Park, Leslie Alan Semple v Henderson, Thomas Horatio [1983] FCA 228

Federal Court of Australia|1983-07-01

Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904 ~- Alleged failure to comply with order of court to perform and observe rules of registered organisation - Suspension and dismissal of branch organisers from office ~ Principles regarding compliance

with orders - Failure to comply to be established beyond

LESLIE ALAN SEMPLE PARK V. THOMAS HORATIO HENDERSON .

AND THOMAS HORATIO HENDERSON Defendant ORDER Judge making order: Beaumont, J. Date order made: 2 September, 1983. Where made: Sydney

By summons dated 27 May, 1983, the prosecutor charges

the defendant with a failure to comply with an order of this

Court contrary to s.141(4) of the Conciliation and Arbitration

This matter and a number of related matters were heard

together. By his summons in this matter dated 27 May, 1983,

the prosecutor makes the following charge against the defendant:

"That on the 9th May 1983 at the offices of the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia Western Australian Branch at 108 Beaufort Street Perth in the said State THOMAS HORATIO HENDERSON of 24 Martin Avenue Rivervale in the said State being a person who was on the 6th May 1983 ordered by the Federal Court

of Australia to perform and observe the Rules of the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia by treating as null and void the suspension of the said Leslie Alan Semple Park as an Organiser of the Western

Australian Branch of the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Austral1ra on the 2nd February 1983, failed to comply with the said Order contrary to sub-Section 4 of Section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration

"That at 8.50 a.m. on Monday 9th May 1983 the said Leslie Alan Semple Park attended at the offices of the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia Western Australia Branch at 108 Beaufort Street, Perth aforesaid and on the said Leslie Alan Semple Park entering the office of the said Thomas Horatio Henderson the following conversation took place. The said Thomas Horatio Henderson said, 'Go home'.

The said Leslie Alan Semple Park said, 'I am here to start work'.

The said Thomas Horatio Henderson said, 'Well, we don't want you. Go home. We are having a meeting

The said Leslie Alan Semple Park said, 'You don't want me here Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday?'

The prosecutor gave evidence that the defendant was

present 1n Court on 6 May, 1983 when Toohey, J. made the orders

referred to in the earlier proceedings. He also gave evidence of a discussion in the defendant's office on the morning of Monday, 9 May, 1983. The defendant then said to the prosecutor: "Go home". The prosecutor said: "I've come

to start work". The defendant said: "There's a meeting on Thursday". The prosecutor said: "Do you mean you don't

want me to attend work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday?"

Although this evidence was not challenged by the def- endant, the case is no different in principle from the related proceedings 1n which Mr. Allen is the prosecutor. For the reasons I have given in matter No. W.A. 9 of 1983, I propose

pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of The Honourable

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY } ) )

BETWEEN LESLIE ALAN SEMPLE PARK Prosecutor AND THOMAS HORATIO HENDERSON Defendant CORAM: Beaumont, J. DATED: 2 September, 1983.

This matter and a number of related matters were heard together. By his summons in this matter dated 27 May, 1983, the prosecutor makes the following charge against

of 24 Martin Avenue Rivervale in the said State being

a person who was on the 6th May 1983 ordered by the Federal Court of Australia to perform and observe

the Rules of the Building Workers' Industrial Union

ef Australia by treating as null and void the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Western Australian Branch thereof carried at its meeting on 25th February 1983 dismissing the said Leslie Alan Semple Park as an Organiser of the Western Australian Branch of the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia

failed to comply with the said Order contrary to sub-Section 4 of Section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904."

Particulars of the charge are the same as those given in the previous matter between the same parties, No. W.A. 12 of 1983. However, there 1s one difference between the charges made. In the earlier proceeding, it is alleged that the prosecutor was purportedly suspended as an organiser whereas in this proceeding, the allegation is that the res- olution purported to dismiss him from that office. Nothing turns on that distinction for present purposes. For the

reasons given in the earlier matter, I propose to dismiss

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) )

BETWEEN : LESLIE ALAN SEMPLE PARK Prosecutor AND THOMAS HORATIO HENDERSON Defendant ORDER Judge making order: Beaumont, J. Date order made: 2 September, 1983 Where made: Sydney.

This matter and a number of related matters were heard together. By his summons in this matter dated 27 May, 1983, the prosecutor makes the following charge

"That on the 9th May 1983 at the offices of the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia Western Australian Branch at 108 Beaufort Street Perth 1n the said' State THOMAS HORATIO HENDERSON of 24 Martin Avenue Rivervale in the said State being a person who was on the 6th May 1983 ordered by the Federal Court of Australia to perform and observe the Rules of the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia by treating as null and void the resolution of the Committee of Management of the Western Australian Branch thereof carried at its meeting on 25th February 1983, suspending the said Leslie Alan Semple Park as an Organiser of the Western Australian Branch of the Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia fa1rled to comply with the said Order contrary to sub-Section 4 oz Section 141L of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904."

Particulars of the charge are the same as those given in the previous matter between the same parties, No. W.A. 12 of 1983. However, there is one difference between the charges made. In this proceeding, it is alleged that the purported resolution suspended the prosecutor as an organiser whereas, in the earlier proceeding, the allegation makes no reference to the resolution but refers simply to the purported suspension. Nothing turns on that distinction for present purposes. For the reasons given in the earlier matter, I

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (41 paragraphs)