably capable of sustaining the finding of fact that the respondent had been denied natural justice. In my opinion these grounds of

appeal have been made out. The evidence established the following matters:

1. The respondent was a member of the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service (A.C.0O.A.) and was bound by the Arbitrator's determination of 16 July 1979 which was expressly binding upon members of A.C.O.A.
2. She was a "sectional member" of A.C.O.A. which, Mr Sully informed the Court, was the equivalent of a shop steward. At the commencement of her first interview on 20 July 1979 with Mr Sullivan, she assented to the proposition that she knew "what

Ancien alten Yate nat ee ke a ee no natn ante see nee can ee bait

11. That interview was terminated and shortly afterwards on the same day she again attended at Mr Sullivan's office at his request. The direction was read to her again and she was asked "Will you carry out this direction?" and her answer was that she considered "this a hypothetical situation and I refuse to reply". After she repeated her refusal to answer she heard Mr Sullivan say "I'll have to regard your reply as a refusal to Carry out the direction". Neither her affidavit nor her oral evidence before the learned trial judge suggested that she in any way dissented from Mr Sullivan's statement that her reply constituted "a refusal to carry out the direction".
12. She was then asked by Mr Sullivan to "see Mr Jenkins for him to issue a stand-down order". Again her evidence does not suggest that she made any dissent from that proposed procedure or suggested that a stand down order would be inappropriate and she complied with the request that she should go to Mr Jenkins' office.
13. Mr Jenkins said to her "I am going to read a direction which I understand you have already refused to comply with". The respondent did not dissent in any way from the statement and did not at any stage deny that she had "refused to comply with" the direction.
14. Mr Jenkins then read the direction to her and asked her "Do you still maintain this attitude?". Plainly that question could only refer to her attitude, which Mr Jenkins had described as being one which he understood to be that of refusing to comply with the direction. The respondent simply said "yes", i.e. that she did maintain her attitude of refusing to comply

RT RRL OO TN ON Cn tm cm eo Ae nem ms me nee vans oO Com ae ema & me = ar i

near ai te cite nn ee ee ee ene et Nine Ren ce ne eee ines ee ee ee ne te a at Re Ae ena ee eater Mets Tt ee ie ee aetna mee ae cw ee i i!

ll. 7. Mr Jenkins repeated the question to her "with more emphasis" as the respondent said in her affidavit. Again, the respondent answered "yes", i.e. that she was still maintaining her attitude of refusing to comply with the direction.

8. Mr Jenkins again repeated the question to her "with more

emphasis". On this, the third time, the respondent said "I have

taken legal advice and I am not going to change my mind". It

was only after this statement that Mr Jenkins said "... I will

| respondent knew that if she maintained her refusal to carry out

i the direction she would probably be stood down. She had ample | opportunity to express any opposition to the making of such a | stand down order. I consider that it is quite unreal to | suggest, as Mr Higgins did on her behalf, that she should have been asked "Is there any cause you can show, or any submission you wish to make why I should not make a stand down order?". In addition, with great respect to the learned trial judge, I am unable to agree with his opinion that the respondent "was

entitled to be heard on the question of the length of any period

of stand down that might be ordered against her". In my view in

the situation then under consideration it must have been obvious to the respondent that any stand down for refusing to perform part of her duties would almost certainly be, as in fact happened, a stand down "until you are prepared to carry out your

duties as directed". The stand down could not be for a longer

EN TORRONE GO RRC ER RRA ee en ee re 2 nee oe tee en eee eee enn re RN Ha i t

ee FL ear ene mn ET Neteller aia AANA cin nga apes mene eee Se NaI ty en te etd none A eM ate Ad OAOROIOAEN NA Pin ODT

period than that during which the respondent maintained her refusal to perform part of her duties. Although it could legally have been for a shorter period, the respondent must have known that the purpose of obtaining the power to stand down officers was to enable the Department to ensure that officers who refused to perform part of their duties would not be paid for the period during which they maintained that refusal. In my

opinion it cannot be said that in those circumstances the

The court gave leave to the respondent to file out of time a notice of contention as required by Order 52 Rule 22(3). Mr Higgins argued that the direction given to the respondent was "theoretical and hypothetical (and) not in fact a direction he was authorised to give pursuant to the terms of the determination" of the Arbitrator. The basis of this argument was the evidence that at the time of the direction there was no ministerial correspondence then presently held by the

respondent's subordinates. I agree with the learned trial

judge's finding that the direction was not hypothetical as it was a direction that she should then instruct her subordinates to perform certain work and that she could have so instructed them even if at that time there was "none of that particular kind of work needing or wanting to be done". Mr Higgins' other argument pursuant to his notice of contention was that the respondent had not refused to perform any work but had simply

refused to answer a question by Mr Sullivan. Again, I agree

with the learned trial judge that the respondent's answer constituted a refusal to obey a direction. In this connection I need not repeat the matters referred to in paragraphs 3 and 5 above as to the respondent's failure to dissent from statements by Messrs Sullivan and Jenkins that her answer constituted a

refusal to carry out the direction given to her by Mr Sullivan.

Having decided that the appellant has established its case under grounds 1-5 of the notice of appeal it is not necessary to deal with the other grounds including ground 8 which went to the exercise of his Honour's discretion. However, I would not have been prepared to uphold the appellant's argument that his Honour erred in rejecting certain evidence sought to be elicited from the respondent - see ground 6 and the

In my opinion the appeal should be allowed, the order absolute and the declaration granted on 30 March 1981 should be set aside and in lieu the order nisi granted on 31 July 1979 should be discharged. The respondent should be ordered to pay to the appellant the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance, such costs in the absence of agreement to be

I certify that this and the /2 preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judsment herein of his Honour Nr. Justice KEELy

RR YR REET GREET PUT A RT 8 NY Ft oe Reet Sete et oe RE Te Soar em enean ome ue =p ste pr newer er am me NaN RRR