Cains, David James v Jenkins, Eileen

[1979] FCA 63

I N THE F E D E W COURT OF A U S T W I A

63

INDUSTRIAL D I V I S I O N V. No. 1 6 of 1 9 7 9 .

VICTORIA D I S T R I C T REGISTRY

B E T W E E N :

DAVID JAMES CAINS C l a i m a n t

and

C A T C H W O R D S

'?	R e g i s t e r e d O r a a n i z a t i o n -	r e m o v a l f r o m of f ice of	branch
>

secretary - p o w e r s of C o m m i t t e e of M a n a g e m e n t - n a t u r a l

I

I j u s t i c e - bias - refusal t o a l l o w representative of branch

secretary t o be p r e sen t . ,

C o n c i l i a t i o n and A r b i t r a t i o n A c t 1 9 0 4 , s . 1 4 1 .

IN '11-lC Ft:DERAL COiJRT O F AUS'1IYiLl.A -- -

INDPSTRIThL D I V I S J 0% V . N o . 1 b u i 1979 .

-

VIC'CORIA D I S T l ? I C T 2JCGTSTRS

-- -

B E T W E E N :

DAVID Jhi'VJS CAIXS

a n d

O R D E R

JUDGE t1AKliu'G ORDER:	North1:op J.
DATE O F ORDER:	26 June, 1979 .
WHERE NADE :	I ~ l e l i ~ o u r n e
ORDER :	R u l e Nisi d i s c h a r g e d .

..

-	I?i TIIC rCDZRAI, COTJl'.'l' OF AUSTRAI.IA
INDUSl7I'.1:SL DTVISIOT? V. No. 1 6 of 1979.
VICTORIA DISTRIC1' RXGlSTRY
B E T W E E N :

DAVID JN1ES CAIiqS

and

REASONS FOR JUDGilI3NT 2 6 June, 1979.

The c l a lman t , Davld James Cains , is the

s e c r e t a r y o f t h e V i c t o r i a n Eranch of t h e Federated C o n f e c t l o c e ~ : ~

Assoc ia t ion of Australia ( t h e A s s o c i a t ~ o n ) , an organisation

under t h e Conciliation and A r b i t r a t i o n Act 1904 , a s amended,

-

( t h e A c t ) . Each of t h e respondents i s a member o f t he

a s s o c i a t l o n and t h u s 1s under an o b l l g a t ~ o n t o perform o r

observe t h e r u l e s of t h e a s s o c i a t l o n . The respondents ,

t o g e t h e r w l th t h e c l a lman t , cornprlse t h e c o m l t t e e o f

management o f t h e Victorian Eranch of t h e Association ( t h e

V l c t o r l a n Branch) , s e e branch r u l e 9 . On 11 Aprs l 1979, t h e

committee of management of the Victorian Branch ( t h e Committee)

I n t h e e s e r c l s e o f powers con fe r r ed by branch r u l e 4 0 ,

removed t h e c l a ~ m a n t Erom h i s o f f i c e of' s e c r e t a r y . I n t h e s e

p r o c e e d ~ n g s , t h e c lazmant , pu r suan t t o s . 1 4 1 o f t h e Act , 1s

seek lny o r d e r s directing respondents and each o f them t o perfol-m

o r observe t h e r u l e s o f t h e Assoc la t lon by t r e a t l n g a s n u l l

and void and of no l e g a l e f f e c t , t h e d e c l s l o n s of t h e meeting

&. 7

2.

o f the Commlttee h e l d on 1.0	and 11 April 1973 ea f a r a s
such rnectlr~g

" ( a ) Purpor ted t o r e f u s e t h e r e q u e s t

o f :he c l a m a n t t h a t ne be r ep re sen ted

be fo re such mcetlnq by an agellt !lr.

A l b e r t Romanin; and

( b ) Purpor ted t o dec lde t h a t t h e c la imant

was guilty of any c h a r ~ e heard o r

p u r l ~ o r t e d l y heard by the SE I d n,eetir,c,-. "

It i s necessary t o s e i o u t t h e f a c t s l e a d l n . ~

up izo t h e d e c l s l o n s made a t t h e rneetlng on 10 and 11 A p r l l .

Under t h e r u l e s o f t h e V i c t o r i a n Branch, e l e c t l o n s a r e h e l d

annua l ly f o r each p o s l t l o n on t h e Comii t tee excep t f o r t h e

o f f l c e o f p r e s i d e n t , f o r whlch o f f i c e an e l e c t l o n 1s h e l d

bl -cnnlal l y , and t h e o f f i c e s of s e c r e t a r y and a s s l s t a n t

s e c r e t a r y , f o r whlch o f f l c e s an e l e c t i o n i s now he ld every

f o v r y e a r s , branch r u l e s 1 2 and 12A, and a r e conductcd

pursuant t o t h e p r o v l s l o n s conta lned i n branch r u l e 128.

Under t h e branch r u l e s a g e n e r a l meeting o f t h e branch 1s

h e l d on t h e f i r s t Tuesday i n t he months o f February, A p r l l ,

June, August, October and December, t h e December meeting belng

c a l l e d t h e annual gene ra l meeti.ng, branch r u l e 1 0 , whi le

meetlnqs of t h e Cornmlttee x e held tile a i l f rna t e months o r

when c a l l e d by t h e president and s e c r e t a r y , branch r u l e 1 0 .

Nominations f o r e l e c t l o n t o p o s i t i o n s on t h e Commlttee a r e

c a l l e d a t 2 g c n e r a l meetlng and a r e t o be delivered t o t h e

r c t u r n l n g o f f l c e r n o t l a t e r t han S weeks p r l o r t o t h e d a t e of

the annual g e n e r a l mectlng. Of necessity, norninatlons must be

d e l i v e r e d t o t h e r e t u r n i n g o f f i c e r n o t l a t e r than a few days

a f t e r t h e October g e n c r a l meetlng. The e l e c t l o n 1s t o be

conducted by s e c r e t b a l l o t of t h e financial members of t h e

V ~ c t o r l a n Branch. The r e s u l t of t h e e l e c t l o n 1s d e c l a r e d a t t h e

annual g e n e r a l meetlng i n December and the s u c c e s s f u l cand ida t e s

ho ld o f f i c e u n t i l Chc l r succes so r s havf been duly e l e c t e d ,

branch r u l e 9 (c).

I n t h e y e a r 1978 e l e c t l o n s were conducted

f o r a l i of t h e p o s i t i o n s on t h e Commlttec except t hose of

s e c r e t a r y 2nd a s s l s t a n t s e c r e t a r y . The term of o f f l c c of

t h e c la imant d i d n o t e x p i r e u n t l l 1982, t h u s he was n o t

3 .

3 .

a c a n d l i l a t e a t t h e 1 9 7 8 el-ections. O n e of Lhc yrou; ; to L?

e l . e c t ~ c l i s described 111 the branch ~ : u l c s a s c o m r n ~ L ~ e c of

r n a n a q e n e n t ( 4 m a l e s ) , branch r u l e 9 . E i g h t candidates

n o m i na t cd f o r those four p o s i t i o n s . S o m e of thos? ca!ldld;lt,-s

w e r e t hen m e m b e r s of the C o m n ~ i ~ t e e . D u r l n g t h e course of

the c lec t ion the c l a i m a n t au thor i sed he publication and

d i s t r i b u t i o r i of a c i r c u l a r p r i n ted I n fou r l anguages , i n c l u d ? ng

E n g l i s h , t h c r e l e v a n t p a r t of w h i c h w a s as f o 1 l . o ~ ~ : -

"THE FET)ERAl'ED CONI'ECTlOSI?RS ASSOCIATl ON ---- -

V i c t o r i a n B r a n c h E l e c t i o n s

C o n i m i t t e c of M a n a g e m e n t ( 4 i 4 a l e s )

K e e p C o r m n u n i s t i n f luence and in ter ference f r o m o t h e r

Unlons o u t of t i l l s U n i o n .

V o t e by p l a c i n g a ' c ross ' as f o l l o w s .

VOTE AS FOLLONS

COOPER PAUL	DON'T FORGET TO VOTE
GEMPTON ALFRED 1JILLIAI.i	BALLOT OPENS 1 7 t h 1JOVEF;EER -

m	GRnCHAN ;blARTIN	BALLOT CLOSES 8 t h DCCEi\iPER
XvlOREL BRJAN

PANNAGOPOULOS NICKY

VOTE - VOTE - VOTE

PEDDIE JAI,LES ROBERTSON

PYPRS NORiiIW

WCSTViOOD STDE!EY

--p-

A u t h o r i s e d by J I > I CAlNS - VERMONT."

I_

'The c l -ccu la r caused q r e a t concern t c a nu!-ber 01 persons

l n c l u d l , ~ q Soi~le o f t h e in~iubers of the hen Cofiunlttec s l n c e i t

con tamed an ~ m p l i c a t l o n t h n t t h e persoKs n o t support?ci by

t h e c l a lman t were e l t h e r co~nmunists 01. under c o n ~ ~ u n l s t r n f l u c ~ l c c

o r were under t h e i n f l u e n c e s of o t h e r unlons, o r p o s s i b l y a l l

t h r e e . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e c l r c u l a r g r e a t l y ups. t t h e respondent

Pannagopoulos who, on f l r s t s e e l n g t h e c i r c u l a r and on t h e

spu r o"he moment, rang t h e a s s i s t a n t s e c r e t a r y , t h e respondent

F r l z z l e r o , complained about t h e c i r c u l a r and i t s l n i p l ~ c a t l o n s and

s a l d words t o he e f f e c t t h a t he would k i l l t h e c l a i n ~ a n t f o r

a l l e g i n g t h a t he Pannagopoulos was a comnunlst. FIe d ~ d n o t c a r r y

o u t o r a t t empt t o c a r r y o u t t h a t t h r c a t .

A meetlng of t h e Committee he ld on 3 November

1978 passed t h e f o l l o w ~ n g resolution:

"Thls meeting o f t h e Executive o f t he

Federa ted Confec t ionse r s ' Union having

heard t h e exp lana t ion o f . t he branch

s e c r e t a r y r ega rd ing t h e l l e s and 2 l s t o r t l o n s

c o n t a m e d i n a c l r c u l a r t o members

au t l lo r l sed by hlm i n r c s p r c t t o the elections

f o r malue r e p r e s e n t a t l v c s on o a r executive

c a l l s on t h e s e c r e t a r y t o withdrdw t h e

allegations of comniunlstlc influence--s made

n g a i n s t one o r more of t h e candidates i n

t h a t e lect i .on and t o p u b l i c a l l y apologise

by sending a l e t t e r t o every member o f t h e

unlon who would have r ece lved a b a l l o t

paper i n t h a t election.

We condemn t h e s e c r e t a r y f o r h i s a t t c r rp t s

t o d i v i d e t h e membership of t h e unlon by

a u t h o r l s l n g a l e a f l e t containing l l e s

a g a i n s t l o y a l members o f t h e unlon who wlsh

t o e x e r c l s e t h e i r democrat ic right t o run f o r

an o f f i c e w i th in t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e unlon."

The respondents Pannagopoulos, Jenlclns, P r l z z l e r o , B l s s l o t l S ,

Davis, S k ~ d m o r e , Gcnpton, balng mesqbers of t h e t hcn CoiXnllttce,

voted i n favour of t h e reso1utio.l .

On 30 November 1378, t h r e e s e p a r a t e charges

i l l wrl t l-nq were laid a g a l n s t t h e c la lmant . The f l r s t charge was

s igned by f i v e pe l sons , i n c l u d i n g t h e respondents J e n k i n s , Davls,

Pannagopoulos, B i s s l o t i s , and was a s fo l lows:

We, t h e undcrs igncd, charge under r u l e 4 0 t h e Secretary,

J l m Calns 511th a breach of r u l e s 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) , 2 4 (b ) , 9 (h).

Particulars of which a r e a s I n? low;.

--

l. The Branch S e c r e t a r y convenzd on t h e 1 May, 1978

a S p e c i a l :bleeting of t h e Committee of >iar!agc?cnt

v r ~ t h o u t t h e approval of t h e P r c s l d e n t i l l dee lance

of Rule 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) .

2 . The Brarich S e c r e t a r y f a l l e d CO n o t l f y a l l embers

of t h e Commlttee of Management and d l d f a l l t o

n o t i f y f l v e members of the Commlttee of ?.lanaqement

of t h e mcetlng being h e l d on 4 i'lay, 1978 l n de f l ance

o f ru l e 9 (b) .

3 . That t h e rneetlng o f t h e Coi lm~t tee o f I'lanzgement on

4 Yay, 1978 was uncons t l tu t? .ona l and t h e me~nbers

p r e s e n t were p a l d a t t endance money and/or expenses

f o r t h i s rneetlng, c o n t r a r y t o che provisions o f t h e

constitution, r u l e 3 0 . "

The second charge was s lgned by f i v e

persons l n c l u d l n g t h e respondents Pannagopoulos, Genlpton,

Birch and B l s s l o t i s acd was a s fo l lows :

"SIGXING OF INDUSTXlAL AGFSCblENT

We, t h e unders igned, charge under r u l e 4 0 , t h e S e c r e t a r y ,

J l m C a m s w l t h a breach of r u l e 21.

P a r t i c u l a r s of which a r e a s fol.lows:

l. The Branch S e c r e t a r y s igned an l n d u s t ~ l a l agrcement

w l th Cadbury-Schweppes Ltd. , Rlngwood d i v l s l o n ,

wl thout c o n s u l t a t i o n and/or wl thout t h e approval

of t h e members of t h e Comnlttee of Ivianaycment,

c o n t r a r y t o r u l e 21.

2 . The Branch S e c r e t a r y d ~ s i g n such d agreement

wl thout t h e signature o r approval 01 t h e Branch

President, c o n t r a r y EO r u l e li."

The third charge w a s s lgned by t h e

respondell ts F r l z z l e r o , Davls, J enk lns , SI:idmore, Chalon,

Pappagopoulos, Gcmpton and B l s s l o t l s and was a s fo l lows:

"FAILING TO OBEY T9E INSTRUCTIONS OF TllE CC)t.iblIllTEE -- OF 1lAiiiiCT:'EK'T

AT A MCCTll.JG OF THE CObl:4ITTEE 01' P1?-N?,GEXZNT	--	ECLD ON	2 3 --p	;<OVLIZEI<,
1 9 7 0 .

We, t h e unzers lgned, charge under r u l e 4 0 , t h e Sec re t a ry

6

J i m Calns w l th a breach of r u l e 15.

PARTICULARS Or GJIIICH ARE AS i.'OLL,Oi?S

1. A S ~ e c i a l Comm~ttec o f Manac;ement nleeting was

h e l d on 23 November, 1978, i n accordance wl th

r u l e 11, a t t h e r e q u e s t oE t h c Brunch S e c r e t a r y

and Branch P re s jZen t , t o d l s c u s s a pamphlet i s s u c d

by t h e Branch S e c r e t a r y t o nlembers of t h e union i n

V i c t o r l a l n which f a l s e a l l c g a t j o n s were lnacle acj3lnst

a nwnber of cand lda t e s stanrl lng f o r c l e c t i o i l t o

t h e Commltliee o f ?ianagement. The panphle t s t a t e d

t h a t t h e cand lda t e s were under communist i n f l u e n c e .

2. During t h c meeting i t was sugges ted by a n~~.n t ,e r o f

members of the Comnlttee o f 1.5anagcmcnt t h a t t h e

Branch S e c r e t a r y r e s l g n h i s p o s l t l o n . The Branch

S e c r e t a r y t hen abandoned t h e rneetlng by wal1:lnq

o u t d e s p l t c belng r eques t ed t o remaln a t t he meet lng."

The r e s u l t s oE t h e elections f o r t h e

positions on t h e Conumttee were d e c l a r e d a t t he annual q e n c r a l

rneetmg i n Decenber 1970. Only one of t h e eight cand ida t e s

f o r t h e p o s l t l o n of member of comnit tec o f management ( f o u r

males) who had t h e suppor t of t h e c l a m a n t was succcssEu1,

namely t h e respondent Morel, t!le o t h c r chrce s u c c e s s f u l

cand ida t e s be lng t h e respondents Cooper, Cenq~ton and Pannagopoulos.

A Committee meeting h e l d on 31 January 1579

r e so lved a s fo l lows :

"That a f t e r having considered i tems 1,

2A,2B,2C,3A,3B,jC, t h l s meetlng of t h e

c o i m i t t e c of management of t h e V ic to r l an

branch of the Federated Confectioners'

Assoc ia t lon ,cons lders t h a t t h e branch

s e c r e t a r y , J. Cams i s n o t f l t t o hold

t h e o l f l c e of s e c r e t a r y of t h e V ic to r l an

branch o f t h e a s s o c i a t r o n , a n d accordingly

d lsmlssed hlm from t h a t p o s l t l o n i n

accordance w ~ t h r u l e 4 0 of t h e Victorian

r u l e s of t h e a s s o c l a t l o n . "

I n t h a t r c s n l u t l o n t h e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e nurnbered l tems a r e t o

t h e I tems c o n t a m e d i n a n o t l c e o f meetlng and r e l a t e t o

a number o f m a t t e r s in\-ol.ving the c l a ~ m a n t , l tems 3A,3B, and

3C be lng t h e t h r e e charges r e f e r r e d t o e a r l i e r . A l l of t h e

respondents excep t Hammcrlund v o t f d i n favour o f t h e r e s o l u t i o n .

Rela t lons Bureau, a meet ing of t h e Com.l t tee he ld on 6

February 1979 r e so lved a s fo l lows:

"Ar l s lng from t h e r e p o r t by X r .

F r l z z i e r o t h l s meeting r e s c i n d s

t h a t p a r t o f t h e motlon of meetlng

of coinmlttee o f manaqement on 31/1/79

concerning t h e d l s n i s s a l o f J.

Calns a s s e c r e t a r y o f t h e V l c t o r i a n

branch and cons ide r s J. Cains i s

suspended i n accordance wl th Rule 38

of t h e branch o f t h e a s s o c l a t l o n p c n d ~ n g

t h e hea r ing o f charges t h a t had been

l a i d a g a i n s t hlm by members o f t h e branch."

I n t h e meantime, t h e branch a s s i s t a n t

s e c r e t a r y , t h e respondent F r l z z ~ e r o , had caused s o l i c l t o r s

t o p repa re a summons da t ed G February 1979 containing charges

a g a l n s t t h e respondent . The branch president, t h e respondent

Jenlclns, a t t h e t ime was a t t e n d i n g a seminar f o r t r a d e union

o f f i c i a l s a t t h e Clyde Cameron Col lege, Albury, and a t t h e

r e q u e s t of F r l z z l e r o came t o Melbourne t o s l g n the summons.

On t h e same day she a t t e n d e d t h e meet ing of t h e Conunlttee.

The sui1m1ons i s a s Eollox?s : -

"TO: James ~ a & d Calns

20 Aubrey S t r e e t

VEIGIONT V l C . 3133

This 1s a Summons i n w r l t i n g given pursuant t o Rule 40

of t h e Rules of t h c Federa ted Confectioners' Association

of A u s t r a l l a (Victorian Branch) and you a r c hereby

summoned t o show cause be fo re t h e Comnlttce of Management

of the Federa ted Confec t ions ' Assoc la t lon of A u s t r a l i a

(V lc to r i an Branch) t o b e h e l d i n Room 40 i n t h e

Trades f i a l l Councl.1 Bui ld lng a t t he c o r n e r of Lygon

S t r e e t and Vrc to r i an S t r e e t Ca r l t on a t 7.30 o'cl.ock

i n t h e a f t e rnoon on Tuesday t h e Gth day of March 1979

why you should no t be removed from t h e p o s l t l o n o f

S e c r e t a r y of The Federa ted Confec t ioners ' Assoc l a t l on

o f A u s t r a l l a (V lc to r l an Branch) .

The grounds upon which i t i s proposed t o cons ide r such

removal	a r e	a s	fo l lo ' .~ s , n,amely	t h a t	i t 1s	a l l e g e d t h a t :
....

There a r e thcn set o u t t e n s e p a r a t e grounds some of v~hlch a r e

d lv lded l n t o sub-paragraphs. Grounds 1 , 2 and 3 r e l a t e d t o

f a c t s s ~ m l l a r t o t h o s e t h e s u b j e c t of t h e t h r e e charges

a l r eady s e t o u t i n f u l l i n t h e s e reasons f o r judgment. Those

8.

8.

t h r e e charges , t o g e t h e r w i th two o t h e r s , belng qrounds 4 and l q ,

r e l a t e d t o n n t t e r s s l m l l z r t o t hose the s u b j c c t o f t he

resolution of t h e Comnlittee on 3L January 1 9 7 9 . Ground 3 i n

t h e suKmons i s se t o u t i n f u l l : -

3 ,	That you comnit ted an a c t o f g r o s s
mlsbehavlcur i n t h a t you au tho r i s ed
and publ ished and d l s t r i b u t c d a
documfnt nlaklng m ~ s c h i c v o u s , untrue
and d e v i s i v e s t a t emen t s about nle181bers
of t h e Federated Confec t ioners '
Assoc l a t l on of Australia (Vrc tor ian
Branch) . "

The charges conta ined I n grounds 2 ( c ) and 2 ( d ) each a l l e g e

a g r o s s n e g l e c t of duty whl le the remaining grounds each

a l l e g e n s u b s t a n t i a l breach of s p e c i f l e d branch r u l e s .

Branch r u l e 4 0 i s a s fol lows:-

,! REi5OVAL rROM O F F I C E

4 0 . ( a ) The Committee o f ltlanagement

may remove from o f f l c c any o F f i c e r

. or member of the Commitkec of

Management a t a meetlng of t h e Commlttee of Management t o whlch t h e person

concerned has been scnmoned i n w r l t l n g

t o show cause why he/she should no t

b e s o removed. Provtded t h a t such

person s h a l l n o t b e removed from o f f i c e

u n l e s s he/she has been found g u i l t y of misappropriation o f t h e funds of

t h e Assoc l a t i on , a s u b s t a n t i a l breach

of t h e s e r u l e s , o r g r o s s misbehaviour o r

g r o s s n e g l e c t of du ty , o r has ceased,

according t o t h e s e r u l e s , t o be

e l i g l b l e t o ho ld t h e office.

(b ) A person summoned t o show cause

pursuant t o sub- ru le ( a ) of t h i s r u l e

s h a l l be glven a t l e a s t 1 4 days ' n o t l c e

of t h e t lme and p l a c e of t h e Geet lng

o f t h e Comqittee of 1.Ianagernenk t o winch

he i s summoned, and t h e n o t i c e sumloning

such person s h a l l a l s o s p e c l f y t h e ground o r grounds upon whlch it i s

proposed t o c o n s ~ d e r such removal. T3e

Commlttee of Planaqement may proceed t o

hea r and dekermlnc a m a t t e r under t h l s r u l e

notwithstanding the absence of t h e

person summoned i f due n o t l c e o f the hea r ing has been glven i n accordance

wi th t h i s r u l e . "

Counsel f o r t he c la lmant d l d n o t suhnl t t h a r

t h e Cornmlttee could n o t have found t h e c la lmant g u l l t y o f

t h e charges l a l d a g a l n s t him and accord ing ly t h e r e i s no

need t o flake s p e c l f l c r e f e rence t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r grounds

c o n t a m e d i n t h e sum.0ns or t o t h e m a t e r l a l Upon v.llich t h e

Commlttee subsequent ly ac t ed .

The c la lmant sought and was given f u r t h e r

particulars o f t h e grounds s e t o u t i n t h e surnnolls. On 1 9

March 1 9 7 9 , t h e Federa l Cour t , on t h e a p p l l c a t l o n of

t h e c la lmant , made o r d e r s t h a t t h e respondents Lreat a s

n u l l and vo ld and of no l e g a l e f f e c t t h e resolutions s e t

o u t above and passed by t h e Committee on 31 January 1 9 7 9

and 6 t h a t t h e respondents February 1 9 7 9 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The c o u r t o rde red a l s o

n o t proceed t o h e a r and determine t h e

charges s p e c l f l e d i n t h e summons da t ed 6 February 1 9 7 9

b e f o r e 10 A p r i l 1979.

The Commlttee met a t about 9.30 a.m. on

10 A p r i l 1979. A l l o f t h e respondents excep t R l l l and

Hanmerlund were i n ' a t t endance . The clalman t , accoinpan~ed

by a M r . Romanin, t hen an a r t l c l e d law c l e r k b u t now a

b a r r i s t e r and s o l l c l t o r o f t h e Supreme Court of V l c t o r l a ,

a t t ended a t t h e mcetlng. When t h e president, t h e respondent

J e n k l n s , who under t h e branch r u l e s was r e q u l r e d t o p r e s i d e

a t t h e meeting, opened t h e rceeting, M r . Romanln i d e n t l f l e d

hlmself and s a i d he was an agent f o r t h e c l a iman t and vas

p r e s e n t t o r e p r e s e n t t h e c la imant . Some members o f t h e

committee of management questioned h i s r i g h t t o be p r e s e n t .

The respondent Jenklns r ead a s t a t emen t and then asked i f

t h e meetlng wanted t o c o n s l d e r whether M r . Romanln should be

al lowed t o remain. The c la imant and Mr. Rornanln r e fused t o

l e a v e when r eques t ed and t h e meetlng thcn reso lved t h a t t hey

l eave t h e meeting t o a l low t h e meeting t o cons lde r whether

M r . Romanin should be pe rmi t t ed t o s t a y . Eefore l e a v l n g t h e

rileetlng, M r . Romanln ob ta ined l eave t o r ead a p repa red

s t a t emen t s igned by t h e c la imant . The s t a t emen t was an

objection t o t h e respondents F r l z z i e r o , Davis, J enk ins ,

Slcidmore, Chalon, Pannagopoulos, Gempton and E l s s i o t i s

p a l - t i c l p a t l n g a t t h e mcetlng since chey had shown themselves

t o be s o p r e l u d i c e d a g a l n c t t h e c la lmant a s t o be unablc t o

glrre hlm a f a i r hea r lng of t h e charges . Pa r t l cu? . a r s o f t11f

p r e j u d i c e were glven by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p a r t l c l p a t l o n of

t h o s e persons i n t h e charges da t ed 30 Xovembcr 1978, t h e l r

p a r t l c l p a t l o n i n t h e conmlt tee of management meetlng on

2 3 1Govemher 1978 and t h e t h r e a t by t h e respondent Pannagopoulos.

The s t a t e r r en t cont inued: -

" I f the persons named remain a t t h i s

meeting and p u r p o r t t o participate	i n
it I do n o t recognise t h e meetlng a s

v a l l d o r a s a c t i n g i n good f a l t h and

I do noc propose co ta1:e any p a r t i n ~ t .

I n t h e even t t h a t t h e mcetlng p u r p o r t s t o

Elnd me g u i l t y of any charge brought

a g a l n s t me I w l l l apply t o t h e Fede ra l

Court of A u s t r a l ~ a f o r such r e l i e f a s I may

be	advised.
I f	I remaln p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t I do s o

on ly a s a w i t n e s s of t h e proceedings

of an I n v a l i d meeting. -1' have prepared

a s evldence of my good f a l t h , a svorn

r e p l y t o each charge brought a g a l n s t me

s o f a r a s I unders tand such charge.

I l n v l f e any person who genuinely and

hones t ly t h i n k s I have been g u l l t y o f

any misconduct t o charge me w l t h such

misconduct be fo re Fede ra l Councll undcr

t h e A s s o c l a t i o n ' s Rules."

A copy o f t h e s t a t emen t was handed t o each of t h e respondcncs

p r e s e n t a t t h e meetlng. M r . Romanln then r ead o u t an

affidavit sworn by t h e c l a iman t con ta in ing a s an annexure a

s t a t emen t by t h e claimant be ing an answer t o each of t h e

grounds s e t o u t i n t h e summons. A copy of t h e a f f l d a v l t

and s ta tement was handed t o each o f t h e respondents p r e s e n t

a t t h e meeting. Agaln ~t i s n o t necessary f o r t h e c o u r t t o

make s p e c i f l c r e f e r e n c e t o t h e answers made by the c la lmant .

The c la imant and M r . Romanin 1eEt t h e mcetlng. The meeting

re so lved n o t t o pcrmi t M r . Romanin t o be i n a t tendance whl le

t h e meeting was being conducted. The c la lmant and l l r . Romanln

r e t u r n e d t o t h e meeting and were informed of t h e r e s o l u t i o n

passer?. M r . Romanin then l e f t say ing words t o t h e e f f e c t

t h a t he l c f t under p r o t e s t and t h a t hc be l i eved t h e meeting t o

be i l l e g a l .

The respondent Jenklns r ead o u t agaln

t h e s t a t c m n t she had e a r l i e r made. P r e v ~ o u s l y shc had

al lowed t h c cl.al.rnant t o o b t a i n a copy of t h a t s t a t cmcn t .

The staten3cnt had been prepared by t h e r e s l ~ o n d ~ n t J enk ins

without leg21 a s s l s t a i l c e and was based on t h e e::perience

she had a t Melbourne i n 1978 and a l s o a s a r e s u l t of o b t a j - ~ e d a s a member of a j u ry i n a c r l n l n a l t r l a l

attending

senunars a t t h e Clyde Cameron College. I t i s a remarkable

s t a t emen t and i s t o be comlended. I set i t o u t i n f u l l .

I n t h e s t a t emen t t h e l e t t e r s "C.O.14." r e f e r t o t h e

Committee. The l e t t e r s " J . C . " and t h e name " J l m " r e f e r t o

t h e c la imant and t h e l e t t e r s "C.F." and t h e n i n e "Carlo"

r e f e r t o t he respondent F r l z z l e r o who had l a l d t h e charges

a g a l n s t t h e c la lmant and who prosecu ted them be fo re t h e

Coimlt tee . The s t a t emen t was a s fol.lows:-

"Declare t h e meeting open and adv l se t h a t

t h l s i s t h e f u r t h e r reconvened Committee oE

PIanaqement meeting of 6 March 1979. S t a t e

t h a t I have s e n t t o each member of C.0.X. a

let ter a s Branch Pres ldenh , da t ed ?O blarch

1 9 7 9 adv l s lng of	t h e meetlng	.... read	l e t t e r
o f 30 Iiiarch.

The on ly b u s m e s s on t h e agenda today i s t h e

hea r lng and de te rmina t ion of t e n charges l a i d

a g a l n s t J. Cams.

Read i n t r o d u c t i o n ...

I adv l se t h e meetlng o f t h e procedure t o bc

f o l l o v e d today i n hea r lng and determlnlng

t h e s e charges .

C.F. w i l l p rosecu te t h e charges and w i l l n o t

be pe rmi t t ed t o remain i n t h e room w h l l s t t h e

C.O.M. is considering t h e submissions and

evldence r e l a t l n g t o each charge.

A f t e r C.F. has pu t h l s subnusslons and cvldence

t o J . C . by way of q u e s t l o n s J.C. can ask

q u e s t l o n s of	and	s e e any	clocumcnts	p re sen ted
by C.F.

C.F. may c a l l witnesses i f he d e s l r c s .

J . C . can ask q u e s t i o n s o f C.F. ' s w l t n c s s e s ,

J . C . can c a l l w i tnes ses , g i v e evldence and

make submlsslons a s he d e s l r f s

C.F. may ask qucs t lons of any wl tnes s c a l l e d

by J . C .

12 .

Kenbers of t h c C.O.I.I. mail as!: q u c s c ~ o n s of

C . F . , J.C. and wl tncs scs a t any tjmc

I f any member of t h e C.O.N. 1s c a l l e d t o

g lve evidence t h a t me~nbcr o f t h e C.O.M.

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

r e l a t l ~ l g t o t h e charqe on which hc has

given evldcnce b u t may no t d i s c u s s his/

h e r av lcence dur lng c l l s c u s s ~ o n s a f t e r C . F .

has l e f t t h e C.O.14. t o d e l l b e r a t e on t h a t

p a r t i c u l a r charge.

. . . . . . .

AS PRESlDENT OF TEIIS BRANCH I T I S FY DUTY

TO ASK 14ErlBERS OF THE COMi4ITTEE OF !3Ai\jAC;Ei:ENT

TO HEAR TIIE SUB;.lISSIONS AND EVIDCNCT: O r

ALL P A W I E S I E J T H I S IWTTER, TO APPROACII T H I S

1,IATTER WITH KN OPCN IdIND AND TO GIVE ROT14

CARLO AND JI1.1 EVE3.Y ASSISllAi<CC I N P X S E N T I X G

THE FACTS TO YOU SO TEAT YOU CAN JUSTLY

DELIBCiUTE ON TIIE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU ~ ~ L F O R C

iLii1:TNG

ANY DECISION ON ANY OF TI4E CI4ARGES.

I T I S A D I F F I C U L T TIME FOR THE BPANCH AND YOU

ARE CI-IARGED WITH A GREAT R E S P O N S I R I L I T Y I N

DETEFGIINTNG TiIESE CHARGES AGAINST JII.1 CAINS .

EACH EEI.IBCR OF THE COfiU.1Il1TCE OF I,LANAGCXEi<T

HAS BEFORI;: TXEM A COPY OF TIIE RULES OF THE

BRiWCfi AND I URGE YOU TO REFER TO TI!EIK AT

AKY TIElE SHOULD YOU DEEll I1 NECESSARY.

EACII O F YOU HAS A PAD AND PEN AND I AS?: YOU

TO TO TAKE NOTES OF TIIE 14ATERIAL TIIAT WlLL BC

PUT BEFORE YOU TO A S S I S T YOU I N YOUR

DELIBERATIOliS FINALLY, I ASK TIIAT J I i I CAINS

RE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF ANY DOUBT THAT ?'IIGRT

E X I S T I N YOUR MIND I F YOU 'RE MOT FULLY

CONVINCED ON ANY POINT PUT TO YOU."

A f t e r t h e respondent Jenk lns had made h e r

opening remarks, she asked 111 t u r n each member p r e s e n t t o

l n d l c a t e whether t h a t person f c l t d i s q u a l i f i e d from hea r lng

and determining t h e charges . The respondent Blrch s t a t e d t h a t

she could n o t b r l n g an open mind t o t h e c o n s l d e r a t l o n of t h e

charges and thereu2on l e f t t h e meetlng and took no f u r t h e r p a r t

I n t h e hearlncj of t h e charges . The o t h e r respondents remalncd.

The procedure o u t l l n e d i n t h e openlng renarks made by t h e

respondent Jenklns was followed. The respondent J enk lns

conducted t h e meetiny I n an exemplary manner. A f t e r t h e

p rosecu to r p rc scc t ed h l s m a t e r l a l on each charge , t h e c l a m a n t

was asked whether he had anyth lng t o s ay . He r e p l l e d "no c o m ~ e n t " .

On t h e second day t h e c la lmant d i d make some comment, bu t f o r

t h e purpose of t h c s e reasons I cons lde r t h e y were c o n s i s t e n t

13.

13.

w i th a "no c o ~ m c n t " . I n a d d l t l o n t o r e c f i v l n g t l ~ e w r i t t c n

answezs o i-' t h e c l a iman t , t h e Conunlt~ee gave evs ry oppor tus l t y

t o t h e c la imant t o presenk h i s clci_'cncc. Thc rneetlng co.itlnuec?

du r ing normal o f f l c e hours on 1 0 A p r i l . During t h e a f t e rnoon

t h e respondent non -pa r t l c lpa t ion Genpton, i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e aizt j tude o i

adopted by t h e c l a i n a n t , s a l d words t o t h e

eEfec t t h a t t h e meetlng was a mockery, t h a t he r e fused t o

remaln and t h a t t h e c l a m a n t was g ~ u l t y . The respondent

J enk lns rcmlnded hlm t h a t t h e c la lmant had d l s t r l b u t e e t h e

statement made answering the charges bu t t h e respondent Cempton

s a i d vords t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e meetlng was a f a r c e and t h a t

he was golng t o t e l l 111s members t h a t t h e c l a m a n t was g u l l t y .

Gempton then l e f t t h e meetlng and took no f u r t h e r p a r t i n t h e

h e a r l n c of t h e charges . The meeting resumed on t h c mornlng of

11 A p r l l . A f t c r t h e lunch break and a t about 2.30 p.m. t h e

hea r lng oE t h e charges was completed and t h e meeting r e so lved

t h a t a d e c i s l o n be made t h a t Say. The c la lmant and t h e respondent

F r l z z l c r o l e f t t h e meetlng. The remaining nxne members of

t h e conmlittee o f management t h e n consrdered each charge

s e p a r a t e l y including t h e charges conta lned i n each S I ~ J -

paragraph of t h o s e grounds whlch conta ined sub-paragraphs. Under

t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e respondent Jcnlclns, t h e members looked a t

t h e r e l e v a n t branch r u l e , t h e m a t e r i a l p r e scn ted t o them by t h e

respondent F r l z z i e r o and t h e answers t o t h e charges conta lned

I n t h e s t a t emen t d i s t r i b u t e d by t h e c la imant . The members v7ere

d i r e c t e d t o cons lde r t h c wording of t h e r e l e v a n t branch r u l e and

o f branch r u l e 4 0 . Discuss ion ensued between t h e members i n

r e l a t i o n t o each s e p a r a t e charge. Each s e p a r a t e charge was

considered s e p a r a t e l y and when t h e d i s c u s s i o n s on t h a t charge had

ceased, t h e respondent Jenklns asked i n t u r n each member p r e s e n t

whether he o r she found t h e c la imant g u i l t y o r n o t g u i l t y

of t h e p a r t l c u l a r charge being cons idered , A i t c r each ground s e t

o u t i n t h e s w , o n s had been f l n a l l y conslclercd, t h e committcc

a p p l l e d branch r u l e 40 t o t h a t ground and indicated t h a t t h e

comrnlttee would d l smlss t h e c la imant , o r r a t h e r remove hlm

from o f f1cc a s s e c r e t a r y of t h e branch, I n p a r t l c u l a r t h e

committee d l d n o t cons ldc r whether t o Impose any o t h c r pena l ty

o r t o impose no p e n a l t y a t a l l . A t about 4.30 p.m. t h e c la lmant

was r e c a l l e d t o t h e meetlng and lnformed of t h e r e s u l t s reached

by t h e conm~i t tee . He was t o l d t h a t he had been founcl g u i l t y of

1 4 .

each charge inc luded l n grnuncl 1 and t h e r e f o r e \$as d.'!>ll ,cd

from o f f l c e , t h a t he had been found g u l l ty of c,ich c h a r f ~ e

included i n ground 2 and t h e r e f o r e was d l smlssed from o f f l c e ,

t h a t he had been founcl n o t gu i lhy of t h e charge con! a m c d i n

ground 3 , t h a t he had been found g u l l t y of t h c chargc conta lned

i n ground 4 ( a ) and t h e r e f o r e was d i s n l s s e d from o f f l c e , bu t t h e

charge conta lned i n ground 4 ( b ) had been wlt!ldra?-;n, t h a t hc had

been founcl n o t g u i l t y of t h e charges conta lned i n grounds

5 and 6 , t h a t h e had been found g u l l t y by 8 vo te s t o 1 0:. the

charge conta lned l n ground 7 and t h e r e f o r e was dismissed from

o f f i c e , t h a t he had been found g u i l t y by 8 vo te s t o 1 on the c h ~ r q c

conta ined i n ground 8 and t h e r e f o r e was dlsniissed from o f f l c e ;

t h a t he had been found n o t g u i l t y of t h e charge conta lned

i n ground 9 ( a ) b u t g u i l t y of t h e charge conta lned i n 9 ( b ) and

t h e r e f o r e was dlsmlsscd from o f f i c e and t h a t he had been found

n o t g u l l t y o f t h e charge conta ined i n ground 10.

Slnce 11 A p r i l 1979 the c la lmant has been

depr ived of h i s s a l a r y a s secretary of t h e Victorian branch.

IIe h a s no o t h e r income and 111s revova l from o f f l c e has

lmposed seve re f l n a A c i a l burdens upon him. He w l l l f l n d it

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

he had r ece lved a s s e c r e t a r y .

Evldence was given by each of t h e 9 respondents

who on 11 A p r i l 1979 participated i n t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s of t h e

committee. Each was s u b j e c t e d t o s t r o g g and vlgorous c ross -

exammation on whether he o r she was prejudiced a g a l n s t t h e

c la lmant and whether by reason of p a s t a c t l o n s could approach t h e

m a t t e r w l th an open mind. I t was p u t t h a t the! w l tnes s had

prejudged t h e c l a m a n t and would look t o s e e l f he could prove

h i s innocence. I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t each of t h e 9 respondents ,

t o t h e e x t e n t o f h l s o r h e r c a p a b l l l t l c s , d l 6 cons lde r t h e

charges and d i d p a r t l c i p a c e i n t h e d e l l b e r a t i o n s i n t h c manner

described by t h e respondent Jenklns i n h e r preliminary renzrks

and t h e r e a f t e r under h e r c a r e f u l guldance dur lng t h e course of

t h e h e a r l n g o f t h e charges and t h e d e l l b e r a t i o n s by t h e members

of t h e committee .

Before deallnrr ~ i l t 1 1 t h e l e g a l l s s u c ? s r a l h ,.cl

s c v c r a l m a t i e r s c a l l f o r m e n ~ i o n . The Conm1itir.e comprises 15

pcrson2 , branch r u l e 9 , and 8 members conpr l sc a quorum,

branch r u l e 31. The c la lmant o b j e c t s t o a t l e a s t 8 of t h e

respondents p a r t l c l p a t l n g l n any d e l i b c r a t l o n s of t h e Committee

which considers charges a g a l n s r him. I t follo~. 's t h a t a t t h e

p r e s e n t t ime, i f t h o s e 8 a r e excluded, t h e absence of a quorum

would p reven t t h e Comm~ttee hea r ing ai?y o f the charges ac;a lns t

t h e c la lmant .

I t is w e l l t o remember t h a t a s e c r e t a r y of a

branch o f an o r g a n l s a t l o n who e n t e r s l n t o t h e con t r cve r sy of an

e l e c t l o n f o r members t o t h e co rml t t ce of management of t h a t branch,

especially when t h e s e c r e t a r y i s n o t a candidate a t t hose

e l e c t i o n s , r u s t f a c c t h e consequences of h l s intervention. A s

was t r u l y s a l d by Joske J. i n r e E l c c t l o n s f o r O I l l c e s i n t h e

E l e c t r i c a l Trades Unlon (N.S.W. Branch) ( 1 9 6 1 ) 3 F .L .R. a t pp.90-1:

"A s e c r e t a r y should r c a l l s e t h a t evcn

though hies own o f f l c e may be 111 leopardy

i n an e l e c t i o n , whl le he remalns a s e c r e t a r y

he has a du ty t o a l l members t o behave f a l r l y and i n ~ p a r t l a l l y . I n my vlew 14r

Dolan e n t l r e l y f a i l e d t o c a r r y o u t a

f j d u c l a r y duty whlch a s e c r e t a r y should

regard a s a most important duty c a s t

upon him. "

I n t h e statement read by Mr. Romanln t o

t h e Committee, r e f e r e n c e was made t o t h e possibility of t h e charges

ac jms t tile clakmt Lclng l a l d befo1:e t h e Fede ra l Councll . I t

was sought t o j u s t i f y t h i s course under f e d e r a l r u l e 1 2 , t h e

r e l e v a n t p a r t of

whlcn "12 DUTIES AXD POXERS Or FEDERriL COUNCIL. r e a d s a s fo l lows :

( a ) ... t h e Fede ra l Council s h a l l supe rv l sc

t h e d u t l e s of Officers, and s h a l l have

power t o d l s n i s s , suspend o r remove from

any o f f i c e , a n y o f E l c e r o r s e r v a n t of

t h e Association f o r m ~ s c o n d u c t proved a q a i n s t

hlm, provided t l i a t a l l o f f l c e r s and

s e r v a n t s s h a l l have t h e r l g h t of appea l ing

t o t h e n e x t meeting o f t h e Federa l

Councl l . The d e c l s i o n o f the Federa l

Councll i s final."

I n t h a t r u l e t h e words "any o f f l c e r " r e f e r t o a;iY Federal

O f f l c e r be ing any of t h e o f f l c e r s of t h e 17cdera1 Councll , -

s e e Federa l Rules 1 7 and 1 8 and n o t t o an o f f l c c r u l t h l n a

branch. Fede ra l Rule 12 dccs n o t con fe r on Federa l Counci l

a powcr t o remove a ?erson from a branch o f f i c e . Such a

person i s n o t "any o f f i c e r " v71thin t h e rreanlng o f Federal

Rule 1 2 . t h e c la lmant could n o t be brought bc fo I t fo l lows t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e charyes a g a l n s t

? t h e Federa l Council

under f e d e r a l r u l e 1 2 .

It i s c l e a r t h a t t h e p r l n c l p l e s of n a t u r a l

j u s t ~ c e a r e t o be a p p l i e d wi t11 r e s p e c t t o t h e proceedings

be fo re the Corrmlttce. Counsel f o r t h e claimaht-. submi t ted

t h a t n a t u r a l j u s t ~ . c e had been denled t o t h e c la~.mant i n t-$10

major r e s p e c t s . He subml t te6 t h a t each of t h e e leven members

who c o n s t i t u t e d t h e Committee when i t met on 1 0 A p r i l had,

by t h e i r p rev ious a c t l o n s i nc lud ing t h e prosecution o f charges

based on f a c t s s l m l l a r t o t hose upor? which t h e c la lmant was

then charged and t h e l r p a r t ~ c i ~ a t i o n i proceedings whlch

found t h e c la imant g u l l t y o f t h o s e charqes hearc? on 31

January 1979, pre judged t h e charges then p re sen ted a g a l n s t

t h e c la imant and thus were g u i l t y of b l a s a g a l n s l h1m. A s a

m a t t e r of procedure , particulars of b l a s had been given wl th

r e s p e c t t o s l x o f t hose persons on ly and a s a r e s u l t , Counsel

d l d n o t r e l y upon t h e o t h e r t h r e e persons bclng g u i l t y of b l a s .

Of t h e s e t h r e e , t h e respondent Birch had d i sc jua l l f l ed h e r s e l f

and the respondent Gempton had r e t l r e d from t h e meetlng i n t h e

a f t e rnoon o f 1 0 A p r l l . The second Inajor r e s p e c t i n ~ h l c h i t

was claimed t h a t n a t u r a l j u s t l c c had been den~.ed t o t h e

claimant was a l l e g e d t o r e s u l t from t h e r e I u s a l of t h e Commlttce

t o a l low M r . Romanln t o r e p r e s e n t t h e c l a lman t i n the

proceedings be fo re t h e Committee.

I n - R . v. Watson ex p a r t e Armstrong (1976)

--

136 C.L.R. 248, t h e Illgh Court considered t h e principles t o

be a p p l i e d i n determlnlng whether a t i - lhunal e x e r c l s l n g

j u d l c l a l o r q u a s i - j u d l c i a l functions was g u l l t y o f h a s . I n

a j o l n t a t pp.258-262 j u d g ~ ~ e n t Barwlck C . J . Glbbs, Stephen and Mason JLJ.

cons idered a nwcber o f a u t h o r l t l e s on t h ~ s

i s s u e and a t pp.262-3 s a i d :

"The view t h a t a Judqe should n o t s i t t o

hear a c a s e l f i n a l l t h e circuixstances t l i r

p a r t i e s o r t h e p u b l i c might reasonabiy

s u s : e c t t h a t he was noc unpre jud jccJ ?.!-.d

impartial, and t h a t 11 a judqc does s l t

l n those c l rcumstanccs pro111 b ~ t l o n r i l l1

11-c, i s n o t on ly supported by t h e

ba lance of authority a s lt now s t a n d s

b u t is c o r r e c t i n p r i n c i p l e . It would

be wrong t o regard t h e obse rva t ions of

Lord IIevart C . J . I n R. v. Susses J u s t l c e s ;

W a r t e XcCarthy [l9241 1 R.B. a t p.253

a s meanlng t h a ~ t h e appearance of j u s t l c e

i s o f more lmvortance t!lan t h e a t t a lnmcn t

of j u s t l c e i t s e l f : c f . lieq. v. Cain3orne

J u s t l c e s ; E x p a r t e Pearce [l9551 1 Q.B.,

a t p.52. I-Iowever, h l s s ta tement o f

p r ~ n c l p l e , whlch was r e c e n t l y reaffirmed

i n t h l s c o u r t l r i S t o l l e c y v.-Greyhound Racing Cont ro l Board (1972) 128 C.L.C.

509, a t pp.518-519 does go t o t h e h e a r t

of t h e m a t t e r . It 1s o f fundamental

importance t h a t t h e p u b l l c should have

conf idence i n t h e a d i r i n l s t r a t l o n o f

j u s t i c e . I f fair-minded people reasonably

apprehend o r s u s p e c t t h a t t h e t r l b u n a l has

prejudged t h e c a s e , t hey cannot have

confidence i n t h e d e c l s l o n . To r e p e a t

t h e words of Lord Dennlng M.R. \illlch have

a l r eady been c l t e d , ' J u s t i c e must be

roo ted in ' con f ldcncc : and conf idence i s

des t royed when rlght-mlnded pcople go

away thinlclng: ' The Judge was b l a sed . ' "

I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e Commlttee i s n o t

a t r i b u n a l w i t h l n t h e meaning of e x e r c l s l n g j u d i c i a l o r quas l - ]ud lc i a l functions

t h o s e words a s used 1.n - R . v. Watson c x

p a r t e Armstronq, supra . The Commlttee i s a body c o n s t l t u t c d

by t h e r u l e s of t h e Assoc l a t l on . I t is a domestic t r l b u n a l

e x e r c i s l n y powers con fe r r ed on it by t h e r u l e s of t h e

Assoc la t lon . I n t h e e x e r c l s e of l t s powers, t h e Conunlttee

must ensu re t h a t lt proceeds according t o t h e r u l e s o f t h e

Assoc l a t i on . Of n e c e s s i t y t h e neinbers of t h e Corrmlttee must

bc involved in any cont roversy a f f e c t i n g one o f t h c l r number.

Branch r u l e 4 0 c o n f c r s on t h e Commlttee t h e power t o hear

and d e t e r n i n e charges hrought a g a i n s t one of t h e l r number.

The p r l o r involvement o f t h e membsrs o f t h e Comrnlttee i n t h e

cont roversy l e a d i n g up t o t h e bringing of charges a g a l n s t one

of t h c l r number cannot d i s q u a l i f y them Irom h e a r i n 5 and

determlng t h o s e charges , Australian Worlcers Union -

v. Bov7en (1948) 77 C.L.R. G 0 1 p e r Dlxon J. a t 630-1. But

n o t w i - t h s t ~ n d i n g Chls, t h e r u l c s oE Che Assoc la t lon a r c t o bc

l n t e r p r e t c d a s belng s u b j e c t t o t h e under lyinq c o n d l t ~ o n t!~>~t

t h e proceedings brought undcr branch r u l e 4 0 should bc carrlccl

on i n accordance wi th t h e fundamental principles of n a t u r a l

- ~ u s t i c e , see O'Connor J. 111 - Dlckason v. E&darcis (1310) 10 C . L . R .

243 a t 255 quoted 5 ~ 1 t h approval by Dlxon J. I n A u s t r a l i a n Workcrs

Union v . Eowen, supra a t p. 631. kf t e r r e f e r ; lily t o t h a t

quotation from the ludgment of O'Connor J . , Dlson J . continued

a t p.631:

"I t i s n o t i n accordance wl th t h e

principles of n a t u r a l j u s t i c e t a have

p r e s e n t a s a member o f t h e t r l b u n a l

a person who has promoted t h e charge

and suppor t s it a s t n c p r a s e c u t o r o r one

who is invincibly b ia s sed a g a l n s t t h e

accused a s a r e s u l t of 111s p a r t l c l p a t l o n

I n t h e cont roversy , and t h l s was t h e

c a s e w i t h Dougherty. If a person

d l s q u a l i f l e d by such considerations

s l ts wl th t h e t r l b u n a l and t a k e s p a r t

i n t h e clecislon, t h a t i s enough t o

v i t l a t e it: Dickasoil v. Cdwards ."

Counsel f o r t h e c l a m a n t s u b r ~ l t t c d t h a t

t h e members of	t h e Comnlttee had s o conducted themselves p r i o r t o
t h e meetlng on	1 0 A p r i l t h a t each was b lased t o such a degree

a s t o v i t i a t e t h e d e c l s l o n s made a t t h a t meeting. The person

m a k ~ n g t h e charges and p rosecu t ing therr. bef o r e t h e Comllt t e e ,

t h e respondent P r l z z i e r o , d i d n o t participate i n t h e d e l l b e r a t i o n s

of t h c committee. The ques t lon t o be determined, t h e r e f o r e , is

whether t h e o t h e r members of t h e Committee who d l d p a r t l c l p a t e

i n t h e d e l i b e r a t l c n s were b l a sed t o t h e e x t e n t necessary t o

v l t l a t e t h e decisions made. Except t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e word

" j n v i n c l b l e " has t h e s t r o n g meaning of r e f e r r i n g t o s o m e t h ~ n g

t h a t cannot be overcome, J do n o t f l n d t h e phrase " inv1nclSly

b l a sed" easy t o apply. It i s n o t sufficient t o establish t h a t

l t mlght reasonably be apprehended o r suspec t ed by falr-mlnded

persons t h a t t h e Conuulttee may n o t determine t h e m a t t e r s be fo rc

them wi th an unpreludiced mind, c . f . - R. v . IVatson Ex p a r t e

Armstronq, s u p r a , s e e X a l o n e ~ v. New South I lales Nat lona l COLE~.,..~

Assoc la t lon [l9781 N.S.W.L.R. 1 6 1 p e r Glass J . A . a t pp.168-0. Tn

iny opinion t h e t e s t t o be npp l l ed 111 th? p r o s e n t c a s e , 1s

whether, havii-ig r e y s r d t o t h e r u l e s o f Lhc as so cl^ ion and a l l

t h e surroundlnc; c l rcumstanccs of tile c a s e , t h e m'r~ibers of the

C o n m t t e e who p a r t l c l p a t e d i n the proceedings on 1 0 A p r i l and

/

11 A p r i l were a b l e t o exercise t h e powers confer red upon them

by t h e r u l e s of the Assoc l a t l on i n a f a i r and rcasonablc nianiwr.

I n apply lng t h i s t e s t , p a r t i c u l a r emphasis must be g~ve1-1 t o t h e

f a c t t h a t lt is necessary t h a t t h e members oE t h e commlttce

of management should e x e r c l s e t h e l r ;,owexs I a i r l y with r e s p e c t

t o t h e c la lmant .

Leaving aside t h e questions 05 whether

M r . Romanln should have been al lowed t o r e p r e s e n t t h e claimant

and whether t h e committee should have e::erclsed a d i s c r s t l o n a s

t o t h e p e n a l t y t o b e imposed, Counsel f o r t h e c la lmant d l d noc,

and l n f a c t could n o t , make complaint a g a l n s t t h e procedures

adopted by t h e Committee 111 t h e h e a r l n g and dc t e rm~n ln r j of t h e

charges made a g a i n s t t h e c l a iman t . Counsel submitted ho'ircver,

t h a t by t h e i r p rev lous a c t l o n s t h e members, i n vary lng degrees ,

had s o prejudged some o f t h e charges a g a i n s t t h e c l a ~ m a n t t h a t

t hey could n o t hea r anh deternune t h e charges f a l r l y and

reasonably , o r , a s he p u t i t , t h a t they were b ' a s e d t o such a

degree a s t o v l t i a t e t h e decisions made. He r e l l e d upon t h e

involvement of t h e respondents i n discussing and vo t lng on tine

m a t t e r s a l r eady r e f e r r e d t o a t t h e rreetlng on 23 November 1978,

t h e t h r e a t of t h e respondent Pannagopoulos, t h e laylncj of t h e

charges da t ed 30 November 1978 by sone o f t h e respondents , and t h e

hea r lng and determining of t h e s e charges adve r se ly t o t h e c l almant

on 30 January 1979. IIe submi t ted t h a t t h l s showed t h a t t h o s e

respoildents had s o prejudged t h e m a t t e r s t h a t some o f them a t

l e a s t app l l ed a " r eve r se onus" w l th r e s p e c t t o t h e c la lmant cd f .

Clewortn v. Barrow -- (1978) 2 0 A.L.R. 359, t o t h e e x t e n t of cons lder lng

111m g u l l t y of t h e charges u n l e s s he could show he was n o t g u l l t y .

I n a d d l t l o n , Counsel r e l i e d upon wRat he desc r ibed a s evldence of

" co rpo ra t e b i a s " t o suppor t h l s submission. These f a c t o r s r e l a t e d tn

Uli- sunuaq n>annerin whlch t h e Cornmlttee r e fused t o a l low h i r . Romanln

t o r e p r e s e n t t h e c la~ .mant a t t h e hea r lng of t h e charges and s o

deciding wi thout a s c e r t a l n l n y h l s s t a t u s and t h e f a l l u r c of the

commlttce t o c o n s l d e r any pena l ty o t h e r than removal from o f f l c e .

2 0

20.

I11 suppor t of h l s subinlsslon he r ~ l ~ r d by way o f l l l u , t i ~ l l o n

anc? analogy on a u t h o r l t l e s such a s Ausl.r71i?ii V:cl-!.-.rs I' .ljr.n v.

- - - . - . - -

Bowen, sup ra , Leezrtn v. General Coun-I ! c>: Mec:~cal C~l1:- .].on ,3ncl P-. - --. .

Reqls tra ' : lon,	(1890) 43 Ch.D	366 p a r t l ~ u l a r l y	p c r	Cotcoi,	L . J .
--

-.

a t 379, - Frome Unlt?r! Erewerlc.: Conpany Ltc l . v. ncepcrs of t h e

- - -p- --

Peace and J u s t i c e s f o r t h e County Bo-couql- o f Bath, W [1.926] A.C.

586, Taylor v . National - Union oE Seamm [l9671 1 I1.L.R. 532, -

Rocbuck v. i k t l o n a l Union of Minc Workers [l9771 I . C . R . 573,

R . v. Equal Opportuniti* Board e:; p a r t e Ansetl; T r z n s ~ o l - t T , " ' L I S ~ ~ ~ P S

-. -

- Ltd. unrepor ted 2 0 February 1979 and Cleworth v. Barrow, supra .

I n my opinion t h e c l a iman t has n o t established t h a t

t h e members of the Commlttee who hc.3rd and determlned t h e chargcs

a g a l n s t t h e c l a m a n t were s o b l a s e d a s t o v i t i a t e t h e d e c l s l o n s

made. I n reach lng t h i s conclusion I r e l y upon t h e f i n d i n g s of

f a c t a l r eady s e t o u t . Some only of t h e charges heard and

determlned r e l a t e d t o ma t t e r s previously d e a l t w l t h by t h e variol-1s

respondents . I t was submitted t h a t t h e Lime f o r determining

whether b l a s e x l s t e d o r n o t was a t t h e t l n e t h e mcetinq conmenced.

I n my opinion t h l s i s too r e s t r i c t e d a view. The whole of t h c

proceedlngs must be consi.derec1. The charges l a l d were brought

under branch r u l e 40,. it 1s no answer t o say t h a t d i f f e r e n t

proceedings a l l e g i n g d i f f e r e n t o f f e n c e s b u t involving t h e same f a c t s

could have been brought under branch r u l c s 18 and 38 which provlde

f o r charges t o be l a d a g a l n s t members of t h c branch. Lil.;cwlse,

t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f f e d e r a l r u l e 4 1 A do n o t apply t o a l l ow charges

t o be brought thereunder f o r t h e purpose of removlng a brznch

o f f l c e r from o f f l c e by a convoluted s e r l e s o f procedures of

doub t fu l validity. The charges were brought under branch r u l e

4 0 and t h e form of t h e summons made it c l e a r t h a t l f Lhe chargzs o r

any 01 them were proved, removal from oZf lce would r e s u l t . The

f a c t t h a t t h e Commlttee d i d n o t cons ide r t h e p o s s ~ b l l l t y of

n o t lmposlng t h e p e n a l t y of removal from o f f l c e docs no t sup2or t

t h e a l l e g a t i o n of b l a s . More impor t an t ly , ho:~ever, under

the branch r u l e s , t h e Commlttee was t h e on1.y bociy empowered t o h e a r

and determine t h e charges brought agaj n s t t h e c la imant . E a r l l e r

proceedlngs i n r e l a t l o n t o some s l m l l a r charges had mlsca r r l ed

and decisions then mase were i n v a l i d . The committee of nanaqemcnt

proceeded a f r e s h c / f . Rldge v. Dalliwin [ l 9 6 4 1 A . C . 4 0 p e r Lord Rcld

a t p.79. I n p a r t i c u l a r t h e proceedings beEore thc ConunltCee

were conducted under f a i r and c l e a r l e a d e r s h i p by t h e respondent

Jenkins . The f a c t s i n Clewol-th v . Barrow, sup ra , a r e mar1:eLly 21.

different flom the f a c t s i n t h e p r c s c n t case dnc! noti11.n~

s a i d i n t h a t c a s e prevel l ts t h e f l n d l n g s mddc i n t h e p r e s c n t

ca se . The c la lmant was founcl n o t g u l l t y of t h c charges s r i s l n g

o u t o f t h e c l r c u l a r d l s t r l b u t c d hy t h e c l a m a n t , grcuncls 3 and

1 0 . Although t h e charges cor:Lalned i n grounds 3 anci 10 bn re

d i f f e r e n t t o t h o s e p rev ious ly d e a l t wl th by t h e Cornml t i e e , t h e f a c t

t h a t t h e c la lmant was found n o t g u i l t y o f t hose charges does ,

t o some e x t e n t , s u p p o r t t h e f a c t Ulat t h e members of the

Committee cons ldercd t h e charges i n a f a i r and r e spons lL lc way.

The warnlng given by t h e p r e s i d e n t a t t h e beginning of t h e

proceedings was designed t o ensu re t h a t t h e members of t h e

Committee e x e r c i s e d t h e l r powers f a l r l y and reasonably . The

f a c t t h a t some of t h o s e menibers, i n t h e course of c r o s s euamlnat lon,

indicated t h a t a " r eve r se onus" may have a p p l i e d , i n t roduces a

degree of s u b t l e n e s s which i s nndes i r ab l e i n m a t t e r s of t h i s

k lnd. F l e ~ e r s of a ju ry i n a c r l m i n a l t c l a l cannot be c ros s -

examlncd a s t o t h e l r method of determlng t h e g u l l t of an accused

person. Wnen t h e members of t h e Comnilttee, i n t h e e s e r c l s e of

powers con fe r r ed upon them by t h e r u l e s of t h e Association, procccdecl

t o determine t h e charges I n a manner s l r n i l a r t o t h a t o f a j u ry ,

t h e particular thought p roces ses of lnclivldilal rn~mbers of t h e

conmnttee should n o t be al lowed t o be used t o cha l l enge dec i s lo l l s

nlade rzhicl: have been a r r i v e d a t by apply lng procedures whlcil a r e

f a i r and reasonable . I w i l l cons ide r l a t e r t h e a s p e c t o f the

r e f u s a l t o a l low Mr. Romanin t o reL>resc-nt t h e clalr ' iant .

I n concluding t h i s p a r t of my reasons f o r

~ u d g m e l ~ t i i s u s c f u l t o r e f e r t o what was s a i d i n Holmes v . O'Toolc

( 1 9 5 7 ) 1 F.L.R. by Dunphy J. a t p.232:

" A s Riordan t h c r e f o r e came on t o

t h e t r i b u n a l by v l r t u e of h l s o f f l c e

and under the r u l e s of t h e orcjanizat lon,

he had both a r l q h t and a l u t y t o

a c t t he rcon . The view of t h e r n a ~ o r l t y

l n Eowcn ' s Case demonstra tes t h a t t h e s e

f a c t o r s do n o t aut1ior;ze t h e presence on

such a t r i b u n a l of a person ' i n v i n c t b l y

b i a s s e d ' a g a r n s t an accused, bu t a l s o

p rov ldcs s t anda rds upon wl~lch quest1 011s

of b l a s may be judged. I t seciiis t o me

t h a t t h e evidence f o r t h e applicant

h e r e i n r e f e r r e d t o docs n o t contorln

t o such s t anda rds . To hold o the r t r l s e

would be tantamount t o say lng t h a t

22.

persons p o l i t l c o l l y opposcd t o each

o t h e r and vho fight their p o l l l l c a l

b a t t l e s on a bLxsis of i ~ t - ' : - s o n a l l t ~ ? s ,

a r e incompetent t o s l t i n f a i r

judgmcn t upon t h e l r opponents when,

throuqh t l~c l r o f f ~ c e , they become

members of a tribunal chargcd wl th

such a duty . It should be rcme~nbcred

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

Act r e q u i r e s re53.stered o r g a n l z a t l o n s

t o p rov ide i n t h e l r r u l c s f o r a system of

e l c c t l o n o f o f f i c e r s and, a s elections of

a l l d e s c r l p t l o n s a r c , u n I o r t u n a t e l y ,

f r e q u e n t l y conducted on b l t t e r and

pe r sona l i s s u e s , lt i s most unll lcely

t h a t members o f union tribunals could

escape a charge o f b l a s 1 E what t hey

s a i d about t h e l r opponents was t o be

t aken , of 1 t s e l f , a s conclusive evidence.

I t would be a very convenient p o s i t l o n

f o r a r e c a l c i t r a n t uni.on member t o be

i n , f o r , a s long a s he was i n opposition,

he could deny t h e r l g h t o f t h e r u l l n g

execu t ive t o s l t l n ]udgment upon hlm

because of what t hey might have s a l d

about hlm du r lng an e l e c t l o n cmnpalgn.

Th i s , I n e f f e c t , i s what t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s

f l r s t submission arrountcd t o . "

I n any e v e n t , i f c o n t r a r y t o my opin ion , t h e

. .

members of t h e Committee who heard and determined t h e charges a g a l n s t t h e c la lmant were s o b l a s e d a g a i n s t t h e c la lmant t h a t

t h e d e c l s l o n s of t h e conimlttee o therwisc would be v i t i a t e d ,

n e v e r t h e l e s s , I would ho ld t h a t , by reason of necessity, t h o s e

decisions should n o t be t r e a t e d a s bclng l n v a l l d . I n t h c e v e n t s

whlch have happened and on t h e hypo thes i s s t a t c d , no quorum o f

t h e Coinnnttee could be ob ta lned t o h e a r and determine t h e charges

a q a i n s t the c l a lman t . Thcre i s no c e r t a i n t y t h a t following t h e

1979 e l c c t l o n s , t h e composition of t h e Cor~lmlttee would perml t of

a quorum f o r t h a t purpose. The c la l inant would have an lmrnun~ty.

The more outrageous h i s conduct t h e g r e a t e r t h a t lmmunlty. For

rcasons a l r eady g lven , no o t h e r body w l t h i n t h e Assoc l a t l oc has

authority under t h e r u l c s ol-' hhc Assoc l a t l on t o hear and detfr;yirle

the charges contaj-ned i n t h e 1 0 grounds s p e c i f l e e I n t h e sul~*~,ons

a g a l n s t t h e c l a m a n t . It 1s no answer t o say t h a t d l C i c r e n t charqes

acjalnst t h e clal inant cou ld be d e a l t v l t h under o t h e r r u l c s of t h e

Association o r branch.

I n making h l s submlsslons on t h l s p a r t of t h e

ca se , Counsel f o r t h e respondents re l - led upon s t a t c r~ l en t s a2pear lng

111 Wade, A d m ~ n i s t r a t l v e Law, 4 th E d . , a t pp.405-G, and 467-8-

2 3 L

, . 2 3 .

The cplcomc! o f t h e v-ews cxp res - 1 1 1 t hosc p I!; s c t

o u t a ? p.405 a s fo l lows:

" I n 211 tile c a s e s s o Ear mentioned

t h e d l s f ; u a l l f l e d a d l u d l c a t o r could b e

dlspznsed iqlth o r r e p l a c e by sortbeone

t o whom t h e objection d l d n o t apply.

But t h e r e a r c many cnses where no

s ~ b s t l t u t i o n 1s possible, s l n c e no

ol?e e l s e i s ern20wered t o a c t . Natura l

justice thcn has t o g l v e way t o

necessity, f o r o therwise t h e r e i s ,?o

meens of dec ld lng and t h e machinery

of j u s t l c e o r a d n l ~ n l s t r a t l o n w l l l

break down. "

Counsel f o r t h e c l a m a n t rel . led upon Low v.

Char te red I n s t l t u t e of Pa tenc Agents [ l 9 1 9 1 2 Ch. 276,

especially p e r Eve J. a t p.209, b u t i n t h a t c a s e no r e f e r e n c e

was made t o t h e application o f t h e p r l n c l p l e o f necessity

empowering t h e conmlt tee of an a s s o c l a t l o n t o cletermlne

d l s c l p l i n a r y charges a q a l n s t a member trhere o therwlsc t hose

charges could no t be heard and determined by the comnit tee

because of t h e app l i cac lon o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f n a t u r a l j u s t l c e .

I n my op ln ion , on t h e f a c t s of t h e p r e s e n t

c a s e , t h e dec l s ions .o f t h e Conunittee a r e n o t i n v a l l d .

I t u r n now t o cons lde r whether t h e r e f u s a l

of t h e Commnttee of management t o a l l ow Mr. Konanin t o r e p r e s e n t

t h e c la lmnnt constituted s u f f l c l e n t reasons t o l n v a l l d a t e t h e

d e c i s i o n subsequent ly made by t h e committee. I f found g u l l t y of

t h e charges l a l d , t h e c l a m a n t v;oulci be del>.[-ived of h l s l lxrel ihood.

He hc ld a s t r o n g e r p o s l t l o n than an o f f l c e w l t h l n t h e V i c t o r i a n branch and t h u s was i n

a member of t h e branch who d l d n o t have

any knowledge of t h e r u l e s of t h e Assoc la t ion o r t h e branch and

d l d n o t have experience galned from o f f l c e . The c l a iman t , a s

s e c r e t a r y , should have been I n a p o s l t l o n t o be a b l e t o p r e s e n t

a defence on h l s bcha l f particul;rly when t h e o t h e r m~inhcrs of t h e

committee were i n no b e t t e r p o s l t l o n a s Ear a s professional advice

was concerned. I n t h e absence o f s p e c l f i c p r o v l s l o n s i n t h e r u l c s

o f tile represc-,ited by an agen t , whether a lawycr 01: Assoc l a t l on , t h e c la imant cild n o t have t h c r l g h t t o be

no t . A t t h e very most

the Comrnlttce had a discretion t o a l low t h e c la lmant t o be s o

r ep re sen ted ; s ce - R. v. City o f 1.ielbourne; - e x p a r t e Nhytc 119991 V . L .

757 and t h e c z s e s t h e r e l n cl tecl , McNab v . Auburr, Soccer SlJortq

2 4 .

Cl.u1> L t d . - - (1975) 1 N.S.!:.L.R. 54 . ~ n d thc c 3 s c - t l - ~ c r c l n C A C C : ~

and R . v. V l s i t l n q J u s t ~ c e a t El(= -- ] r : s t v f s P r i C L ' L ? t ~ . ~ * i c ~ s ,

-- - -- .-

~~-"?::eJ-i-l-ic~ 1975 V.R. 883 ;,nd t h e c. s e s thcr.~:ln c l t c i l .

Counsel f o r t!lc c la imant sul@:;tted thL i t o ! ~

t h e evldence t h e meixbers of the Conmlttec d l d n o t cJlr;c any

r e a l c o n s l d c r a t i o n t o t h e d ~ s c r e t i o n con1.-rred on Chcn. Hc salt1

t h a t a number o f t hose men?Ixrs i n dcclcllng t o r e f u s e pcrr?l.sslon.

fol lo t red a s be lng a b s o l u t e , a p r a c t l c e o r p o l i c y o f t h e branch

n o t t o permi t s t r a n g e r s t o a t t e n d meetings o f t h e Coni~l>lttee.

He s a i d t h i s gave t o t h e practice 01: p o l l z y t h e same e f f e c t

a s a r u l e of t h e Assoc j a t l on and t h a t t h i s y,ras wrono s ~ . n c c

it prevented t h e Con~mlttee from e,:erclslng i t s d l s c r e t l o n

p r o p e r l y and thus v l t i a t e d t h e whole of t h e subsequent

proceedlngs . He s a i d a l s o t h a t i f t h e C o r a l t t e e had sought

c l a r ~ f l c a t l o n of t h e s t a t u s o f M r . Romani-I, t h e members mlght

have reached a d i f f e r e n t conc lus ion . Jn suppor t o f t h c s e

s S m i s s l o n s , !le r e l i e d upon t h e op in lons expressed by Lord

Dennlng	I n Eiiderby	Town	Foo tba l l Club Ltd.	v .	F o c t b a l l
--

Associated Ltd. [l9711 Ch. 591 a t pp.605-6. 111 my opinion t h e

c l a iman t , on t h i s ' p a r t of h l s application, has no t e s t a b l i s h e d 2

lxeacll of ornon-compliance w l t h t h e requirements o f n z t u r a l

j u s t l c e . None o f t h e members o f t h e Committee hea r lng t h e

proceedlngs hacl had l e g a l experience. They were employees

engaged i n t h e industry i n whlch t h e Assoc l a t l on 1s registered

and a t t ended t o t h e a f f a ~ r s of t h e Assoc i a t i on jn t h e l r s p a r e

t ime o r w l t h t h e l eave of tl;elr er,!>loyers. There 1s noth ing

i n h e r e n t l y wrong wi th t h e p r a c t l c e o r p o l l c y adopted by t h e

Commlttee o f exc lud ing s t r a n g e r s from t h e l r meetings and

t h e application of t h a t p r a c t i c e o r p o l l c y cannot be s a l d t o

r e s u l t i n a f a i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e p rope r ly t h e dlscret1.011

con fe r r ed on then?. The s e c r e t a r y was a ? u l l t ime pa ld o f f i c l a l

of t h e branch. I E anything, be1r.g t h e ho lde r 01 t h i s o f f l c e

placed him i n an advantageous pos l t ~ o n w ~ t h r c s p c c t LO t h e

o t h e r members of t h e Commlttee. The assistant s e c r e t a r y bias

n o t r e p r e s e n t s d by an agen t . The Con,~nittcc islere entitled t o

apply t h e p o l l c y of t h e branch t ~ l t h o u t s c c k l n r ~ c1ai : l f lca t lon o f

t h e s t a t u s of Fir. Romanln. The r e f u s a l t o a l l ow r e p r e s e n t s t l n

does n o t invalidate t h e decisions subsequent ly made

Counscl f o r t h e respondent su!mlt tcd t h a t 2,j.

i n any evenI-, by renlninlng a t t h c i7.c c t l nr; and C ~ . I S [ - ~ ~ J , U ~ L I I , ~

h i s answer LO the c l ~ a r < ~ c s , the clalnr- -lt had wa~v.:cl any

r l g h t s he may liave had resulting from a non-corn:~l~, 'n~c of

t h e rec1ulrelnen:s of n a t u r a l l u s c l c e . Hr: r c l lcci upon

a u t h o r i t l c s such as R. v. 14agls:rates' C o ~ r t a t 1,- ',1(131e;

- .. -

cx p a r t e Cicconl L19731 V.R. 1 2 2 . IIavlnrj r ega rd t o t h s

--p

opln lons a l r e a d y expressed it i s n o t necessary £01 nle

t o exp res s any op ln lon on t h i s s u b i ~ ~ s s l o n , bu t f o r t h e

sake of conple teness and assuming t h e defence of waiver

1s open t o t h e respondents , on t h e f a c t s of this c a s e , t h e

c l a m a n t d i d n o t walve	any	r l y h t s he may	have	otherwise
have had.

I n my opin ion t h e r u l e n l s l shou1.d be

d i scharged .

I cerhfy thnt this and the

prrceding pagrs ale, a true copy of the

Rrasoila for Jlidgment helcin of ihc

I