Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation v Minister of State for Industrial Relations

[1982] FCA 327

CATCHWORDS

conferen&-' admissible - whether statement of charge

.

a'

#

sufficiently particularized allegations against officers	-
appropriateness of penalty and form of order.
- --
Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904, s s . 4 and 27 Constitution S . ~ ~ ( X X X V ) Federal Court of Australia Act, 1976, s.31
Federal Court Rules,	0.40 rr.6 and 8

The Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders' Labourers' Federation & Ors. v. The Honourable Robert Ian Viner w h o sues as Minister of State for Industrial Relations

& Ors.

No. V30 of 1982

Coram: Smithers, Evatt and Deane JJ.

2 1 July, 1982.

Melbourne. .

I N	T H E	F E D E R A L	C O U R T	OF	A U S T R A L I A	)	\
I

N o . V 3 0 of 1982

V I C T O R I A D I S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y

1

I N D U S T R I A L D I V I S I O N 1

O N A P P E A L FROM A S I N G L E J U D G E O F T H E F E D E R A L C O U R T

O F A U S T R A L I A

B E T W E E N :  T H E A U S T R A L I A N B U I L D I N G

C O N S T R U C T I O N E M P L O Y E E S '

AND BUILDERS ' LABOURER:

F E D E R A T I O N

First Appellant

(First Respondent)

NORMAN L . GALLAGHER

Second Appellant

(Second Respondent)

B . BOYD

Third Appellant

(Fifth Respondent)

- AND : THE HONOURABLE R O B E R T I A N

V I N E R who	sues as
M i n G t e r of	State for

Industrial Relations ''

First Respondent
(First Applicant)

AND O T H E R S

I N THE MATTER of an

application bv THE

HONOURABLE R O ~ E R T - I A N

V I N E R A N D O T H E R S that

the Respondents T H E

AUSTRALIAN BUILDING -

C O N S T R U C T I O N E M P L O Y E E S '

A N D B U I L D E R S ' L A B O U R E R S '

F E D E R A T I O N , NORMAN L .

GALLAGHER, PATRICK

DONNELLY, PHILIP TATE,

BRIAN BOYD and MARTIN

BINGHAM be punished for

contempt of this

Honourable Court or to

make such order as may

seem fit or proper,	by
reason of the matters	set

out in the Statement of

Charge.

ORDER

JUDGES MAKING ORDER:  Smithers, Evatt and Deane JJ.

WHERE	MADE :	Melbourne
DATE	:	Wednesday 21 July, 1982

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.  The finding of 11 May, 1982 that the Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders'

Labourers' Federation be adjudged guilty of contempt

of the Federal Court of Australia be affirmed. 2. The order of 18 May, 1982: "that the first-named respondent, the Australia Construction Employees and Builders Labourers' Federation, in respect of the contempt of the

Federal Court of Australia of which it was

adjudged guilty on 11 May 1982, namely that

i

-3-

between a d a t e on o r a b o u t 5 April 1982 and 21

A p r i l 1982 it i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e c o u r s e of

j u s t i c e by conduct and statements which were

intended by it t o , and which had the tendency

to, dissuade persons f rom g iv ing ev idence on

b e h a l f of t h e a p p l i c a n t s i n t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n of

r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s h e r e i n , or t o d i s s u a d e

them from first-named giv ing ev idence unfavourable t o t h e

respondent, and which were also

. P

intended by it to, and had t h e t e n d e n c y t o ,

induce	the	Mas te r	Bu i lde r s '	Assoc ia t ions	t o
d i s c o n t i n u e	a s	a p p l i c a n t s	i n	t h e	s a i d

p roceed ings , ha l l pay a f i n e o f $15,000.00

w h i c h f i n e s h a l l b e p a i d t o t h e R e g i s t r a r

w i t h i n 7 days of t h i s d a t e by the f i r s t -named

respondent	o r	by	an	a g e n t	p r o p e r l y	a u t h o r i z e d
i n	w r i t i n g	by	the	f i r s t -named	respondent	t o

make such payment on i t s b e h a l f "

be a f f i r m e d s u b j e c t o n l y t o t h e v a r i a t i o n t h a t t h e r e

be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r t h e w o r d s a n d f i g u r e " w i t h i n

7 days of t h i s da te" the words and f igures ' 'on o r

b e f o r e 3 0 July, 1982"

3 . The f i n d i n g of 11 May, 1 9 8 2 t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t

Norman L . Ga l l aghe r be ad judged gu i l t y of contempt

o f t he Fede ra l Cour t of A u s t r a l i a and t h e o r d e r s of

18 May, 1982 imposing a sentence of two months'
imprisonment on the said Norman L. Gallagher and for
the issue of a warrant for his apprehension be set
aside.

4.  The finding of 11 May, 1982 that the appellant B. Boyd be adjudged guilty of contempt of the Federal Court of Australia and the orders of 18 May, 1982 that the said B. Boyd pay a fine of $500.00 or in default of such payment be imprisoned for a period of 14 days be set aside.

5.  The Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders' Labourers' Federation pay the respondents their costs of the appeal.

I N	T H E	F E D E R A L	C O U R T	O F	A U S T R A L I A	)
1
V I C T O R I A	D I S T R I C T	R E G I S T R Y	)	N o .	V 3 0 of	1982
1

I N D U S T R I A L D I V I S I O N 1

ON A P P E A L F R O M A S I N G L E J U D G E O F THE FEDERAL COURT

O F A U S T R A L I A

B E T V E E N :  T H E A U S T R A L I A N CONSTRUCTION B U I L D I N G

EMPLOYEES ' '

AND B U I L D E R S ' L A B O U R E R 5

FEDEFWTION

Fi r s t A p p e l l a n t

( F i r s t R e s p o n d e n t )

NORMAN L . GALLAGHER

Second A p p e l l a n t

( S e c o n d R e s p o n d e n t )

B . BOYD

T h i r d A p p e l l a n t

( F i f t h R e s p o n d e n t )

- AND : THE HONOURABLE R O B E R T I A N

V I N E R	who	s u e s a s
Minis ter	of	S t a t e f o r

I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s

F i r s t R e s p o n d e n t

( F i r s t A p p l i c a n t )

AND O T H E R S

I N THE MATTER of a n

a p p l i c a t i o n by	THE
HONOURABLE	R O B E R T I A N

V I N E R	AND	OTHERS	t h a t
the	R e s p o n d e n t s	-	T H E

AUSTRALIAN	B U I L D I N G
C O N S T R U C T I O N	E M P L O Y E E S '

AKD	E U I L D E R S '	L A B O U R E R S '
F E E E R A T I O N ,	NORMAN	L .

GALLACHER, PATRICK

DONNELLY, PHILIP TATE,

BRIAN BOYD and MARTIN BINGHAM be punished for contempt of this

Honourable Court or to

make such order as may seem fit or proper, by reason of the matters set

out in the Statement	of
Charge.

CORAM:  Smithers, Evatt and Deane JJ.

21 July, 1982.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EVATT AND DEANE JJ: Each of the Australian Building

Construction Employees' and Builders' Labourers' Federation ( "the Federation"), Mr. Norman Gallagher and Mr. Brian Boyd

appeals from a judgment and orders of Keely J. finding that

it or he	was guilty of criminal contempt of the Federal Court
and imposing a penalty.	In the case of the Federation, the

Gallagher, the penalty imposed was a term of imprisonment f o r	penalty imposed was a fine of $15,000. In the case of Mr.	a period of two calendar months. In the case of Mr. Boyd, the penalty was a fine of $500 accompanied by an order that, in default of payment thereof, he be imprisoned for a period
of fourteen (14) days. Associated charges of criminal contempt against three other persons (Elessrs. Donnelly, Tate and Bingham) were dismissed by his Honour.

At relevant times, the Federation has been

registered as an organisation of employees under the

Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904 ( "the Act") . In September, 1981, the then Commonwealth Minister of State for Industrial Relations (The Hon. Robert Ian Viner), the State of Victoria and the State of Western Australia instituted

proceedings in the Federal Court against the Federation seeking, pursuant to ~ ~ 1 4 3 of the Act, an order directing the

Industrial Registrar to cancel the registration of the

Federation. It is convenient to refer to those proceedings as "the deregistration proceedings". In December, 1981, the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors, the Master

Builders' Federation of Australia Incorporated, and the

Master Builders' Associations of New South Wales, Victoria,
South Australia, Australian Capital Territory and Western
Australia were added as applicants in the deregistration

proceedings.

The contempt of court which was found , at first

instance, to have been proved against each of the Federation,

Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Boyd was in relation to the

deregistration proceedings. The motion instituting the
contempt of court proceedings was, for administrative
purposes, numbered in the deregistration proceedings. That

numbering should not be permitted to obscure the fact that

the contempt proceedings are separate and istinct

proceedings pursuant	to S. 3 1 of the Federal Court	of
Australia Act, 1976.

In the course of his judgment, Keely J. summarized,
in numbered paragraphs, his findings as to the essential

facts. Subject to f o u r matters to which subsequent reference

will be made,	those findings of fact were not disputed by the
appellants on the appeal.	It is convenient to set them out
in his Honour's words:
''l.	Building operations were being conducted by H.M. Keast & Sons Pty. Ltd. (the company) on building sites at 230 Collins Street, Melbourne: Fitzroy North Primary School: Williamstown Primary School and Aspendale Special Development School. The
company employed members  of the Federation as
builders' labourers at those sites.

2.   The company is a member of the Master Builders' Association of Victoria, an association of employers registered as an organization under the

Act which is a joint applicant in he

deregistration proceedings.

3 .   Mr. Reginald Keast was the chairman of the directors of the company. ' Until October 1981 he

was the president of the Master Builders'

Federation of Australia and was and is a council member of that federation, positions which he held

as the representative of the Master Builders'

Association of Victoria in which body he was and is

a councillor.

4 .   The respondent Gallagher was both the general secretary of the Federation and the secretary of its Victorian branch during the period from 5 April, 1982 to 2 1 April, 1982. Each of the other four named respondents to the notice of motion was an organizer of the Federation.

5 .   The respondent Federation on or before 5 April, 1982 made a decision to "ban" work by builders' labourers on building sites at which the company was conducting building operations. The evidepce does not disclose the precise terms of -he decision nor the identity of the body or person within the Federation which or who made the decision. The ban

.

..

-5-

was s t i l l i n f o r c e on 16 A p r i l , 1982 b u t by 27

A p r i l , 1982 had been " t o t a l l y l i f t e d " . I t appeared

t o b e a c c e p t e d b y t h e a p p l i c a n t s t h a t it was l i f t ed

on 21 A p r i l , 1982. The ev idence does no t d i sc lose

t he i d e n t i t y of the body or person which or who

l i f t e d t h e ban .

6 . On the even ing o f 5 A p r i l , 1 9 8 2 the r spondent

G a l l a g h e r t o l d M r . Ainsworth, the Chief I n d u s t r i a l

R e p o r t e r f o r t h e Sun News P i c t o r i a l who had he ld

t h a t	p o s i t i o n	f o r	a p p r o x i m a t e l y	t h r e e	y e a r s ,	t h a t
the bans were imposed	"because	an	execut	ive	of	the

company, M r . Reg Keas t , was t h e d r i v i n g f o r c e

behind	the	move	t o	d e - r e g i s t e r	t h e	F e d e r a t i o n " .
The	r e s p o n d e n t G a l l a g h e r	a l s o	s a i d	t o	him	t h a t "We

a r e g o i n g t o r e p a y a few d e b t s . I t w i l l be tit f o r

t a t from now on" .

7 . . ( a ) A t approximate ly 10.30 a . m . on 5 A p r i l , 1982

the r e sponden t Boyd called a t t h e 2 3 0 C o l l i n s

Street , Melbourne bui lding s i t e and had

m e e t i n g of t h e members of t h e F e d e r a t i o n

employed o n t h a t s i t e . A p p r o x i m a t e l y 15

m i n u t e s l a t e r he i n fo rmed t he company ' s i t e

foreman t h a t a l l members of t h e F e d e r a t i o n

employed on t h e s i t e were being s e n t home and

t h a t t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e u n i o n ' s a c t i o n was

t h a t h e F e d e r a t i o n , t h r o u g h a v e r y r e l i a b l e

c o n t a c t , h a d b e e n t o l d t h a t h e company was

l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e d e r e g i s t r a t i o n

p r o c e e d i n g s . The t h r e e members t h e o f

Federation employed on the s i t e by the company

l e f t t h e s i te about t h i r t y m i n u t e s a f t e r Mr.

Boyd a r r i v e d . A s a r e s u l t of in fo rma t ion

which h e r e c e i v e d on 5 A p r i l , 1982 from s i t e

foremen on t h i s s i t e , M r . K e a s t i n s t r u c t e d t h e

Mas te r Bu i lde r s ' Assoc ia t ion of V i c t o r i a t o

n o t i f y a n i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e t o . t h e A u s t r a l i a n

C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n Commission ( t h e

Arbi t ra t ion Commiss ion) .

(b)	O n t h e same day a person whose i d e n t i t y w a s not established by the evidence b u t who was a d m i t t e d by F e d e r a t i o n t h e i n o t h e r
p roceed ings t o have been an o rgan ize r of the
F e d e r a t i o n , c a l l e d a t t h e F i t z r o y N o r t h
Primary School s i t e and to ld the company ' s
s i t e f o r e m a n that h e h a d i n s t r u c t e d t h e
members of the F e d e r a t i o n on s i t e t o l e a v e t h e
job b e c a u s e t h e Company was t h e m a i n
i n s t i g a t o r i n t r y i n g t o g e t the Fede ra t ion
d e r e g i s t c r e d . The ev idence d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h
t h a t a n y s t o p p a g e of work a t t h a t s i t e t o o k
p l a c e on t h a t d a y .

On the same day at approximately 2.00 p.m. the

respondent Donnelly called at the Williamstown

Primary School site and told the company's

site foreman that the Federation had placed a black ban on jobs being carried out by the company and that the ban had been imposed because the company was the main instigator in the deregistration proceedings against the Federation. The site foreman (Mr. Wilkins) in his affidavit said that he heard Mr. Donnelly make a statement to certain members of the

Federation on the site "to the effect that no
productive work was to be done" by them.

However, under cross-examination by Mr. Ryan,

of Queen's Counsel, on behalf of all the

respondents, he agreed that Mr. Donnelly did

not stop them finishing the work remaining to

be done by them, that they left the site

because there was no more work for them to do

and that they would have left the site at that time "whether or not Mr. Donnelly had spoken to them". He said that it was a matter for

future arrangement	between the company and the
sub-contractor as	to when he and his employees
came back to the site to do more	work and that

no-one on behalf of the company made any

request for the sub-contractor to return to work on the site because there were other jobs

which were more important.

(d)	On 16 April, 1982 the respondent Bingham called at the Aspendale Special Development School site, introduced himself to the
company's site foreman as a Federation
organizer and said ''I suppose you have been expecting me". Under cross-examination the
site foreman agreed that the latter remark
apparently was made "because by that time . . .
it was common knowledge that the Federation

had placed a ban on" the company. Mr. Bingham then said "I am here to send the labourers home" and, in reply to a question, that it was because of H.M. Keast and Sons' involvement in the deregistration proceedings. He addressed a meeting of the five builders' labourers on the site and after the meeting told the site

foreman that the labourers were going home.

The labourers left the site shortly

afterwards, after packing away tools, and the

respondent Bingham then left the site.

8. The respondent Boyd appeared on beha l f o f t he

Federation before the Arbitration Commission on 8

April , 1982 i n a hear ing related to the not i f icat ion

by the Master Builders' Association of Victoria of

the abovementioned events when Federation organizers

on 5 April , 1982 c a l l e d a t t h e company's b u i l d i n g

s i t e s a t 230 Col l ins Street , Melbourne; Fitzroy

North Primary School and Williamstown Primary

School. I n a public hearing i n the presence of the

representative of the Master Builders' Association

of Victoria and the company, M r . Boyd s t a t ed t ha t

" i f t h a t i s the way the employers want to p lay it,

well , we w i l l play it our way . . . and we bel ieve we

w i l l t ake the ba t t l e r i gh t back to the employer. We

have information, or our secretary has, that H.M.

Keas ts a re involved deeply i n t hose ma t t e r s "

( referr ing to the deregis t ra t ion proceedings and the

Royal Cornmission) "and we are w i l l i n g t o take the

f i g h t r i g h t back t o them". He a l so s ta ted tha t the

Federation wished t h a t the company would meet w i t h

the	secretary	(the	respondent	Gallagher)	and	tha t
"if Keasts w i l l meet our	secretary	to	ta	lk	out	the
information	the	union	has,	then	we	migh t view the

bans i n a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t " . He said that he was

carrying o u t the d i rec t ions of the secretary and the

union executive: he also s ta ted tha t he was " i n no

pos i t i on to lift ( the bans) a t th i s s tage" but tha t

if the company contacted the secretary and arranged

a meeting the secretary "might be amenable to"

l i f t ing the bans .

9 . On 14 April , 1982 the matter again came before the

A r b i t r a t i o n Commission, when the respondent

Gallagher and M r . Boyd represented the Federation.

The p a r t i e s were asked whether they had anything

f u r t h e r t o add t o what had been said d u r i n g the

proceedings on 8 April but neither party wisned t o

make any fur ther s ta tements , and the matter was then

adjourned into conference. Dur ing that conference

M r . Gallagher said, amongst other things:-

(a) That s ince M r . Reginald Keast was involved on

the employers' committees that instigated the

deregistration proceedings against he union

and the Royal Commission, the company was the

f i r s t on the union's l i s t .

( b ) That on the basis of h i s knowledge of the

employers i n t h e b u i l d i n g i n d u s t r y , t h e

company would not get any support from those

employers.

Tha t he wi thd rawa l o f suppor t by the Mas te r Bu i lde r s '	expec ted h i s	ac t ions wou ld	ach ieve	a
A s s o c i a t i o n s	t h r o u g h o u t	A u s t r a l i a	f o r	t h e

d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t t h e

Federa t ion and , fur ther , the payment of f i n e s

which	had	been	imposed	on members	o f	t h e
f e d e r a t i o n	w i t h	r e s p e c t	t o	t h e i r	r e f u s a l	t o

g ive v idence be fo re t he Roya l Commission.''

Two o f t h e m a t t e r s w h i c h t h e a p p e l l a n t s r a i s e i n

r e l a t i o n	t o	a b o v e	t h e	f i n d i n g s	f a c t	o f	v o l v e
supplementa t ion of	them.	They	a r e	n o t	i n d i s p u t e .	The	f i r s t

i s t h a t t h e n o t i f i c a t i o n b y t h e M a s t e r B u i l d e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n

of V i c t o r i a r e f e r r e d t o i n p a r a s . 7 ( a ) and 8 was t o t h e

A u s t r a l i a n C o n c i l i a t i o n a n d A r b i t r a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n ( " t h e

Commission")	and	took	the	form	of	a	n o t i f i c a t i o n	o f	a n
i n d u s t r i a l	d i s p u t e	p u r s u a n t	t o	S . 2 5	o f	t h e	A c t .	The	second
i s	t h a t	h e	c o n f e r e n c e	r e f e r r e d	t o	i n p a r a .	9 ,	which	took
p l a c e	on	14	A p r i l ,	1982,	p u r p o r t e d	b e	t o	a	compulsory
confe rence	pu r suan t	t o	s.27	o f	t h e	A c t .	The	o t h e r	two

m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o t h e c o n t e n t o f h i s H o n o u r ' s f i n d i n g s o f

f a c t a r e r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i s p u t e . T h e a p p . e l l a n t s s u b m i t a n d t h e

c o n t e s t :  ( i ) t h a t , c o n t r a r y t o what h i s Honour

s a i d i n p a r a . 5 , t h e r e was u n c o n t r a d i c t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t h e

d e c i s i o n t o i m p o s e t h e b a n s w a s t a k e n b y t h e F e d e r a l

Management Committee of the Federa t ion ; and (ii) t h a t what

was s a i d a t t h e c o n f e r e n c e of 14 A p r i l , 1 9 8 2 ( p a r a . 9 ) should

b e d i s r e g a r d e d f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t h i s Honour e r r e d i n

admi t t i ng ev idence of i t .

I

-9-

On t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e o r g a n of t h e

Federat ion which imposed the bans, t h e a p p e l l a n t s p o i n t o

t he ev idence of M r . Ainsworth who i s a journa l i s t employed by

the Hera ld & Weekly T i m e s L t d . Mr. Ainsworth gave vidence

o f a conversa t ion which he had wi th Mr. Gal lagher o n 5 A p r i l ,

1 9 8 2 i n which Mr. Gal lagher informed him t h a t t h e b a n s w h i c h

had been imposed on H.M,. Keast & S o n s P t y . L t d ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n

work	' 'were	imposed	because	an	execu t ive	o f	t he	company,	M r .
Reg	K e a s t ,	was	t h e	d r i v i n g	f o r c e	b e h i n d	t h e	m o v e s	t o

deregis te r	the	un ion" .	Cross-examined	by	counse l	for	t h e
p r e s e n t	a p p e l l a n t s ,	M r .	A i n s w o r t h	s a i d	t h a t	h e	a d

"unde r s tood" t ha t wha t were b e i n g r e f e r r e d t o w e r e d e c i s i o n s

t aken by the Fede ra l Management Committee. Mr. Ainsworth

t h e n a s s e n t e d t o the s u g g e s t i o n t h a t "when t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s

were being made by M r . Ga l l aghe r he was informing you of t h e

d e c i s i o n of t h e F e d e r a l Management Committee of the Union" .

U l t i m a t e l y , i n the v iew we t a k e , l i t t l e t u r n s on whe the r t ha t

ev idence of what M r . Ainsworth "understood" warranted a

p o s i t i v e f i n d i n g , i n the absence o f any ev idence f r o m t h e

F e d e r a t i o n , t h a t t h e b a n s h a d b e e n i m p o s e d by t h e

F e d e r a t i o n ' s F e d e r a l Management Committee. O n b a l a n c e , it

seems t o u s t h a t s u c h a p o s i t i v e f i n d i n g was no t war ran ted .

We	n o t e ,	i n	t h a t	r e g a r d ,	t h a t	t h e	t r a n s c r i p t	a	f i r s t
i n s t a n c e	i n d i c a t e s	( a t	p .	2 1 2 )	t h a t	t h e	s u b m i s s i o n	made	on

b e h a l f o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s t o Keely J . was t h a t t h e r e was ''no

b a s i s on t he ev idence wh ich wou ld j u s t i fy" t he pos i t i ve

f i n d i n g which they now say should have been made.

-1 0-

The b a s i s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h e

evidence of what w a s s a i d a t t he confe rence of 14 A p r i l

should have been rejected i s t h e p r o v i s i o n i n s . 2 7 ( 6 ) o f t h e

A c t t h a t , e x c e p t t o such e x t e n t a s t h e p e r s o n p r e s i d i n g o v e r

t h e c o n f e r e n c e d i r e c t s t h a t it b e h e l d i n p u b l i c , a

conference under s.27 of the Act " s h a l l b e h e l d i n p r i v a t e " .

There i s no s u g g e s t i o n , t h a t A l l e y J . , who p r e s i d e d over t h e

c o n f e r e n c e , d i r e c t e d t h a t it be he ld i n p u b l i c . The r e s u l t ,

so t h e a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d , i s t h a t it fol lows f rom the

s t a t u t o r y	r e q u i r e m e n t	t h a t	t h e	c o n f e r e n c e	b e	i n	' ' p r iva t e ' '
t h a t	n o t h i n g	t h a t	was	s a i d or done a t it can	be	admi t t ed	i n
evidence	i n o t h e r	p r o c e e d i n g s .	I n	the	course	o f	a rgument ,

s e n i o r c o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t s e n d e d t o m o d i f y t h i s

unqua l i f i ed submiss ion . The modified submission was t h a t t h e

evidence of what occurred i n t he p r iva t e con fe rence shou ld

h a v e b e e n r e j e c t e d a s a m a t t e r of d i s c r e t i o n .

I t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y , f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e

p r e s e n t a p p e a l , t o d e t e r m i n e t h e x t e n t of a n y l i m i t a t i o n

which S . 2 7 ( 6 ) of t h e A c t may impose upon subsequen t

d i sc losu re o f wha t was s a i d o r done i n a compulsory p r iva te

confe rence . I t s u f f i c e s , f o r p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s , t o s ay t h a t

we a r e of t h e c l e a r v i e w t h a t t h e r e i s no th ing i n t h e

p r o v i s i o n s o f s . 2 7 ( 6 ) w h i c h p r e c l u d e s e v i d e n c e of what

happened i n a compulsory conference being given i n subsequent

proceedings	for	c r imina l	contempt	of	court	where	what	was
s a i d o r c o n s t i t u t e ,	o n e	i n	t h e	c o n f e r e n c e	i s	a l l e g e d	e i t h e r	t o

i n i t s e l f , c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t o r t o p r o v i d e

evidence of the commission of criminal contempt.

I

-11-

Nor do we accept the appellants' narrower

submission that Keely J. should, as a matter of discretion, have rejected the evidence of what was said by Mr. Gallagher at the conference on 14 April, 1982. We are conscious of

the desirability that, generally speaking, parties to a

compulsory conference under S .27 should be able to speak frankly without fear of being subsequently disadvantaged by reason of genuine efforts to settle a dispute. We do not,

however, consider that that consideration will	ordinarily
warrant rejection	of evidence of what is said or done in such

a conference where such evidence is adduced to support

independent proceedings for criminal contempt of court. In

our view, the evidence was, at least against the present

appellants, properly admitted by Keely J.

It is, in the circumstances, unnecessary that we

express any concluded view on the question whether the conference of 14 April was in truth a compulsory conference under s . 2 7 of the Act. Keely J. held that it could not have

been for the reason that the Commission's power to call a

conference under s . 2 7 ( 1 ) is a power which only exists for

"the purposes of the performance of (its) functions in respect of an industrial dispute" and an industrial dispute must be t "dispute as to industrial matters which extends

beyond the limits of any one State". We should, however,

l

.' -12-

i n d i c a t e	t h a t	we	s e e	c o n s i d e r a b l e	f o r c e	i n	t h e	argument of
s en io r	counse l	for	the	a p p e l l a n t s	t h a t	Keel;	r J *	was i n error
i n making	a	p o s i t i v e	f i n d i n g	t h a t	h e	c o n f e r e n c e	c o u l d	n o t

have been based on validly convened under s.27. That rgument was

t h e i n c l u s i o n , i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f " i n d u s t r i a l

d i s p u t e " i n s . 4 o f t h e A c t o f , a " threa tened , impending or

p r o b a b l e d i s p u t e " , on cases uch as The Queen v . Spicer ; Ex

par te	Seamen's	Union	of	A u s t r a l i a	( ( 1 9 5 7 )	96	C . L . R .	341	a t
p .346) :	The	Queen	v .	Gal laqher ;	Ex	p a r t e	A u s t r a l i a n	Coal	-

and	Shale	Employees	Federat ion	'	((1966) 115	C . L . R .	335	a t p .
3 4 0 )	and	o n	t h e	s o m e t i m e s	d i s c o u n t e d	f a c t	t h a t	t h e

l e g i s l a t i v e power confer red by s . 5 l ( x x x v ) of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n

e x t e n d s	t o	c o n c i l i a t i o n	and	a r b i t r a t i o n	f o r	" t h e	p r e v e n t i o n "
a s w e l l beyond	a s	" the	s e t t l e m e n t "	of	i n d u s t r i a l	d i s p u t e s	e x t e n d i n g

the limits of any one S ta te . A s a t p r e s e n t a d v i s e d ,

w e i n c l i n e t o t h e v i e w t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l b e f o r e K e e l y J . d i d

not warran t w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y a f i n d i n g by h i s Honour t h a t A l l e y J . had ac ted

i n convening the conference .

STATEMENT	OF	CHARGE
I n pursuance of 0 .40 r. o f 6 t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t

R u l e s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s f i l e d a "Sta tement o f Charge" se t t ing

o u t p a r t i c u l a r s of t h e a c t s a l l e g e d a g a i n s t e a c h o f t h e

Fede ra t ion , Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Boyd. The one S t a t em?n t of

Charge was f i l e d a g a i n s t them and t h e t h r e e o t h e r p e r s o n s

I

, *

c -13-

(Messrs. Donnelly, Tate and Bingham) who, as has been

mentioned, were also	charged with criminal contempt and found
by his Honour to be not guilty.	Its content was as follows:

"Between the 5th April 1982 and the 21st April 1982

the Respondents have and each of them has

committed contempt	of the Federal Court	of
Australia	by	interference with the course of
justice.

PARTICULARS

(a) On the 5th

April 1982 each of the Respondents Donnelly, Tate and Boyd procured stoppages of work by all members of the Respondent Federation employed on building operations being conducted on

the following sites:  -

(i)	230 Collins Street, Melbourne
(ii)	Fitzroy North Primary School

(iii) Williamstown Primary School

(b)	On the 16th April 1982 the Respondent Bingham procured stoppages of work by all members of the Respondent Federation employed on building operations being conducted on the site of the Aspendale Special Development School.
(c) At all material times the	building operations

on each of the said sites were being

conducted by H.M. Keast and Sons Pty. Ltd.

( "the company") .

(d) At all material times Reginald Keast

( "Keast") was the Chairman of the Directors

of the company.

(e) At the time of procuring those stoppages of work each of the Respondent, Donnelly, Tate,

Boyd and Bingham informed servants or agents

of the company that the reason for imposing

the stoppages was becau :e of Keast being

involved in the present proceedings against Respondent the Federation for the

cancellation of its registration as an
organization under the Conciliation and
Arbitration Act 1904 ("the de-registration

proceedings").

(f)	From the time of the procuring of the stoppages up to the 21st April 1982 no work was done on any of the said sites by any member of the Respondent Federation.
(g)	The procuring of the stoppages of work and
the continuation of those stoppages was
brought about by the Respondent Federation or by the Respondent Gallagher, or by the respondent Donnelly, or by the Respondent Tate, or by the Respondent Boyd, or by the Respondent Bingham, or each of them.
(h)	The Respondent Gallagher has stated that the
stoppages of work on the said sites were
because of Keast being involved in the

de-registration proceedings.

(i)  The conduct of and the statements made by each of the respondents had the tendency to and were intended to -

(i) constitute a threat to persons

participating in or supporting the

de-registration proceedings, that they would be injured or victimized for so participating or supporting.

(ii)   constitute a threat to persons

bringing or intending to bring

proceedings. in the Federal Court of

Australia gainst he Reapndent Federation that they would be injured

or victimized for so bringing or
intending to bring such proceedings.
(iii)	dissuade persons from giving evidence on behalf of the Applicants in the
de-registration pr ceedings or
dissuade them from giving evidence
unfavourable to R spondent he
Federation.
(iv)	impose pressure on the applicants in order to influence them in the conduct of the de-registration proceedings or
to discontinue the said proceedings".

-15-

The t r a n s c r i p t i n d i c a t e s t h a t s e n i o r c o u n s e l f o r

t h e	a p p e l l a n t s	made	c l e a r	t h a t	o b j e c t i o n	was	t a k e n	t o	a n y
depa r tu re	by	t he	r e sponden t s	f rom	the	cha rge	of	contempt	as

p a r t i c u l a r i z e d	i n	the	S ta tement	Charge .	o f	The	q u e s t i o n
w h e t h e r	t h e	p a r t i c u l a r i z e d	S t a t e m e n t	of	Charge	was	adequate

was a d v e r t e d t o b y s e n i o r c o u n s e l f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s b u t no

a p p l i c a t i o n was made to , amend it and it remained una l te red i n

t h e f o r m s e t o u t a b o v e . I n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e

a p p e l l a n t s w s r e e n t i t l e d t o c o n d u c t t h e i r c a s e on t h e b a s i s

t ha t he on ly cha rge wh ich t hey were r equ i r ed t o mee t was

t h a t which ad been par t icu lar ized aga ins t hem. I t i s n o t

f o r a n a g a i n s t a p p e l l a t e c o u r t o s p e c u l a t e w h e t h e r , i f t h e c h a r g e

a p a r t i c u l a r a p p e l l a n t h a d , e i t h e r i n i t i a l l y o r b y

amendment, been d i f f e r e n t l y f r a m e d o r p a r t i c u l a r i z e d , t h e

evidence adduced would have been the same or the conduc t o f

t h e p a r t i c u l a r a p p e l l a n t ' s c a s e would have been unal tered.

I t shou ld a l so be men t ioned tha t i t was not a rgued

on b e h a l f o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t h a t , i f t h e f i n d i n g o f g u i l t

made by Keely J . c o u l d n o t b e s u s t a i n e d i n t h e c a s e of any

a p p e l l a n t , some other f i n d i n g o f g u i l t of a c h a r g e w i t h i n t h e

S t a t e m e n t o f C h a r g e s h o u l d b e s u b s t i t u t e d a t t h i s s t a g e . The

a p p e a l , i n the c a s e of e a c h a p p e l l a n t , f a l l s t o b e d e t e r m i n e d

b y	r e f e r e n c e	t o	t h e	c h a r g e ,	a s	p a r t i c u l a r i z e d	i n	t h e
S ta tement of	Charge ,	wh	ich	t he	r e l evan t	appe l l an t	was	c a l l e d
upon t o meet	and	t o	t h e	f i n d i n g	of	g u i l t which	h i s	Honour
made.

.

-16-

We turn to consider the attack made by each of the Federation, Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Boyd on Keely J'	S finding
that it or he was guilty of contempt of court. We	shall
consider the case of each appellant separately.
THE FEDERATION

The acts of the Federation which constituted the

basis of Keeiy J'	S finding that it was guilty of contempt of
court were within the ambit	of the particularized charge
against it. They	were summarized in the following two

paragraphs from his Honour's judgment:

"The Federation's conduct, as established by the

evidence, included its decision to impose a ban on
the work being performed at the company's building
sites, its action in sending its organizers to
those building sites for the purpose of bringing
about the cessation of work at those sites, the
statements on its behalf made by Mr. Boyd on 8
April, 1982 and the statements on its behalf made
by Mr. Gallagher on 14 April, 1982, to wkich I
have already referred. Those statements were made

in the presence of the representative of the

company. Master Builders' Association of Victoria and the On all the evidence I am satisfied beyond

reasonable doubt that the Federation's conduct was partly for the purpose of dissuading persons from giving evidence on behalf of the applicants in the deregistration proceedings or, if it failed in that purpose, of dissuading them from giving

evidence unfavourable to the Federation and a l so partly for the purpose of inducing those Master Builders' Associations which are applicants in the

dere,-istration proceedings to discontinue as applicants in the said proceedings. I also am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, viewed

o b j e c t i v e l y , t h e F e d e r a t i o n ' s c o n d u c t h a d t h e

tendency t o so d i s suade pe r sons who are p o t e n t i a l

w i t n e s s e s and also the t e n d e n c y t o i n d u c e t h e

M a s t e r B u i l d e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n s t o d i s c o n t i n u e as

a p p l i c a n t s . .... S *

I n o u r view, nothing advanced on behalf of t h e

a p p e l l a n t s v i t i a t e s	t h e c o u r s e	of	r eason ing	wh	ich	l ed	t o	t he
c o n c l u s i o n s	e x p r e s s e d	i n	the	above	two	paragraphs.	We	can

s e e no g r o u n d f o r d i s a g r e e i n g w i t h t h o s e c o n c l u s i o n s . To t h e

c o n t r a r y , we c o n s i d e r t h a t h e y w e r e j u s t i f i e d a n d , i n d e e d ,

i n e v i t a b l e o n t h e v i d e n c e . T o the above comments of h i s

Honour w e would add express re fe rence to ne matter which

appears from his f i n d i n g s of f a c t and i s p l a i n l y e s t a b l i s h e d

by t h e e v i d e n c e . The purposes to which h i s Honour r e f e r r e d

were, i n o n e s e n s e , i n d i r e c t or u l t e r i o r p u r p o s e s of t h e

F e d e r a t i o n i n t h e a c t u a l i m p o s i t i o n of t h e b a n s . The d i r e c t

and immediate c a u s e f i n a n c i a l purpose of the impos i t i on of the bans was t o

damage t o H . M . Keast & Sons P ty . L imi t ed a s a

form of p u n i s h m e n t o r r e t r i b u t i o n f o r t h e s u g g e s t e d

involvement of M r . Reginald Keast, a f o r m e r P r e s i d e n t of t h e

M a s t e r B u i l d e r s ' F e d e r a t i o n o f A u s t r a l i a , i n the i n s t i t u t i o n

of t h e d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s .

I n L i t t l e r v . Thomson (C18391 2 Beav. 1 2 9 a t p .

131; 48 E . R . 1129) Lord Langdale M.R. s a i d :

"If p a r t i e s i n t he p rosecu t ion of t h e i r r i g h t s are

t o be xposed t o t h i s s p e c i e s of a t t a c k , a n d a r e

t o be	p l a c e d	i n s u c h a	s i t u a t i o n	t h a t	t h e y c a n n o t
s a f e l y p r o c e e d	i n the defence	of	the i r	r i g h t s ,	and

i f w i t n e s s e s are i n t h i s way d e t e r r e d from coming

-18-

f o r w a r d i n a i d of l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s , it w i l l be

imposs ib le t h a t j u s t i ce can be a d m i n i s t e r e d . It

would be bet ter	that t h e doors o f	the Cour ts of
J u s t i c e	w e r e	a t once c losed" .

I n our view, Lord Langdale 's comments a r e a s v a l i d t o d a y a s

they were	when h e made them	some one hundred and	for	ty	years
ago.

The impos i t i on o r t h r e a t of i n d u s t r i a l s a n c t i o n s t o

d i s s u a d e p o t e n t i a l w i t n e s s e s f r o m g i v i n g e v i d e n c e or t o

punish someone fo r p rope r invo lvemen t i n j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s

c o n s t i t u t e s a n a t t a c k on the f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e j u d i c i a l

sys t em and an a f f ron t o t he ob jec t and pu rpose for which

c o u r t s	a r e	e s t a b l i s h e d .	To	t h e	e x t e n t	t h a t	s u c h	a c t i o n s
ach ieve	their	ends	of	d i s s u a s i o n	or	i n t i m i d a t i o n ,	j u s t i c e	i n

t h e c o u r t s i s t a i n t e d or a c c e s s t o j u s t i ce i n t h e c o u r t s i s

obstructed	o r	d e n i e d .	The	a c t i o n s	of	t h e	F e d e r a t i o n	i n
s e e k i n g	r e t r i b u t i o n a g a i n s t	H.M.	Keast	&	Sons	Pty.	Limited	on

a c c o u n t of M r . K e a s t ' s s u p p o s e d i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e

d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s a n d i n s e e k i n g t o d i s s u a d e

p o t e n t i a l witnesses i n t hose p roceed ings from g iv ing ev idence

unfavourable	t o	it	were ca lcu la ted and des igned	to	h	inder	and
p e r v e r t	h e	a d m i n i s t r a t i o n	of	j u s t i c e	i n	t h e	d e r e g i s t r a t i o n

proceedings . They cons t i tu ted g ross contempt o f th i s Cour t .

l

-19-

MR. GALLAGHER

The main a t t ack wh ich i s made, on Mr. G a l l a g h e r ' s

b e h a l f , on h i s H o n o u r ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h a r g e o f c r i m i n a l

contempt had been made good a g a i n s t him i s t h a t M r . Ga l l aghe r

has been contempt of cour t wi th which he	found	gu i l ty	and	punished	for	conduct	amount ing	to	.
_- ,-

was n e v e r d i s t i n c t l y c h a r g e d .

T h a t a t t a c k may, i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , be

a t echn ica l g e n e r a l @ne w i th little t o recommend it i n so f a r a s t h e

m e r i t s a r e c o n c e r n e d . The quest ion which it r a i s e s

i s , however, a fundamental o n e .

I t i s a w e l l r e c o g n i z e d p r i n c i p l e o f l a w t h a t " n o

person should be punished for contempt of Court which , i s a

c r i m i n a l o f f e n c e , u n l e s s t h e s p e c i f i c o f f e n c e c h a r g e d a g a i n s t

h i m b e d i s t i n c t l y s t a t e d " ( I n re P o l l a r d C18681 L . R . 2 P . C .

106 a t p . 1 2 0 ; Coward v. S t a p l e t o n (1953) 90 C . L . R . 573 a t

pp . 579-580) . This p r inc ip le o f l aw i s recognized by 0 .40

r r . 6 and 8 o f t he Fede ra l Cour t Ru les wh ich r equ i r e t ha t , on ,

a	p r o c e e d i n g	f o r	p u n i s h m e n t	o f	a n	a l l e g e d	c o n t e m p t ,	a
s t a t e m e n t	o f	c h a r g e ,	t h a t	i s	" a	s t a t e m e n t	s p e c i f y i n g	t h e

contempt of which the accused person i s a l l e g e d t o b e g u i l t y ,

s h a l l b e s u b s c r i b e d t o , o r f i l e d w i t h , t h e n o t i c e of motion

o r a p p l i c a t i o n " and served personal ly on the accused person .

The o n l y r e f e r e n c e t o M r . Ga11a.gher i n t h e

p a r t i c u l a r s of the Sta tement of Charge are t o be found i n

c l a u s e s	( g ) ,	(h) and	( i)	( s u p r a ) .	S t r i c t l y	c o n s t r u e d ,	c l a u s e
( g )	c o n t a i n s	no	p o s i t i v e	a l l e g a t i o n	w h a t s o e v e r	a g a i n s t	Mr.
Ga l l aghe r :	on ly	two	of	s e v e n	p o s t u l a t e d	a l t e r n a t i v e s	w o u l d

invo lve him	i n	p r o c u r i n g	t h e	s t o p p a g e s	of	b u i l d i n g	work	and
t h e i r	c o n t i n u a t i o n .	I t	would	seem,	however,	t h a t	c l a u s e	( g )

h a s b e e n a l l e g a t i o n u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e p a r t i e s a s c o n t a i n i n g a p o s i t i v e

t h a t M r . Ga l l aghe r was so involved . Clause ( h ) i s

r e s t r i c t e d t o a n a l l e g a t i o n t h a t Mr. Gal lagher "has s t a t e d

t h a t	t h e s t o p p a g e s	of	work	on	t h e s a i d s i t e s w e r e b e c a u s e	of
Keast	being	involved	i n	t h e	d e - r e g i s t r a t i o n	p r o c e e d i n g s " .
T h i s a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t s	s t a t e m e n t	c o r r e s p o n d s	w i t h	t	a l l e g e d	e

made b y t h e i n d i v i d u a l u n i o n o r g a n i s e r s a t h e

t ime the a l l e g a t i o n a g a i n s t bans were procured ( s e e c l a u s e ( e ) ) . The o n l y o t h e r

M r . Ga l lagher i s the genera l one i n c l a u s e

( i ) a s t o the i n t ended " t endency" of t h e a l l e g e d acts and

s t a t e m e n t s .

The e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t Mr. G a l l a g h e r w a s q u i t e

l i m i t e d . I t c o n s i s t e d , i n e s sence , of background evidence

t h a t he w a s t h e G e n e r a l S e c r e t a r y of t h e F e d e r a t i o n a n d t h e

S e c r e t a r y of the Vic to r i an Branch and t h a t h e was the pe r son

whom M r . Keast w o u l d "pick o u t " a s t h e p r i n c i p a l p e r s o n who

r e p r e s e n t e d the B . I . . F . on t h e occas ions when M r . Keas t "came

i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h the Federa t ion" and of ev idence of some

statements that had been made. Mr. Boyd made some statements

concerning Mr. Gallagher in the Commission on 8 April, 1982. Otherwise, the statements relied on were those made by Mr. Gallagher to Mr. Ainsworth on 5 April, 1982 and in the private conference in the Commission on 14 April, 1982 (see

Findings of Fact, supra, paras. 6 and 9 ) .

The detailed finding that Mr. Gallagher had been

guilty of contempt of court is set out in the following

passage from his Honour's judgment:

'I

I also am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the statements by the respondent Gallagher on 14 April, 1982, to which I have already referred, and which were made in the presence of the
representative of the Master Builders' Association
of Victoria and the company were made by him
partly for the purpose of dissuading persons from
giving evidence on behalf of the applicants in the
deregistration proceedings or, if he failed in
that purpose, dissuading them from giving evidence
unfavourable to the Federation and also partly for

the purpose of inducing those Master Builders'

Associations which are applicants in the

deregistration proceedings to discontinue as
applicants in the said proceedings. Mr. Keast

gave unchallenged evidence that, "Mr. Gallagher

made a statement to his actions would achieve a withdrawal of support the effect that he expected	by the Master Builders' Associations throughout
Australia for the deregistration proceedings
against the Federation". In my opinion Mr.
Gallagher there made it clear that his actions
were intended by him to induce the Master
Builders' Associations throughout Australia to withdraw from their role as joint applicants in the deregistration proceedings. Again, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that those statements by Mr. Gallagher on 14 April, 1982, viewed objectively had the tendency to so dissuade persons who are potenti. 1 witnesses and also the
tendency to induce the Master Builders'
Associations to discontinue as applicants.
A c c o r d i n g l y , I f i n d t h a t t he second-named
respondent , Norman L. Gal lagher , has commit ted
contempt of t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t o f A u s t r a l i a b y
i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e course of jus t ice" .

I t i s c l e a r from t h e a b o v e p a s s a g e t h a t h i s Honour

found t h a t t h e a c t u a l m a k i n g o f t h e t h r e e s t a t e m e n t s a t t h e

of	t h e	f i n d i n g	t h a t	M r .	Ga l lagher	was	g u i l t y of	contempt	of
cour t .	I t	i s	a r g u a b l e	t h a t	t h e	s t a t e m e n t	o f	o p i n i o n ,	t h a t

"Mr. G a l l a g h e r t h e r e made it c l e a r t h a t h i s a c t i o n s "

( u n d e r l i n i n g a d d e d ) w e r e i n t e n d e d h a v e t o c e r t a i n

consequences , i nd ica t ed a f i n d i n g b y h i s Honour t h a t t h e

u n s p e c i f i e d	" a c t i o n s "	a l s o	c o n s t i t u t e d	c o n t e m p t	o f	c o u r t	by
M r .	Ga l l aghe r .	H i s	Honour's	judgment	does	not,	however,
e x p r e s s l y	i d e n t i f y	a n y	s u c h	o t h e r	a c t i o n s	a s	c o n s t i t u t i n g
contempt	of	c o u r t b y	M r .	Gallagher and	it would	seem	t h a t h i s

Honour cons ide red it u n n e c e s s a r y t o do more t h a n f i n d t h a t

t h e	s t a t e m e n t s	made	on	14	A p r i l ,	1982	t h e m s e l v e s	c o n s t i t u t e d
contempt	of	c o u r t .	T o	p u t	t h e	m a t t e r	d i f f e r e n t l y ,	w e

c o n s i d e r t h a t , i f h i s Honour had i n t ended t o make p o s i t i v e

f i n d i n g s	t h a t	h e	was	convinced	beyond	reasonable	doubt	hat
M r .	Ga l l aghe r	had	been	h imse l f	gu i l t y	of	commit t ing	o ther

ac t ions	wh ich	cons t i t u t ed	c r imina l	con tempt	o f	cou r t ,	he
would	s p e c i f i c a l l y	h a v e	i d e n t i f i e d	w h a t	h o s e	a c t i o n s	w e r e .

We a r e s t r e n g t h e n e d i n t h a t c o n c l u s i o n by the f a c t t h a t we

I

-23-

c o n s i d e r t h a t M r . G a l l a g h e r ' s a l l e g e d r e f e r e n c e t o " h i s "

act ions i n h i s a n s w e r t o a s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n a s k e d b y Al l ey

J . a t h e p r i v a t e c o n f e r e n c e c a n n o t , when f a i r l y p l a c e d i n

c o n t e x t ,	be	i n t e r p r e t e d	a s	a	r e f e r e n c e	t o	Mr.	G a l l a g h e r ' s
p e r s o n a l	c t i o n s	or	a s	c o n s t i t u t i n g	a	p r o p e r	b a s i s ,	i n

c r i m i n a l	p r o c e e d i n g s ,	f o r	a	p o s i t i v e	f i n d i n g	t h a t	t h e
impos i t i on	and	con t inua t ion	of	the	stoppages	hould	be seen

a s Mr. G a l l a g h e r ' s p e r s o n a l c t i o n s . I n t h a t r e g a r d , it

s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d t h a t t h e o n l y e v i d e n c e a s t o t h e

in te rchange be tween A l l e y J. and M r . Ga l lagher i s t h a t of M r .

Keas t who made it c l e a r t h a t it appeared t o him t h a t M r .

Ga l l aghe r	was	r e p r e s e n t i n g	t h e	F e d e r a t i o n	and	who	d i d	n o t
p u r p o r t t o c r i t i c a l s e n t e n c e s i n	e c o u n t	w h a t	wa5	sa id	i n	d i r e c t	s p e e c h .	The

his ev idence , i n a f f i d a v i t f o r m , a r e :

' I . . . M r . J u s t i c e A l l e y a g a i n a s k e d M r . Ga l l aghe r

w h a t h e e x p e c t e d t o a c h i e v e b y h i s a c t i o n s a g a i n s t

t h e	company.	M r .	G a l l a g h e r	made	a	s t a t e m e n t	t o
the	e f f e c t	t h a t	h e	x p e c t e d	h i s	a c t i o n s	would

a c h i e v e . . . l ' .

I t i s p l a i n t h a t , i n the above xchange, Alley J .

wou ld not have used the word "he" and Mr. Gal lagher would not

have used the word "his". I n so f a r as Al ley J ' s comment i s

concerned, one would oubt whether he would i n q u i r e of a

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e	of	t h e	F e d e r a t i o n	w h a t	t h e	r	p r e s e n t a t i v e
p e r s o n a l l y ,	a s	d i s t i n c t	from	t h e	F e d e r a t i o n ,	i n t e n d e d	t o

a c h i e v e b y i n d u s t r i a l a c t i o n w h i c h was c l e a r l y seen a s t h e

F e d e r a t i o n ' s i n d u s t r i a l c t i o n . U n l e s s A l l e y J . used t he

a r c h a i c " t h o u " , it i s appa ren t t ha t , p re suming t ha t he u sed a

second person pronoun, the word he used was "you" which was,
in the context, not inappropriate to refer to the Federation.
Indeed, the statement that "Mr. Justice Alley again asked"
refers back to Mr. Keast's evidence that Alley J. opened the
private conference by asking Mr. Gallagher "what the B.L .F .
hoped to achieve by the actions against the company". In the
circumstances, Mr. Keast's evidence of Mr. Gallagher's reply
could well be his interpretation of an answer consisting of
no more than a bare list of objectives. Be that as it may,
it would, in our view, be quite unjustifiable to hold that
Mr. Keastl s plainly questionable interpretation of what was
said by Alley J. and by Mr. Gallagher constituted an adequate
basis for a finding that it had been proved beyond reasonable
doubt, in proceedings for criminal contempt of court, that
Mr. Gallagher should personally be held responsible for

either all the actions involved in the imposition of the

Federation's bans	or for an unidentified one or more of those
actions.
It follows that, as we read Keely J's judgment, the rests squarely on the actual making by him of the statements	finding that Mr. Gallagher was guilty of contempt of court
which he made at the private conference before Alley J. Those statements, as has been mentioned, were made by him as
a representative of the Federation and in answer to specific
requests for information which had been made by Alley J. One would expect that, if it were intended to charge that the

i

-25-

a c t u a l making statements of i n a p a r t i c u l a r p r i v a t e

conference i n the Commission const i tuted contempt of the

Federal Court, that charge would be plainly spel t out i n the

Statement of particularized Statement Charge. I n f a c t , one seeks i n vain, i n the

of Charge, for any r e f e r e n c e a t a l l

e i t h e r t o a l s o seeks i n vain for any conceivable t h e Commission or to the 14th Apri l , 1 9 8 2 . O r , e

reference t o two of

the three specif ic s ta tements which h i s Honour found had been

made by M r . Gallagher a t the pr ivate conference (see F i n d i n g s ,

of Fact,	supra,	paras.	9 ( b ) and (c)	and upon the making of
which h i s Honour	r e l i ed i n the above	passage	from	h i s

judgment. The only arguably relevant allegation i n the

particularized Statement of Charge, namely, that "Gallagher

has stated because of Keast that the stoppages of work on the sa id s i tes were

being involved i n t h e d e - r e g i s t r a t i o n

proceedings" (para. ( h ) ) , a r e more obviously referable to

what M r . Gallagher said to Mr. Ainsworth ( " tha t t he bans were imposed 'because an executive of the company, Mr. Reg Keast,

was the d r i v i n g force behind the move to de- reg is te r the

Federation"') than to the other of the three statements made

by Mr. Gallagher a t t h e conference of 14 April , 1982 ( " t h a t

since M r . Reginald Keast was involved on the employers'

committees that instigated the deregistration proceedings

against the union and the Royal Commission, the company was

the f i r s t o n the union's l i s t " : see F i n d i n g s of Fact, supra,

p a r a . 9 ( a ) ) .

The conclusion which we have reached i s t h a t t h e

p a r t i c u l a r i z e d S t a t e m e n t o f C h a r g e c o n t a i n e d no d i s t i n c t

s t a t emen t o f t he pa r t i cu la r cha rge o f con tempt o f cour t wh ich

h i s Honour found. t o have been p roved aga ins t M r . Ga l l aghe r .

O n a n y S ta tement of f a i r r e a d i n g of i t s terms, t h e p a r t i c u l a r i z e d

Charge f a i l ed comple t e ly t o a l l e g e a g a i n s t M r .

G a l l a g h e r t h a t t h e a c t u a l mak ing o f t he t h ree s t a t emen t s on

which h i s Honour r e l i e d ( s e e F i n d i n g s of F a c t , s u p r a , p a r a .

9 )	c o n s t i t u t e d ,	when	t h e	t h r e e	s t a t e m e n t s	a r e	v i e w e d
toge the r ,	con tempt	o f	cou r t .	A t	b e s t ,	h e	p a r t i c u l a r i z e d

S ta tement of	Charge	contained	a	g e n e r a l	r e f e r e n c e	t o	o n e	o	f
t he	t h ree	s t a t emen t s	wh ich	M r .	Ga l l aghe r	was	found	t o	h a v e

made on t h a t e v e n t h a t a l l e g a t i o n i n t h e S t a t e m e n t o f C h a r g e t h a t o c c a s i o n . A n a l y s i s o f t h e v i d e n c e , i n d i c a t e s

was more

a p p r o p r i a t e t o r e f e r t o what M r . Ga l lagher had sa id o n 5

A p r i l , 1982 than t o wha he t s a id on 14 A p r i l , 1982 . I n any

e v e n t , we do n o t r e a d t h e c r i t i c a l p a s s a g e i n h i s Honour' S

j u d g m e n t ( s u p r a ) a s c o n t a i n i n g a n y f i n d i n g t h a t the making of

t h a t s t a t e m e n t i n answer t o A l l e y J's q u e s t i o n a s t o "what

t h e B . L . F . hoped t o a c h i e v e " c o n s t i t u t e d , o n i t s o w n ,

contempt court . of A s has been ment ioned, it was n o t

sugges t ed ,	o n	b e h a l f	of	t h e	r e s p o n d e n t s ,	t h a t	t h i s	C o u r t
s h o u l d	s u b s t i t u t e	f o r	h i s	H o n o u r ' s	f i n d i n g	of	contempt	some

new f i n d i n g w i t h i n t he S ta t emen t of Charge.

I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e r e s u l t of the p roceed ings

a g a i n s t	M r .	Ga l l aghe r	w o u l d	have	been	the same i f the charge
of which h i s Honour	found	him	g u i l t y	h a d	b e e n ,	e i t h e r

i n i t i a l l y o r a s t h e r e s u l t of amendmen t , p l a in ly and

d i s t i n c t l y s p e c i f i e d i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r i z e d S t a t e m e n t of

Charge. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t , i f h e h a d t h o u g h t it necessa ry

so	to	do ,	Kee ly	J .	would	have	found	tha t	M r .	Ga l lagher	was
g u i l t y	o	f	c o n t e m p t	of	cour t	by	r eason	of	h is	involvement	i n

t h e i m p o s i t i o n a n d c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e b a n s . D i s r e g a r d o f

t h e p r o c e d u r a l s a f e g u a r d s w h i c h t e l a w r e q u i r e s t o b e

o b s e r v e d i n p r o c e e d i n g s f o r c r i m i n a l c o n t e m p t of c o u r t

cannot, however, be ignored by an appe l l a t e cou r t fo r the

r e a s o n t h a t it i s o f t he v i ew tha t it i s p r o b a b l e t h a t no

harm was done or t h a t t h e a c c u s e d p e r s o n would probably have

been found gu i l t y i n any even t . I ndeed , a s w e fol lowed the

a r g u m e n t , a c o n t r a r y v i e w a s n o t p r o p o u n d e d b y t h e

r e sponden t s o n t h e h e a r i n g of t h e a p p e a l .

I n t h e r e s u l t , t h e f i n d i n g t h a t M r . Ga l lagher w a s

g u i l t y of contempt of c o u r t and t h e c o n s e q u e n t i a l o r d e r s for

h is impr isonment m u s t be set a s i d e .

MR. BOYD

H i s H o n o u r ' s f i n d i n g t h a t M r . Boyd was g u i l t y of

contempt o f cour t i s con ta ined i n t he fo l lowing pas sage from

h i s	judgment:
II As to the fifth-named respondent, B. Boyd, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both his conduct on 5 April, 1982 on the building site at

230 Collins Street, Melbourne, and his statements

at the Arbitration Commission hearing on 8 April,

1982, to which I have already referred,

constituted contempt of the Federal Court	of
Australia by	interfering with the course of

justice. On 5 April, 1982 he was the first person

to implement the ban on a site being directly

responsible for Federation members "being sent
home" and he was the first person to tell the
company "the reason for the union's action". On 8
April, 1982 he represented the Federation and told
the Master Builders' Association of Victoria, the
company and the Arbitration Commission that "we

will take the battle right back to the employer".

I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr.

Boyd's conduct on both of those days was intended

by him to dissuade persons from giving evidence on

behalf of the applicants in the deregistration proceedings or if he failed in that purpose, to dissuade them from giving evidence unfavourable to the Federation and was also intended to induce those Master Builders' Associations which are

applicants in the deregistration proceedings to discontinue as applicants in the said proceedings. Again, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that

that conduct, viewed objectively, had the tendency

to so dissuade persons who are potential witnesses

and also the tendency to induce the Master

Builders' Associations to discontinue as

applicants. Accordingly, I find that the

fifth-named respondent, B. Boyd,	has committed
contempt of the Federal Court	of Australia by

interfering with the course of justice".

As we read the above passage, his Honour found Mr. Boyd

guilty of contempt of court on two distinct, albeit related,
grounds. The first ground was his involvement in the
imposition of the b a n s at 230 Collins Street on 5 April,
1982. The second was the making of the statements which he
made in the Commission on 8 April, 1982.

I

c

-29-

T h e S t a t e m e n t o f C h a r g e c o n t a i n s no r e f e r e n c e

w h a t s o e v e r t o t h e s t a t e m e n t s made b y M r . Boyd i n t h e

Commission on 8 Apri l , 1982. Senior counse l who a p p e a r e d f o r

t h e r e s p o n d e n t s f a i r l y c o n c e d e d t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r s of

c h a r g e w o u l d n o t c o n v e y " t h e f a i n t e s t i n k l i n g " t h a t it was

a l l e g e d a g a i n s t M r . Boyd t h a t what he said on 8 Apri l , 1982

cons t i t u t ed con tempt of c o u r t . I n so f a r as h i s H o n o u r ' s

f i n d i n g t h a t M r . Boyd was gu i l ty o f con tempt of c o u r t r e s t s

o n t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s , it c a n n o t s t a n d . .

W e have been t roub led a s t o w h e t h e r t h e f i n d i n g

t h a t M r . Boyd was gu i l ty o f con tempt o f cour t shou ld be

a f f i r m e d s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s o f h i s H o n o u r ' s f i n d i n g s as t o

I t seems t o u s t h a t t h e o n l y m a t t e r o f r e a l

s ign i f i cance wh ich d i s t ingu i shes the conduc t of Mr. Boyd from

t h a t of Mr.	Donnelly	and	Mr.	Bingham,	i n r e spec t	o f	each	of
whom	h i s Honour	found	t h a t	h e	c h a r g e	o f	c o n t e m p t	of	c o u r t

had no t been e s t ab l i shed , was t h e s t a t e m e n t s made by M r . Boyd

i n the Commission on 8 Apri l , 1982. I t seems t o u s t h a t t h e

making of t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s on t h a t o c c a s i o n was s e e n b y h i s

Honour a s t h e c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n Mr. Boyd's case and

t h o s e of Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Bingham and a s c o n s t i t u t i n g a n

e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t of t h e c h a r g e of contempt of cour t which

he found to hzve Seen e s t a b l i s h e d a g a i n s t M r . Boyd.

We would set aside the finding that Mr. Boyd was

guilty of contempt of court and the consequential order

imposing a fine of $500.00.

PENALTY

It was submitted on behalf of the Federation that
the penalty which Keely J. imposed on it, namely a fine of
$15,000, is manifestly excessive. We are unpersuaded that is

so. In our view, the fine of $15,000 was appropriate to the circumstances of the present matter.

It may well be that deregistration proceedings in

this Court are, on occasion, instituted in a political and industrial environment which is liable to obscure their nature as judicial proceedings in a court of law. Such a consideration, if established, could, in some circumstances, be relevant on the question of the appropriate penalty for statements or actions which constitute no more than a	technical contempt of court. It is not, however,	of real
significance in a case	such as the	present where what is

involved is a course of conduct which was, as we have said,

calculated and designed to hinder and pervert the

administration of justice. In any event, it could scarcely be suggested that the Federation was unconcious of the judicial character of the deregistration proceedings. It had itself asserted that judicial character in other proceedings in which it charged that the actions of others constituted contempt of this Court.

ORDER AS TO PAYMENT OF FINE

H i s Honour' S o r d e r t h a t t h e F e d e r a t i o n p a y a f i n e

of	$lS,OOO	p r o v i d e d	t h a t	t h a t	f i n e	s h o u l d	b e	p a i d	t o	t h e
R e g i s t r a r	w i t h i n	s e v e n	( 7 )	days	by	t he	Fede ra t ion	or	"by	an

a g e n t p r o p e r l y a u t h o r i z e d i n w r i t i n g " by t h e F e d e r a t i o n ''to

make such	payment	on	i t s	b e h a l f " .	H i s	Honour	went	on	t o
d i r e c t	t h a t	i f	the	Regis t ra r	had	any	doubt	a s t o whether	a
p e r s o n	s e e k i n g	t o	p a y	t h e	f i n e	was	p r o p e r l y	a u t h o r i z e d ,	t h e

m a t t e r was t o be r e f e r r e d t o t h e C o u r t . I t was submitted on

b e h a l f	of	t h e	F e d e r a t i o n	t h a t	h i s	H o n o u r ' s	o rde r	shou ld	be
modi f ied	by	de le t ing	the	r e q u i r e m e n t	h a t	h e	f i n e	b e	p a i d

e i t h e r b y t h e F e d e r a t i o n o r b y a d u l y a u t h o r i z e d a g e n t .

The impos i t i on o f a f i n e o f $15,000 was p r o p e r l y

seen by Keely J . a s a punishment of t h e F e d e r a t i o n for i t s

contempt of c o u r t . I t was competent for h is Honour t o

r e q u i r e t h a t h e f i n e b e p a i d e i t h e r b y t h e F e d e r a t i o n or

someone a u t h o r i z e d t o a c t on t h e F e d e r a t i o n ' s b e h a l f i n t h a t

r e g a r d . The d e s i r a b i l i t y o f t h e form of the o rder which h i s

Honour made was , as h i s Honour p o i n t e d o u t , u n d e r l i n e d i n t h e

p r e s e n t c a s e by e v i d e n c e t h a t M r . Gal lagher had informed the

Commission t h a t he e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e s t o p p a g e s o f work which

we;e imposed i n contempt of c o u r t "would achieve the payment

of fines which had been imposed on members of t h e F e d e r a t i o n

w i t h r e s p e c t o t h e i r e f u s a l t o g i v e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e

Royal Commission".

We can see no ground for interfering with the

requirement that the $15,000 fine be paid either by the

Federation or its duly authorized agent. To the contrary, we consider that his Honour's order in that regard could well serve as a model in the future.

COSTS

The appellants Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Boyd have

succeeded in their appeal. It is, however, apparent that the

proceedings against them were, to no small extent, the result of their own irresponsibility and their involvement, by their

actions on 5 April, 1982, in the Federation's	criminal
activities.

In our view, the appropriate order as to costs is that the Federation pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. There should be no order as to the costs of zither Mr. Gallagher or Mr. Boyd. The question of the costs of the

proceedings at first instance should be left to be resolved

by Keely J.

No. V 3 0 of 1 9 0 2

First	A p p e l l a n t
(Firs tnamed	Respondent)
Second Appel	lant
(Secondnamed	Respondent)

B . BOYD

I_-

Thi rd Appe l l an t

( F i f t h n a m e d r e sponden t )

AND: - THE HONOURABLE R 0 3 E R T I A N VINER --P-

(who sues as Min i s tEr of S t a t e f o r

I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s )

F i r s t n a m e d	Respondent
( F i r s t n z r n z d	a p p l i c a n t )
Seeondnznzd	R e s p c n < z n t
(F i f thnaned	a p p l i c a n t )
Thirdnarned	Responder?t
(S ix thRanzd	app l i can t )
FourthnamFd	r e s p o n d e n t
(Seven thnaned	app l i can t )
F i f thnaned	r e s p o n d e n t

...

HIS I!OK@UR:  Well , this is t h e oniy suqgcskion I

can make. T h e o n l y o t h e r t h i n g I can d o i s

t o e x p r e s s m y d i s p l e a s u r e of t h i s , which I

do . I t w i l l c3me a s n o s u r p r i s z t o Mr.

m y a . B u t t h e commission cannct condone

t h e s e b l a t a n t c o m p l ~ t e 1 . y o u t s i d e b a n s , and I b e l i e v e t h e y a r e

t h e s p i r i t of i c t e n t of

L hc package. arguicent No doub t t he re can bz somz

about ha t , bu t I have no dou3i: in

m y own	mind	t h e y a r e	o u t s i d r	t h e	s 2 i r i k	of
p a c k a g e .	t h e	I	f e e l	t h a t	t h e	o n l y
p r o g r e s s i v e	t h i n g	t h a t c a n	b.t	done	without	a
g r e a t	d e a l	of	c o n f i d = . n c e	t h a t	i t	vili
ach ieve	any th ing	imad ia t ? ly ,	i s	t o	ha\??	a

confe rence w i t h t h e g e n e r a l s e c r e t a . r y , and I

t h i n k i t o u g h t t o he d o n e o n t h e b a s i s of a

compiilsocy conferenc?, Mr. Boyd, i s i t your

s u g g e s t i o n , i n a n y e v e n t , t h a t h e r z s h o u l d

be a d i s c u s s i o n w i t h t h e g ? n r r a l s e c r e t a r y ?

XR C13'13: Yes.

H IS HONOUR : I am p ropos ing t ha t now t h a t t h z

mat ter :	has	h2en	b r o u g h t	t o	t h ? commissioa,	I
am	p r o p o s i n g	t o	h o l d	2	c o n f e r z n c e	n e x t

Wednesday a f t e r n o o n .

...

HIS KOiIOUR:  I w i l l ad journ t h e s e p roceed ings u n t i l

2 . 1 5	on	Wdnesday	14 A p r i l ,	and	t h a t	f u r t h e r
p r o c e e d i n g	w i l l	t a k e	t h e	f o r 3	o f	a

compulsory	conference	i n	w h i c h	t h z	g e n e r a l
s e c r e t a r y	w i l l b e	d i r e c t e d	t o	appea r .	And ,

Mr. Boyd, I wogld be g r a t e f u l If y ~ u would

c o n v e y t o t h e g e n e r a l s e c r e t a r y t h e

c o m m i s s i o n ' s	c o n c e r n	a t	t h i s	i n d u s t r i a l
ac t i a n .

MP, SOYD:  I w i l l , you r Honour."

t h a t on 1 4 A p r i l t h e m a t t e r of t h e d i s p u t e a g a i n cam?

on b e f o r e Mr. Jus t i ce Al l ey and Mr. Keast was p r e s e n t .

Mr. Shaw r e p r e s e n t e d t h e Company and the Federa t ion

was r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t Boyd and the Gene ra l

S e c r e t a r y of t h e B . L . F . , t he appe l l an t Ga ' . l aghe r ;

I

The proceedings on t h e 1 4 t h A p r i l commenced w i t h a n

i n q u i r y from h i s Honour Mr. J u s t i c e A l l e y as to

w h e t h e r . e i t h e r of t h e p a r t i e s had anything f u r t h e r t o

add t o w h a t had been sa jd u r ing t he p roceed ings on

t h e 8 t h A p r i l . N e i t h e , p a r t y w i s h e d t o make any

f u r t h e r s t a t m e n t s , and t h 2 ma t t e r wzs t h m ad journed

i n t o c o n f e r e n c e c h a i r e d by Mr. Jusk ice A l l e y .

Mr.	J u s t i c e	A l l e y	t h e n	aslceci	Mr.	Gal lagher	what	t h ?
B.L.F.	hoped	t o	a c h i e v e	by	t h e	a c t i o n s	a g a i n s t	t h e

co rnpay . Mr. Ga l l aaghe r r e p l i e d by makir,g a s t a t e r n c ~ t

to t h e f f e c t t h a t bokh he anc? t.hc B.L.F. had been

k i c k e d a r G u n d by t h e e m p l o y e r s i n t h e b u i 1 d i r . g

i n d u s t r y a n d t h e i r backroon commitkees an2 t h a t i t was

t ime tha t t h e u n i o n ? i d some k i c k i n g a r o u n d i n t h e

f i e l d . Mr. Ga l l aghe r made a f u r t h e r s t a t e r n c n t o t h e

e f f e c t t h a t s i n c e Mr. Keast was involved 011 t h e

e m p l o y e r s ' c o r n n i t t e e s i n s t i g a t e d t h a t t h e

d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t h e u n i o n a n d t h e

Royal Commission, the company was t h e f i r s t on t h e

un ion ' s l i s t .

.

Mr. Shaw t h e n p o i n t e d o u t t o Mr. Ga l l aghe r t h a t t h e

company had no t p l aced any ev idence be fo re t h e Roya l

Commission or those i nvo lved i r , t h e d e r e g i s t r a t i o n

proceedings . F l r . , . .Gal lagher d id no t appear to Le

in f luenced by that s t .a tement , bu t made a f u r t h e r

s ta temer , t t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t on t h e b a s i s 05 h i s

knowledge of t h e employers i n t h e b u i l d i n g i n d u s t r y ,

the conpany would nok g e t a n y s u p p o r t f rom those

enp loye r s .

A f t e r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n b e t w e e n t h o s e a t t h e

c o n f e r e n c e , Mr. J u s t i c e A l ? ~ t y a g a i n a s k e d Mr.

Gal l aghe r wha t he xpecked t o ach i?ve by h i s a c t . i o n s

aga ins 'c the compazy.. Mr. Gal lagher made s t a t a n e n t

t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t h e expected h i s a c t i o n s would

a c h i e v e a w i t h d r a w a l of s l - ~ p p o r t by t h e N a s t ? r

B u i l d e r s '	A s s 5 c i a t i o n s	t h r o u g h o u t	A u s t r a l i a	f o r	t h e
d e r q i s t r a t i o n	p r o c e e d i n g s	a g a i n s t	t h e	E . L . F .	and ,

f u r t h e r , t h e payment of f i n e s w h i c h had bren iaposcd

on members of t h e B . L . F . w i t h respect. t o t h e i r r e E u s a l

t o g i v e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e R o y a l Commission."

Having regard t o t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s q u o t e d a b o v e f r o n

S t a p l e t o n ' s C a s e ( s u p r a ) i t is c lear t h a t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e

a p p e l l a n t G a l l a g h e r h a d b e e n g u i l t y of contempt of Court: c o u l d

be	made	o n l y	i n	r e s p e c t	of	conduct	t h e	g i s t of	w h i c h	was
s t a t e d	jn	t h e	p a r t i c u l a r s	of	t h e	c h a r g e s .	The	g i s t	of	t h e

c h a r g e a g a i n s t t h e a p p e l l a n t G a l l a g h e r a s s p e c i f i e d i n the

c h a r g e s was	t h a t he	had	procured	t h e s toppages a t t h e s i t e o f
works of	t h e company or h e had brought	about	t h e	c o n t i n u a t i o n
of	t hose , s toppayes a n d	t h s t h e	had	s t a t e d t h a t t h e pu rpose of

. 1 4 .

t he s toppages of work o n t h c s z s i t e s was because or' Kcast

being involved i n t h e d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s a n d t h a t h e

erlgagid i n such conduct i n c i rcumstances i n which i t t e n d e d t o

.arid was i n t e n d e d c t o n s t i t u t e a t h r e a t . p n , r s o n s t o

p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n o r s u p p o r t i n g t h e d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e l d i n g s

pend ing i n t h e Fede ra l Cour t of A u s t r a l i a i n n y way a s

s p e c i f i e d	i n	p a r t i c u l a r s	u n d e r	p a r a	: i ) of	t he	p e r t i c u L n r s	o	f
t h e	cha rges .	I t may	be	s a i d	t h e r p f o r e	t h a t	u n l e s s	i t	were

provzd t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t G a l l a g h e r had p r o c u r e d t h e s t o p p a g e s

or had brought about t h e cont inuance of t h e s t o p p a g e s a.t t h e

work s i t e s of the coxpany and had s t a t p d t h a t t h 3 s 2 s toppages

were b r o u g h t a b o u t o r c o n t i n u z d b e c a u s e o f K e a s t b e i n g

i n v o l v e d i n t h e d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s w i t h t h e % e n d e n c y

and i n t e n t i o n t o c D n s t i t u t e a r e l e v e n t t h r e a t , no f i n d i n s o f

contempt	could	be made.	Also,	even	i f there were	e v i d f n c e	of
t h e s e	m a t t e r s	no	f i n d i n g	t h a t	tne . a p p e l l a n t	G a l l a g h e r	was

g u i l t y of a contem2t of cour'c could be made u n l e s s t h e l e a r n e d

Judge had accepted tna t ev idence t o t h e p o i n t of s a t i s f a c t i G n

beyond reasonable doubt .

%

TO my mind i t is c l e a r . t h a t . t h e r e was adequa te

e v i d e n c e t h a t h e a p p e l l a n t G a l l a g h e r had b r o u g h t a b o u t h e

con t inuance of t h e s t o p p a g e s . I t i s c l e a r t h a t on the ever t ing

O f 5 Apr i l h e k i l e w t h a t t h e s t o p p a g l s had been c a l l e d a t t h e

Company's b u i l d i n g s i tes a n d t n a t , r e f e r r i n g t o them, h e had

s t a t e d	t h a t	"	h e y	h a d	b s e n	imposed	by	the	Fede ra t iDn	On
c o n s t r u c t i o n	work	of	t h e	b u i l d e r	E1.M.	E;east	&	Son	Pty.	L t d .

.

d r i v i n g f o r c e b e h i n d t h e moves t o d e r e g i s t e r t h e U n i o n . " ~e

z d d z d i n t h a t connec t ion , "ws a r z go ing t o re2ay a few d e b t s ;

i t will be t i t f o r t a t from ncw on." F u r t h e r , on 1 4 Apr i l a t

t h e	p r o c e e d i n g s	b e f o r e	N r .	J u s t i c e	A l l e y ,	i n	c o m p u l s o r y
c o n f e r e n c e ,	c o n c e r n i n g	t h e	d i s p u t z	w h i c h	had	been	Ratified by
>Ir. S 2 a s t ' s	conpasy	i n r e s p e c t	OF	t h c	s a i d	s t o p p a g e s a n d	f i r s t
hea rd	Gn	8	A p r i l	1 9 8 2 ,	t h e appellant Gal iagher	appgared	w i t h

t h e a p p e l l a n t Boyd f o r t h e F e d 2 r a t i o n . Ir, t h o s c p roceed ings

-,

t h e a p p e l l a n t c o c c l u d i n g G a l l a g h e r made s t a t e x e n k s a s s e t f o r t h above

by say ing that h c e x p e c t e d h i s a c t i o n s would

a c h i e v e a wi thdrawal of s u p p o r t by t h e Flaastzr B u i l d e r s '

A s s o c i a t i o n s t h r o c ; g h o u t A u s t r a l i a f o r d e r e g i s t r a t i o n

p r o c e e d i n g s a g 3 i n s t t h e F e d e r a t i o n a n d f u r t h e r t h e payment of

f i n e s w h i c h had been imposed cn rc..ernbrrs of t h e F e d e r a t i o n w i t h

r e s p e c t t o . t h z i r r e f u s a l t o g i v g e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e l ioyal

Commission.

I n my o p i n i o n i t was open t o t h e l e a r n e d J u d g e t o

- f i n d t h a t i n m a k i n g t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s t h e a p p e l l a n t G a l l a g h e r

. was s p e a k i n g f o r h i m s e l f a l o n e or f o r himself j o i n t l y w i t h t h e

F e d e r a t i o n a n d n o t m e r e l y a s t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h ?

F e d e r a t i o n . Also i t was open t o t h e l e a r n e d J u d g e , t o f i n d

t h a t t h e a c t i o n s which t h e a p p 2 1 l a n t G a l l a g h e r r e f e r r e d t o a s

" h i s acCLions" WET^ t h e cof i t inuing of t h e stoppages.

-. .

The c o n t i n u a t i o n o r c a l l i n g o f f of t h e s t o p p a g e s was

the one subjec t mat te r o f t h e discussion between Mr. J u s t i c e

A l l e y h n d the a p p e l l a n t G a l l a g h e r . When Mr. J u s t i c e A l l e y

i n q u i r e d what the appel lant Gal lacjhcr expected t 6 ach ieve by

"his ac t ions" the l anguage no d o u b t r e f l e c t e 2 an assumption by

h i s Honour that t h e s t o p p a g e s , o r a t l e a s t t h e i r c o n t i n u a t i o n ,

werz brought about by and were under the cor,trcil the of

. a p p e l l a n t G a l l a g h e r . And i n r e p l y i n g q u i t e n a t u r a l l y , i n

s in i la ! :  fash ion , t h e appel lan t : Gal lagher acknowledged tha t

wha t t h e c o n f e r e n c e w a s b o u t , n a m z l y , t h e c o n t i n u i n g

s toppages ,	were	" h i s	a c t i o n s " .	T h e r e	is	no	other	r -casonabl?
in t e rp re t . a . t i on	of	the	exchange	t ha t	t ook	p l ace .	And	t h e r e

was , in t h i s exchailge a n a s s e r t i c n by t h e a p p e l l a n t Gallagher

t h a t t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e s t o p p a g e s was his a c t i o n a s w e i l

a s t h a t of t h e Fed? ra t ion . T h u s i n t h 2 t c o n f e r e n c e t h e r e was

a n a s s e r t i o n by t h e a p p e l l a n t G a l l a g h z r o f p e r s o n a l

p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n of t he s toppages , i n t h e

purpose t h e r e o f and i n the accompanying th rea ts .

I t was contended t h a t t he p roceed ings i n compulsory

confcrence were by s.27 of t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n & A r b i t r a t i o n A c t

1 9 0 4	i n	t h e	n a t u r e	of	w i t h o u t	p r e j u d i c e	n z g o t i a t i o n s	o r
o t h e r w i s e	a	p r i v i l e g e d	o c c a s i o n	in	r e s p e c t	of	which	ev idence
was	n o t	admiss ib l e	i n o t h e r	p r o c e e d i n g s .	I t	i s	unnecessary	t o
examine	t h i s c o n t e n l i e n	f u r t h e r	t h a n	t o	o b s e r v e	t h a t	if	t h e r e

be any c o n f e r e n c e , s u c h q u a l i t y o f p r i , y i l z g e i n the p r o c e e d i n g s a t t h e

i t w o u l d no t ex t end t o what may be d e s c r i b e d a s

I ,

i n i 5 l : i t y	commit ted	thereat .	Evidence	of	conduct	i n	such	a
c o n f e r e n c e	c o n s t i t u t i n g	an	i n i q u i t . y ,	s u c h	a s	a	contempl:	of

c o u r t , w0ui5 be a d m i s s i b l e Oil t h a t i s s u e notwithstanding any

such p r i v i l y z i f t he re be eny . See Car t s j .de v . Outran (i8j6)

27 L . J . C h . 113 a t p . 1 1 4 ; B r i t i s h S t e e l C o r p o r a t i o n -- v . GranadG

- T e l e v i s i o n Ltc i ( 2 9 be r e p o r t e d i n ( 1 9 8 1 ) A . C . 1.096) ( 1 3 8 0 3

W . L . 3 . 7 7 4 a t p . 8 5 1 and Varzwa v. ----------- Hovard Smi ' rh & --F- Co. L",.

( 1 9 1 0 ) 10 C . L . R . 382 .

In h i s r e a s o n s f o r j udgnrn t t he l ea rned Judge does

n o t s a y , ir! so many words , t h e t h e was s a t i s f i e d beyond

r easocab le doub t : t ha t the a p F e l l a n t G a l l a g h e r p a r t i c i p a t e d irr

t h e c o c t i n u a t i o n of t h e s t o p p a g e s of work, b u t ko ny m i n d , i t

is manifesir. upon a n a t u r a l r e a d i n g of h i s words i n their

c c n t e x t , t h a t h e d o e s , c l e a r l y e n o u g h , e x p r e s s s u c h

s a t i s f a c t i o n . The learned Judge found tha t a t t h e c o n f 2 r 2 n c e r

l

Mr. Gallayher sa id amongs t o ther th ings : -

T h a t s i n c e M r . Reginald Keast was involved

on t h e employe r s ' commi t t ees t ha t i n s t iga t ed

t h e d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t t h e

union and t h e Royal Commission, t h e company

was t h e f i r s t on t h e u n i o n ' s l i s t .

That on t h e b a s i s of h i s knowledge of t h e

e n p l o y e r s i n t h e b u i l d i n g i n d u s t r y , t h e

cornpany would	n o t g e t	any	support	frcm t h o s e
employers .

That he expycted h i s a c t i o n s would a c h i e v e a

w i t h d r a w a l of s u p p o r t by t h e M a s t e r

B u i l d e r s ' A s s o c i a t i . o n s t h r o u g h o u t A u s t r a l i a

f o r t h e d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s t

t h e F e d e r a t i o n , and f u . r t h c r , t h e Taymrn': of

f ines wh ich had been irn-,csed o n m?inbe;-s o f

t h e F c d e r z t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r r e f u s a l

g i v e	t o	e
i d z n c e Conmission. I' b e f o r e t h e R o y a l

Ecaling w i t h t h e c a s e a g a i n s t t h e a p p c l _ l a n t s

G a l l a g h e r ,	Boyd	a n d	t h e	F e d e r a t i o n	a n d	r e f e r r i n g	t o	a n
o b s e r v a t i o n	o f	L o r d	i n -_-_I_	R e i d	A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l	---I_-	v . --_-	Tirncis

Nztwspapers	L t d .	[ l 9 7 4 1	A . C .	2 7 3	a t p . 2 9 6	t h a t ,	i n	o c d e r	t o
p r e v e n t	a	t r i a l	f rom	bz ing	unfa i r ,	"cornment	l i k e l y	t o	affect :

t h e m i n d s of w i t n e s s e s m u s t be stopped . . . ' I , t h e l e a r n e d J u d g e

s a i d , "The p r e s e n t c a s e d e a l s witn i n t i m i d a t o r y c o a d u c t - n o t

simply with comment.". He s a i d f u r t h e r : -

"I	a l s o a n	s a t i s f i e d	beyond	r e a s o n a b l s	d o u b t	t h a t
the	s t & t e m e n t s by	t hc	r e spondcn t	G a l l a g h z r	on	1 4

A p r i l ,	1 9 8 2 ,	t o which	I	h a v e	a l r e a d y	r e f e r r e d ,	a n d
w h i c h	were	made	i n	t h e	p r c s e n c e	t h e	o f

r e 2 r e s e n t a t i v e of the Mas ter Bui lders ' Assoc ia t . ion

of V i c t o r i a and t h e company were made by h i m

p a r t l y f o r . t h e purpose of d i s s u a d i n g p e r s o n s frcin

g iv ing ev idence on beha l f of t h e a p p l i c a n t s i n t h e

d e r e g i s t r a t i o r ! p r o c e e d i n g s o r , i f h e f a i l e d i n

t h a t p u r p o s e , d i s s u a d i n g them from g iv ing ev idence

m f a v o u r a b l z t o t h e Fede ra t ion and a l s o p a r t l y f o r

t h e puzpose of inducif ig those Master Bai lders '

A s s o c i a t i o n s w h i c h a r e p p l i c a n t s i n t h e

d e r e g l s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s t o d i s c o n t i n u e a s

a p p l i c a n t s i n t h e s a i d p r o c e e d i n g s . Mr. Keast

gave unchal lenged ev idence tha t , 'Mr. Ga l l aghe r

made a s t a t e m e n t o t h e e f f e c t thst he xpected

h i s a c t i o n s would ach ieve a withdrawal of s u p p o r t

by t he Mas te r Bu i lde r s ' Assoc ia t ions t h roughou t

A u s t r a l i a f o r t h e d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s

a g a i n s t t h e F e d e r a t i o n ' . I n m y o p i r . i o n Mr.

G a l l a g h e r	t h e r e	made	i t	c l e a r	t h a t	h i s	a c t i o n s
w e f z	i n t e n d F d	by	h i m	t o	i n d u c e	t h e	M a s t e r

B u i l d e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t A u s t r a l i a t o

withdraw froin t h e i r r o l e a s j o i n k a p p l i c a n t s i n

t h e d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . "

I t i s t o be observed a l s o t h a t t h e o r d e r of t h e l r a r n e d J u d g e

, L

19.

8 .

cont.empt of which	he	was	adjudged	gui1. ty on	1:	ay	1 9 8 2 ,
naniely,	t ha t	be tween	a	dakp on	or	abogt 5 A p r i l 1 9 8 2 and	2 1
A p r i l	1 9 8 2 h e	i n t e r f e r z d w i t h	t h e c o u r s e	of	j u s t i c e	by	conduct

and s t a t e m e n t s .

It is s u g g e s t e d t h a t a f i n e l i n e i s invo lved . 6u'c

i n my	view	t h i s	i s	n o t	s o .	A t t h e	coInr,ulsary	cc?nf?renctl
.nobody was in	any	doub t	abou t	t he	sub jec t :	i n	d i s p u t e .	T h a t

was whz the r t he s toppcges , w h i c h everybody knew abodt r were t~

be	brot ight	an	to	e d	or cont inued .	Mr.	Justice All2y was	' \
urg ing	the	d i s c o n t i p u a n c e	of	t h e	s t o p p a g e s .	On	t h a t	t h e
a p p e l l a n t	G a l l a g h e r	was	non	co -ope ra t ive .	When	asked	w h a t	he

expected t o a c h i e v e by h i s a c t i o n s h2 was q u i t e d i r c c k and t o

the po ink withdrawal i n s a y i n g t h a t h e e x p e c t e d h i s a c t i o n s t o ach ieve CI

of	s u p p o r t	by	the	Mas te r	Bu i lde r s '	Assoc ia t ion
,

t h r o u g h o u t A u s t r a l i a f o r t h e d e r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c 2 e d i n g s . F E W

words were used but few ere nezded. The o n l y a c t i o n of t h ?

appellant G a l i a y h e r l i k e l y t o h a v e t h i s e f f e c t was h i s conduct

i n c o n t i n u i n g t h e s t o p p a g c s or c o n t i n u i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n

. t h e i r c o n t i a u & n c e . ' I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t h a t Mr. Keas t was nGt

cross-examined as t o what was s a i d at. t h e c o n f e r e n c e , , I t

would be no s u r p r i s e t o anybody a t h a t c o n f e r e n c e t h a t h e

appe l l an t Ga l l aghe r shou ld a s se r t - , h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in and

i n d e e d c o n t r o l of t h 2 c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e s toppages .

I n my o p i n i o n t h e l ea rned j udge r i gh t . l y found t ha t

t h e a p p c l l e n t G a l l a g h e r s o p a r t i c i p a t e d a n d of c 3 u r s e made t h e

I .

20.

t h r c a t s a l l e g e d . G a l l a g h c r a g a i n s l c o n v i c t i o n s h o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d . A c c o r d i ' l g l y t h e appea l of t h e a p p 3 l l a n t

A s t o t h e a p p e l l a n t - B o y d , h i s c a s e i s t o b e

d i s t ingu i shed f rom tha t : of t h e a p p e l l a n t G a l l a g h 3 r i n t h a t

. t h e r e is n o t h i n g t o s u g g e s t t h a t i n h i s a p p e a r a n c e beforct Mr.

J u s t i c e P-l ley hc did not-, a c t merely i n t h e r o l e C J ~ a d v o c a t e .

He d i d n o t claim t h a t h e p e r s o n a l l y h a d e n g a g z d i n a n y a c t i o n s

or conduc t des igned t o pu t p r e s s u r e of a n y kind upon %hose

connected w i t h t h e d z r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s t o w i t h d r z w then

or suppor t f o r them. T r u e it is t h a t he was on? of thos.2 1;ihO

conveyed a messa.ge t o t h e b u i l d i n g workers a t one s i t e that

t hey were F e d e r a t i o n t o s t o p work and exp la ined t h e o b j e c t i v e of t h ?

i n t h a t r e s p e c t . However, i n t h e cases a g a i n s t t h e

o t h 2 r o r g a n i z e r s , h i s Honour d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t f a c t o r

a l o n e t o be a contempt . Accordingly there was i n s u f f i c i e n t

e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f i r , d i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l - l a n k Bo17d

I committed the con tempt a l l eged aga ins t h im. His appea l should

be a l lowed and t h e c o n v i c t i o n a g a i n s t h i n shou ld bz s e t a s i d e .

AS t o t h e a p p e l l a n t F e d e r a t i o n , n o g r o u n d o f I

,I

i n v a l i d i t y h e r e o f was submi t t ed . Tha t appeal should h e

d i smis sed .

The s e n t e n c e s imposed on t h e a p p P l l a n t s G a l l a g h e r

and t h e F g d e r a t i o n a r e s a i d t o be c x c e s s i v e .

’ ’’ D

An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i n t e r f e r e s w i t h t h c s e n t e n c e

imposed upon a c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n o n l y i f i t bz shown t h a t t h e

o r i n misunders tanding or i n wrongly assess ing sane s a l i e n k

f e a t u r e o f t h e v i d e n c e . The e r r o r may appear i n what the

s e n t e n c i n g j u d g c s a i d i n t h e p r o c e ~ d i n g s o r t h e s e n t g n c c

The	Queen	v.	T a i t	( 1 9 7 9 )	4 6	F.L.R.	386	a t p . 3 8 5 .	Conipar :”
Harris v . The	Quczr?	-	( 1 9 5 4 )	9 0	C . L . R .	6 5 2 ,	f o l l c w ? d	by	t h e

F e d e r a l C o u r t i n Kovac v . The Qucen ( 1 9 7 7 3 1 5 A . L . R . 6 3 7 ) ’.

The F e d c r a t i o a i s t h e c r e a t u r e of t h e l aw. I t h a s

a c c e s s	t o	t h e C o n s i l i a t i c n	t	Arbikrat ion	Conmission	from	w h i c ! ~
i t	ob ta ins	awards	impos ing ob l iga t ions	upon	employers	w h i c h	it

mal7 enfo rce ir! t h e C o u r t s of t h e l a n d . I t has a m o n o p l y of

r ec ru i tmen t	o f	members	i n	i t s	a r e a	of . i n d u s t r i a l	a c t i v i t y .	I t
i s	a	v e r y	l a r g 2	a n d	p o w e r f u l	o r g a n i z a t i o n	o f	g r e a t
s i g n i f i c a n c e	i n	thz	comnunity.	I t s	c a p a c i t y	t o	c a u s e	s u d d e n

d e v a s t a t i n g d i s l o c a t i o n i n b u i l d i n g o p e r a k i o n s w i t h o u i : warcing

. g i v e s i t enormous bargaining and indeed menacing power. I k

was t h i s power w h i c h i t s Managing Committee decided to use

- /

a g a i n s t H . M . K e a s t b S o n s P t y . L t d . i n b r i n g i n g t o a

s t a n d s t i l l i t s b u i l d i n g o p e r a t i o n s a t i t s v a r i o u s s i t e s . Th2

t h r e a t was of a c o n t i n u i n g s t o p p a g e a t t h e C o m p a n y ’ s s i t e s a s

t h e f i r s t on t h e F e d e r a t i o n ’ s l i s t of proposed v ic t ims because

i t was though t t o be i nvo lved i n t h e p e n d i n g d e r e y i s t r s t i o n

p r o c e e b i n g s . S u c h a r u t h l e s s e x e r c i s e o f d e s t r u c ? i . v z

W .

22.

i n d u s t r i a l pow2r wou ld be ob jec t ionab lz enough i n a n y

c i r c u m s t a n c e s	b u t	t o	u s 2	i t acconpanied	by	t h r e a t s	of	no re	o f
t h e	S a n 3	t o	f r i g h t e n	p e r s o n s	t h a t	they	would	abandGn	t h 2 i . r

approach to a C o u r t t o seek l ega l remedies was , c n t h e p a r t o f

such an o rgan izak ion , an o f f e n c e against t h e ccmrnuni ty of a

'h igh order . There coulc! be no q u e s t i o n of t h e f i n s o f Sl5,OCO

be ing excess ive .

A l s o s o f a r a s t h e p e n a l t y z;ga.irrst t h e a p p p l l a n t

Ga l l aqhe r i s concerned tha t pena l ty o f two months imprisorimeht

i s n o t i t s e l f so h i g h a s t o i n d i c a t e 2 mani fe s t e r r o r . There

is one m a t t e r however i n r e s p e c t of which i t was s u g g e s t e d

t ha t t he Tha t was l ea rned Judge wrong ly a s ses sed a s a l i e n t f e a t u r e .

t h a t he cons ide red t ha t he appe l l an t Ga l l ac jh2 r was

i n	a	pos i t i on h i r a se i f	t o	b r i n g	t h e	s t o p p a g e s	to an end	a t s o n c
t i n e	b e f o r e	t h e y	w e r e	t e r m i n a t e d .	I t does	no':	appear	howevez
t h a t	u n d e r	t h e	U n i o n	rules	t h e	a p p e l l z n t	G a l l a g h e r	was

authorised	a c t u a l l y	t o	d i r e c t	t h e	Union	members	t c	r e t u r a	to
work.	B u t	i t	i s	p e r f e c t l y	c l e a r	t h a t	h e	a p p e l l a n t	G a l l a g h e r

a s i t s G z n e r a l S e c r e t a r y c o u l d a t a n y t ime h a v e c a l l e d h i s

e x e c u t i v e t o g e t h e r t o c o n s i d e r t e r m i n a t i o n of the s toppage .

, . .

He could have xercised h i s i n f l u e n c z i n t h e Union t o d i v e r t

i t from i t s u n l a w f u l , d a m a g i n g , a n d t h r e a t e n i n g c o u r s e .

E x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r s and Union l e a d e r s s u c h as t h e a p p e l l a n t

Ga l l aghe r arE pe r sons of g rea t impor t ance i n t h e ecor.omic a n d

i n d u s t r i a l l i f e of t h e community. They w i e l d g r z z t i n f l u e n c e .

a v e r e s p c n s i b i l i t y	r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .	On2	s u c h
' * ' t

T h e y c o r r e s p o n d i n g

i s t o r e f r a i n f r o x u n l a w f u l c o n d u c t a n d

p a r t i c u l a r l y from i n t i m i d z t i n g a c t i c n s cJesigned t o f r i g h t e n

p e r s o n s s o t h i l t t h e y a b a n d o n t h e i r e l z r n e n t a r y r i g h t t o

approach t e Court i n t h e p u r s u i t of l ega l r emed ies . Sue' 11

c o n d u c t s t r i k e s at: the r o o t of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e .

Accord ingly , i n m y op in ion t h i s i s n o t a case f o r i n t e r f e r e c c s

by this Couz t w i t h t h e penal ty imposed.

I n c o n c l u s i o n t h e r e f o r e : -

( 5 ) th-z appeal of t h e a p p e l l a n t Boyd s h o u l d allow23 be

w i t h c o s t s ;

( b ) t h e a p p e a l of t h e a p p e l . l a n t G a l l a g h e r s h o u l d b e

d i smis sed w i t h c o s t s ;

( c ) t h e appeal of t h e a p p e l l a n t F e d r r a t i o n s h c u l d b f

d i smis sed w i t h c o s t s .

...... -.__----. . . . , ..... ___,-_. _._ . . -1