Naidu v Group 4 Securitas Pty Ltd & Anor

INTRODUCTION 6 The plaintiff was born in Fiji in October 1960. He came to Australia in 1982, married in April 1985 and has two children. For a period, the plaintiff studied accounting and obtained various jobs before completing a security industry course of two days in early 1990. In March 1990 the plaintiff was employed as a security officer with Group 4. 7 The plaintiff commenced working for Group 4 at the News' site at Surry Hills. Essentially, his job was to check the identity of persons entering the site, patrol the building and, generally, ensure the safety of News' personnel and the building. A security presence was maintained at the site twenty-four hours a day, Group 4 employing for this purpose between six and ten security staff on each shift. In substance, the security staff at the site were instructed in their duties by experienced personnel of Group 4 who were working there; in short, they were trained on the job. In about September or October 1990 the plaintiff was promoted to the position of senior security officer and, three months later, to the position of leading hand and then to the position of supervisor of the site, a position which he held jointly with two other supervisors. News also occupied premises at Chullora and the plaintiff was required to perform duties at that site two or three times a week for at least half a day. 8 The plaintiff's duties were so organised that it was unnecessary for him to attend Group 4's own premises and he did not go there until after the crucial events occurred that have given rise to this litigation. Over the relevant period the plaintiff's main supervisory contact with Group 4 was with a Mr Charles Blinkworth and, much more rarely, with a Mr Alan Miles, who was Mr Blinkworth's assistant. He saw one or other of these persons at News' premises at Surry Hills. Mr Blinkworth's principal role was as the liaison officer or manager for Group 4, responsible for security for all News' premises. 9 In due course, Mr Chaloner arranged with Group 4 for the plaintiff to become his assistant. This occurred about April 1992. At a meeting with Mr Chaloner and Mr Blinkworth, the plaintiff was instructed that he was to act as Mr Chaloner's assistant and to report to him in respect of his duties. He was given the title (though only later an increase in salary) of Assistant Security and Fire Control Manager, News Limited. He said that 90% of his work was undertaken at the Surry Hills' premises and the rest at other sites used by News, including Chullora. The plaintiff said that it was Mr Chaloner who initiated the change in his duties, with Mr Blinkworth's approval and, as I understand it, on the latter's ultimate instruction. As will become clear, Mr Chaloner was an exacting taskmaster who took a direct, continuous, day-to-day management role in the performance by Group 4 of its contract and, in particular, of the plaintiff's duties in that regard. The plaintiff was indeed Mr Chaloner's assistant in every practical sense and this position was understood and agreed to by Mr Chaloner's superior, Mr Paine (News' National Properties Manager) and Mr Blinkworth on behalf of Group 4. 10 In every material and practical sense, the plaintiff was placed in charge of Mr Chaloner as his subordinate, whatever the formalities were as to his actual employer. In my view it is inescapable that News took over, on its own behalf and as agent for Group 4, at least joint responsibility for the course, content and character of the plaintiff's employment. 11 At Mr Chaloner's direction, the plaintiff commenced learning a wide variety of security products as they touched on News' requirements, including the preparation of tender specifications relating to fire protection and security systems. To perform these duties, the plaintiff needed to use a computer, which was kept in Mr Chaloner's office on the first floor of the Surry Hills' premises. The plaintiff claimed that such was his work arrangements that he was instructed both by Mr Chaloner and, as I understand it, Mr Blinkworth, to report only to Mr Chaloner and not to any one else even - as I take it - to Mr Blinkworth. The plaintiff said that this later changed when Mr Blinkworth started having some problems in his relationship with Mr Chaloner when he, Mr Blinkworth, would call the plaintiff to talk to him both in person and on the telephone. It is at this time that the plaintiff says he informed Mr Blinkworth, one way or another, of the problems he was having with Mr Chaloner. For most of the relevant time, it appears, Mr Blinkworth attended Surry Hills monthly and was in weekly telephone contact.