Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd v Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia

[1980] FCA 141

.

CATC5WORDS

Trade Practlces - Sccordary boycott - condxt of partlclpant

members of “orqanlzation of employees“ deemed condrt of

organlzatlon - whether “orqanlzation of employees“ reqlstcred

under Industrlal Arbltration Act (N.S.W.) 1940 a “body corporatc”

wlthln the meanlng of s.45D(6) of Trade Practlces Act 1974

(Commonwealth) - Interrogatories dlrected to partlclpant members -

Ambit of rlght to refuse to answer interrogatorles on the ground

of lncrlmlnation or of exposlng such members EO rlsk of percunlary

penalty - oppressive interrogatorles.

Trade Practlcss Act 1974, sub-ss.45D(1),(5), (6)(b), 6

s.76, s.77, s.78, s.80 and s.82. Federal Court Kules

NAVAIR PTY. LIMITED -v- THE TRANSPORT WORKERS CTFCON OF AUSTRALIA

THE TWVSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AUSTRALIA KEW SOUTJI WALES ERANCil

JOHX BARRY MCLEAN and

DAVID ARTHUR YCXALLY

No.G 61 of 1980 No.G 7 0 of 1980

Coram: EVATT J.

Sydney

23 January 1981

.

THE rrDERAL COURT O F AUSTPALIA ) ,

GZXERAL D I V I S I O N

XEW S0UET.I WALES D I S T R I C T 1

REGISTRY	1
IN THE MATTER OF THZ TRADE PKPCTICEC
ACT 1 9 7 4

BETWEEN: XAVAIR PTY L I N I T E D

Applicant

R e s p o n d e n t s

O R D E R

JUDGE MAKISG ORDER: W A T T J.

DATE O F ORDER: 2 3 JANIJARY 1281

WXERE MADE: SYDNEY

T I E COURT ORDERS TIIA'l': The Notlce of Mctlon hcrcin dated 3 Dscember 1980 be dlsnussed wlth costs

Date Entered:

DISTRICT REGISTRAP.

- 2 -

sought damages against he f ~ v e rcspondents pursuant t o s . D 2

of the Act .

I t 1.s common ground t h a t t h e f i - r s t r e s p o n d e n t 1.s an

organ1 zation of employees reglstered under the Concxl3at3.on

and Arbi.tratIon xndus t rxa l A c t 1904; tha t the second respondent 1.s an

un ion reg ls te red under the p rovis ions o f the N e w

South Wales respondent 1.s a member of and an Indus t r i a l Arbx t r a t i -on A c t 1940: t h a t t.he t.hi.1-d

organxzer employed by the

second respondent and that the fourth respor .dent 1s a l s o a

member of the second respondent who was 1.n J u l y 1980 an

employee of Mob11 01.1 Austra1i.a Lunited (Mob11 C l 1 ) a company

imcorporated under the Compani.es A c t of Vi.ctor1.a.

Such appl3ca t lon came on for di.rect1ons hcarlng and

f o r h c a r m g of an applxcat lon under S . 8 0 ( 2 ) o f t h e Act f o r

xn ter lm ln]unct ion bcfore E'ranki. J . on 1 4 and 15 Aucust 1980.

I t w a s t hcn o rde red t ha t t he ma t t e r p roceed by way of

p l e a d ~ n g s , d l r e c t l o n s b e l n g made 1.n respec t o f a ti-me-table

fo r such p l ead ings and t he admln l s t e rmg o f i -n t e r rogn to r l e s

a n d the answering thereof i n accordance WI t h 0.16 of the

Federa l Cour t Rules Subsequent ly , . the hearxng o€ t h e m n t t c r

was fxxed for 16 February 1981.

On 15 August 1300 Frank1 J, hav lnq r e fused t o make

a n y o r d e r respondents f o r i n t e r x m ~ n ~ u n c t i o n a g a x n s t t h e f i r s t and f x f t h

made ( I n t e r a l i a ) t h e f o l l o w x n g o r d e r : -

W E FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

G E N E R A L D I V I S I O N	N o
G N o G 70 of 1980 61 of 1980

NEW SOUTH	WALES	D I S T R I C T
R E G I S T R Y

I N THE MATTER OF THE TRADE

P R A C T I C E S	A C T	1974
BETWEEN

NAVAIR PTY L I M I T E D

Applicant

AND

-

THE	TRANSPORT	WORKERS	UNION
O F	A U S T R A L I A
THE	TRANSPORT	WORKERS	UNION

O F A U S T F A L I A NEW SOUTH WALES

BRANCH

JOHN HARRY MCL,EAN

DAVID ARTHUR MCNALLY

R e s p o n d e n t s

23 J a n u a r y 1981 EVATT J .

REASONS FOR JUDGMEXT

B y appli .catlon f l l e d 4 A u g u s t 1980 and numbered G 6 1

of 1980 N a v a l r P t y . L1ml.ted a company lncorporated undcr the

Companies A c t ( K e w South W a l e s ) 1961 sought c e r t a l n orders

p u r s u a n t t o s .60 of the Trade Prati-ces A c t 1974 ( t h e A c t ) ,

i n c l u d i n g a n l n t e r l m ln ]unc t i .on , agaimst fxve respondents ,

n a m e l y Transport Workers' Uni.on of A u s t r a 1 i . a ( t h e Federal

O r g a n l z a t i . o n ) , Transport Workers' Uni.on of A u s t r a l i a N e w Sou th

Wales E r a n c h ( t h e S t a t e U n l o n ) , John R a r r y McLean, D a v i d

A r t h u r Mcxally and G e o r g e H e n r y M c K a y . The app l l can t a l so

- 3 -

"The s e c o n d r e s p o n d e n t , T r a n s p o r t W o r k e r s '

Unlon of Austral1.a New South Wales Branch, by

1 t s e l f , I ts s e r v a n t s and a g e n t s , t h e t h m d

respondent John Barry McLean and t h e f o u r t h

respondent Davtd Ar thur McNal ly be each

restrained u n t l l t h e d e t e r m i . n a t l o n o f t h e

proceedmgs In N o . G G 1 of 1980 o r f u r t h e r o r d e r

from engaglng 1n conduct 1.n con t r aven t lon o f

s.45D of the Trade Practi-ces Act 1974 In

c o n c e r t w i t h a n y p e r s o n t h a t h i n d e r s or

preven t s t he supp ly o f av l a t lon gaso lene or

other petroleum product by Mob11 01.1 A u s t r a l l a

Lxmlted t o any dr iver o f a tanker vehi.cle of

Navaw Pty. Llmxted who 1 s not 1.n breach of

T r d n s p o r t t h e I n d u s t r y P e t r o l e u m e t c .

D l s t r t b u t l o n ( S t a t e ) Award of 18 April 1980,

where such purpose and has onduct i s engaged t n f o r t h e

or would b e l l k e l y t o h a v e t h e

e f f e c t o f to t h e busmess o f t h e	c a u s i n g	s u b s t a n t l a l	o s s	or	damage
Appl1.cant . ' I

I n h 1 s reasons for oral ~udgment Frank1 J . s t a t e d : -

" I c o n s t d e r t h a t t h l s is a m a t t e r i n which I

p r e f e r t o gl.ve o r a l ludgment r a t h e r t h a n t o

d e l a y e x p r e s s t o my r e a s o n s , p e r h a p s

more f u l l y , I n a reserved ~udgment . "hi S 1 s

an appl lcat l .on under sect ion 80 of the Trade

Practices A c t 1 9 7 4 f o r a n t t c r l o c u t o r y

~ n ~ u n c t l o n t o r e s t r a i n c o n d u c t s a i d t o be 1.n

cont ravent ion of sec t lon 45D of the Act . The

"pp1 1 cati.on 1s brought by Navalr Pty. L m i t e d ,

a company which operates approx1.mately 30

a l r c r a f t from Eankstown A m p o r t . The a i r c r a i t

a r e used for f l1 .ght t ra tnl .ng, a1.r c h a r t e r

services and commuter a x r l x n e o p e r a t l o n s .

The fi.rst respondent i s the Transpor t

Workers Unlon 01 A u s t r a l l a . I am n o t

s a t i . s f l e d s l g n l f l c a n c e a g a l n s t t h e t h a t t h e r e 1.s e v i d e n c e of any

first reespondcnt .

The second respondent 7 s the Transpor t

Workers Unlon o f A u s t r a l l a New South Wales

nranch, and lt 1s a d m i t t e d t h a t t t 1.s an

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

p rov l s lons o f t he l ndus t r l a l A r b i t r a t l o n A c t

1340, New South Walcs .

The t h i r d e s p o n d e n t i s John Ba r ry

IkLcan, a u n l o n organi.zer employed by t h e

second	respondent.
The four th respondent 1.s Davld Arthur

- 4 -

Mcl'ally, an employee of Mob1 1 011 Austral1.a Llmxted, whl.ch I WI 11 c a l l Mob1 l 01.1, whlch o p e r a t e s a d e p o t a t Eankstown si.tuated w1thl.n

t h e a l r p o r t i s a member of p e r x m e t e r . I t 1.s admxtted t h h t he

the second reSFOndent.

The f i f t h r e s p o n d e n t 1.s C-forge Henry

McKay, b u t t h e r e 1 s no cv~dence aga l -ns t h im.

" h e a p p l x c a n t r e f u e l s a l r c r a f t a t

E a n k s t o w n A I r F O r t u t l l l s l n g a n o b l . l e f u e l

t a n k e r v e h l c l e . end of May 1980, the Prior t o a t m e towards the

tanker had beeen drl .ven

by two employees of t h e applicant, a t l e a s t

one of whom was a non unxoni.st.

I t was t h e p r a c t l c e t o dr l .ve the t anker

t o t h e Mobxl 01.1 depot In the a1.rport where 1.t

was f l l l ed , e i - ther by an employee of Fob1 1 Ox1

or by the drxver of the veh1cl .e . I t was then

t h e p r a c t i . c e t o drive t h e t a n k e r t o t h e

va rxous ax rc ra f t and r e f u e l them from t h e

t a n k e r .

O n 1 R Apr i l 1980 an award w a s made under

t h e New South Wales Indus t rxa l Arbx t ra t lon A c t

e n t l t l e d " T r a n s p o r t I n d u s t r y - P e t r o l e u m

E tce t e ra D l s t . r l bu t lon (S ta t e ) Award". Clause

40 sub-clause (1) of that. award provides:

"Preference of employment t o members

of the Transport Workers ' Unxon of

A u s t r a l x a NSW Eranch s h a l l h e 3.11

the follow1 ng terms :

( a ) I n t h e employment of persons

by dn sha l l be exe rc l - sed aga lns t employer no d l s c r u n m a t l o n

members

of the un3.on.

(b) rihere a worker other than a

member of the union 1 S rnyaged,

such worker s h a l l wIth1 n 14 days

a f t e r commenc1.ng work make

appl1.cotion for membersh1.p of

the unlon complete and I f a ccep ted sha l l

such appll.catlon.

( c ) Workers a t p r e s e n t emploq-ed

sha l l wx th ln 1 4 days from t h e d a t e

on whxch th1.s award t a k e s e f f e c t make

app l l - ca t lon fo r membership o f t he

union and 1.f accepted sha l l comple te

such applxcatxon.

- 5 -

( d ) Any person who has made

appl i -cat lon for membershlp of the

unton In any person expelled accordance wlth t h i s c l a u s e ,

and whose a p p l l c a t l o n 1s r e J e c t e d , and

from membershlp,

s h a l l b e deemed t o be a member of

t h e u n t o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f t h l s

award, except t h e r e g l s t e r f o r a r r e a r s o f d u e s . " a p e r s o n s t r u c k o f f

Whllst 1.t IS necessary t o express some

v3ews upon the ev idence It must be remembered t h a t I am on ly formi.ng such vl.ews as a r e a p p r o p r l a t e f o r I n t e r l o c u t o r y p r o c e e d l n g s . and

t h a t n o t h l n g c o n c l u s x v e I say I S t o be regarded as a

f l n d l n g r e l e v a n t t h e t o

d e t e r m l n a t l o n o f t h e a p p l t c a t l o n f o r a

p e r m a n e n t l n j u n c t l o n when t h a t a p p l l . c a t l . o n

comes on proceedlngs w h x c h are or may be before f o r h e a r l n g , or r e l e v a n t t o any o ther

any

c o u r t o r t r t b u n a l .

I t would appea r t he p r lnc lpa l t a sk o f t he

dri.ver of the t anke r , fo r example , be fo re 7

August 1980 - one was a M r Namroud - was t o

o p e r a t e t h e t a n k e r f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f

r e f u e l l m g a l r c r a f t , and t h i s would appear t o

w1 th i .n be t he d f i . n l t1on ' a e rod rome f

a t t e n d a n t " 1.n c l ause 2 of the award.

I r e t t e r a t e I am makmg n o fi.odlng t o

t h l s e f f e c t , and polnt o u t t h a t h e r e 1s no

evidence before m e as t o t h e s c o p e o f t h e

C a r t e r s E t c e t e r a Comnlttee,	( S t a t e )	C o n c l l 1 . a t i . o n
and 1.t seems t h a t h e award only
a p p l l e s	t o employees r e f e r r ed t o In c l ause 1

of tha t m s t e r t a l award . J am s u n p l y s a y l n g t h a t o n t h e

b e f o r e me 1.t a p p e a r s l t k e l y t h a t t h e

d r i . v e r o f t h l s t a n k e r , a t l e a s t i n t h e p a s t ,

h a s b e e n

w i . t h ~ n aerodrome a t tendant . t h a t c l a s s i . f I c a t 1 o n f

S l n c e a b o u t 2 3 May 1 9 8 0 a t t e n d a n t s

employed by Mob11 01.1 have r e f u s e d t o a l l o w

t h e a p p l x c a n t ' s t a n k e r v e h l c l e t o b e f i . l led

w i t h f u e l a t t h e d e p o t . On about 30 May 1980

the respondent , M r ElcLean, addressed a meetlng

o f a i . r c r aE t ope ra to r s , aymg in subs t ance

t h a t there was a d l s p u t e b c a u s e t h e

Transpor t Worke r s Un ion wan ted t he award

enforced , and t h a t h e award was the l aw of

t h e l a n d

a n d a l r c r a f t m u s t t h a t a n y b o d y who r e f u e l s

be a member of the Transpor t

- 6 -

Workers Unlon .

M r McLean also produced on t h a t occaslon

a copy o f t h e award. There was some a u e s t l o n

whether M r McLean used the word " d l s p u t e " o r

i .r lstead, the word "ban". On 2 1 J u l y l 9 8 0 t h e

four th respondent , M r McNally, telephoned the

m a n a g i n g d x r e c t o r t h e a p p l l c a n t . f Mr

Haze l ton , and compla lned t ha t t he app l l can t ' S

t anke r w a s b e m g r e f u e l l e d a t n l g h t , and sa3.d

t h a t 1.f t h J s was seen to happen aga ln ''we w i l l

t u r n o f f t h e power for the key-lock system and

I t w i . 1 1 mean t h a t nobody can u s e t h e

key-locks" .

I t seems t h a t a f t e r normal worklng hours

t h e r e was a b o w s e r w h e r e f u e l c o u l d b e

ob ta ined , bu t t ha t bowse r was locked and tha t

t he app l l can t had In I ts possession a key t o

the bowser .

On 2 5 J u l y 1980 the fou r th r e sponden t

re fused t o f l l l t h e t a n k e r when d r l v e n t o t h e

Mobxl 011 depot by M r H a z e l t o n a f t e r t h e

fourth respondent had asked h1.m - t h a t IS, M r

Hazelton - whether he had a uni-on badge and he

had sa td tha t he had no t .

An a p p l ~ c a t l o n was made t o m e In chambers

on 3 0 J u l y 1 9 8 0 t o g r a n t a n ex p a r t e

in]uncti.on, but I r e f u s e d t o d o t h i s , and th3.s

a p p l l c a t l o n t h a t 1.s be fo re m e now w a s f l l e d on

4 August 1980 and se rved on the s cond

respondent o n 5 August 1980.

The th l rd e sponden t s a td 1.n evi-dence

t h a t s l n c e 1 9 6 9 t h e 01 1 s e c t l o n o f t h e

Transport Workers Unlon has been l n d l spu te

w t t h Mob11 O i l Austra1i.a Llmi.ted on many

o c c a s i . o n s o v e r t h e ~ s s n e o f m a n n l n g a t

Rankstown a i x p o r t . He a l s o sa1.d t h a t 1 n e a r l y

Apri 1 1980, b e f o r e t h e award whi.ch I had

mentxoned came l n t o f o r c e , t h e r e w r e

dxscusslons between hlm and o t h e r s and Mobi.1

011 concerni.ng 1.ssues of s a f e t y , manning and

t h e u s e of non-un1.on l a b o u r . I am n o t

unpresscd wlth the re levance of those aspects

of the proceedmgs n o w be fo re I I W .

I t seems p r l o r t o 5 A u g u s t 1380 t h e

applxcant had been able t o f u e l l t s a ~ r c r a f t

a t Dankstown b y t a x l . - l n g t h e a i r c r a f t t o t h e

bowser a t t h e blob1 1 depo t bu t t ha t un ion

acti.on prevented thxs si.nce about 5 August

- 7 -

1980 and tha t t h t s un ton ac t ion app l l - ed no t

o n l y t o Aero C l u b of New South t h e a p p l t c a n t b u t Wales a l s o t o t h e Royal

whi.ch hab1.tually

used I t s own t anke r t o r e f u e l i.ts p l anes at

t h e a t r p o r t .

I make r e f e r e n c e t o some a l l ega t1 .ons

concern tng the way l n whtch members o f t h e

Hazelton farni.ly performed work b u t I am n o t

lmpressed w~. th the re levance of that mater i -a1

1 n these p roceed1 .ngs . I c o n s t d e r t f I

regard M r Mch'ally a s t h e f t r s t p e r s o n , Mr

McLean, o r t h e s e c o n d r e s p o n d e n t , a s t h e

second person, Mobi.1 01.1 Austral1.a Llml.ted a s

p e r s o n and I t h l n k 1.t 1.s appropri-ate so t o and t h e a p p l t c a n t a s h e

t h e t h i r d four th person

w1.thtn t h e words of sec txon 45D.

d o , t h e n

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

p e r s o n , Mr McLean a n d t h e s e c o n d p e r s o n ,

e1 t h e r M r McKally or the second respondent

whtch, so f a r a s 1.s necessa ry fo r t he p roof o f

a pr tma f c te case , should be r garded as

havlng been bei.ng such as would engaged t n fo r t he pu rpose and a s

have or be l l k e l y t o have

t h e e f f e c t c a u s t n g o f s u b s t a n t l a l loss

or damage t o t h e b u s l n e s s o f t h e a p p l l c a n t . I

have t n mlnd s e c t l o n 45D (5 ) In r e l a t1 .on t o

the second respondent .

I t was subm1. t ted on behal f the o

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

wl th ln the defence provlded by sec t lon 45D(3) .

Ilowever, wtthout d e a l n g w t t h th3.s s e c t i o n 1.n

prectse d e t a t l I n r e l a t x o n t o t h e p a r t l - c u l a r

f a c t s of t h t s c a s e , 1.t seems t o me c l e a r t h a t

looktng a t t h e m a t t e r as I should look a t 1.t

I I I r e g a r d t o t h e e s t a b l l s h m e n t o f a p r m a

fac1.e c a s e , t h e d o m t n a n t p u r p o s e f o r t h e

conduct engaged In was f o r the purpose of

ensu r tng t ha t pe r sons who dr1.ve t h e r e l e v a n t

tanker were members of the second respondent .

I t seems t o me as far as 1.5 r e l e v a n t f o r

determtnat ion of whether a prlma fac1.e case

e x l s t s t h a t t h e a p p l 3 c a n t has succeeded ."

H I S Honour t h e n c o n s t d e r e d t h e q u e s t l - o n o f t h e

balance of conventence during bhl.ch he observed:-

" I c o n s t d e r t h a t a crlti.ca1 questl.on t n th1.s

ca se IS t h a t arising from examlnatlon f

c l a u s e 40 o f t h e a w a r d t o wh1.ch T have

re fer red and I t h l n k th1.s 1.s a very 1mFortant

- 8 -

q u e s t l o n l n r e l a t i o n t o the e x e r c l s e o f Che

c o u r t ' S discretion.

I t s e a l s t o m e t h a t 1.s a m a t t e r t h a t I h a v e t o

b e a r c a r e f u l l y i n mind. I c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e

court should proceed on the basl S t h a t h e

zward IS validly made a l though, as I have s a ~ d , Its scope 1 S by no mems c l e a r on t h e

evidence before m e ."

On 2 1 August 1980 a Statement of Claim aqalnst the

f i r s t f o u r a p p l ~ c a n t e s p o n d e n t s l n G 61 of 980 w a s f1 l e d b y t h e

. Such s ta tement o f c la im was numbered G 70 of

1980. Thereaf te r documents f l l ed I n t he ma t t e r have been

numbered G 70 of 1980. On R December 1980 the Cour o rdered t

t h a t G 61 of 1980 and G 70 of 1980 be consol ldated, 1.t beJng

no tcd t ha t t h e f I f t h r e s p o n d e n t t he app l i can t was not proceeding a g a i n s t Mr XcKay,

1.n ma t t e r MO. G 61 oE 1980.

O n 11 September 1980 t h e f o u r r e s p o n d e n t s f l l e d the1.r

defence whlch denxed ( inter alia) t h a t h e t h i . r d and f o u r t h

respondents were members of t h e fi.rst r e s p o n d e n t ; t h a t t h e

respondents committed the breaches of S . 4 5 D o f t he P.ct a l l e g e d

I n t.he Statement of ClaIm and f u r t h e r s a x d . p u r s u a n t t o

s.45D(3) of the Act , ln mswer t o t h e whole of t h e c l a i m , t h a t

any conduct engaged i n whxch the responeents may be found t o h a v e

whlch would otherwise amount t o a contravention of

s . 4 5 D of the A c t was f o r a doml-nant purpose substant ia l ly

r e l a t e d t oh e worktnq conditions of Mr r m u n e r a t l o n , conditions of employment or

McNally o r t h o s e o f h l s and h1 S

fellow employees.

- 9 -

On 7 November 1980 t h e a p p l l c a n t . p u r p o r t e d l y

pu r suan t t o 0 .16 r.1, f l l e d and served a notice on t h e seconcl,

t h l r d and a n s w e r s p e c l f l e d 1 . n t e r r o g a t o r l e s . fourth respondents requi . rxng those respondents to

t o t a l l ~ n g I n a l l 3 7 .

I n t e r r o g a t o r y numbered 37 w a s t he on ly lmte r roga to ry

d l r e c t e d t o the second respondent , the S ta te Unlon .

I n t e r r o g a t o r l e s n u m b e r e d 1 t o 2 1 1 .nc lus lve were

d l r e c t e d t o Mr McNally w h l l s t l n t e r r o g a t o r l e s numbered 2 1 t o

36 inclusive w e r e d l r e c t e d t o M r McLean. As both M r McIean

and M r M c X a l l y o b j e c t e d a n s w e r x n g t o most s u c h o f

1 n t e r r o g a t o r i . e ~ o n v a r l o u s g r o u n d s , t h e a p p l l c a n t on 3

December 1980 f l l e d a n o t l c e o f m o t l o n s e e k x n g o r d e r s t h a t t h e

t h l r d and four th respondents be d i - r ec t ed t o answer t he l r

respec t ive unanswered mter roga tor l .es . This procedure was

apparent ly taken under 0.16 r .5 of the Rules of C o u r t .

Such motlon came on f o r h e a r l n g on 8 anc? 9 December

1980 when l eave was granted t o t h e two r e s p o n d e n t s t o f 1 1 e

f u r t h e r v e r l f1.ed s t a t e m e n t s i n a n s w e r t o 1 n t e r r o g a t o r 1 . e ~

beyond t h e d a t e e a r l l e r s e t b y t h e C o u r t f o r so do~.ng. On 3

December 1980 the C o u r t a d ~ o u r n e d t h e h e a r m g of t h e motl.on t o

1 7 December 1980 t o e n a b l e a d d ~ t ~ o n a l g r o u n d s o f o b ] e c t l . o n t o

a n s w e r l n g c e r t a m m t e r r o g a t o r l e s w h l c h h a d b e e n a r g u e d t o be

ve r l f i ed by t he r e sponden t s . Such ver3.flcatl.on havlng becn

f l l e d by l? December 1980, t he Cour t t hen o rde red t ha t t he

- 10 -

notlce of motlon be dismissed wl th costs, i n d l c a t l n g t h a t

reasons fo r judqment could no t then be g iven owmg to the

C o u r t ' s comm1.tments 1 - n t e r s t a t e b u t t h a t x t was t h e n

anticipated tha t such r easons would be publ~shed towards the

end of F e b r u a r y 1 9 8 1 , t h e d a t e s e t f o r t h e C o u r t vaca t lon some t h r e e o r f o u r weeks before 16

the hearxng of the substant3.ve

m a t t e r . Such reasons for ~udgrnent a re now publi.sher1.

I t 1.s emphas1.sed t h a t n o i m t e r r o g a t o r y h a s been

d l r e c t e d t o t h e f l r s t r e s p o n d e n t , t h e F e d e r a l Organ1 z a t i o n .

That respondent c lear ly acqumed a c o r p o r a t e c h a r a c t e r upon

req l -s t ra t ion under the provls~ .ons o f the Conci . l l a t ion an<

A r b l t r a t l o n A c t 1904 ( s e e ss.136 and 146, Jumbanna Case (1908)

6 C . L . R . 309 and Wxlllam -v- H u r s e y (1959) 103 C.I,.R. 30 @

52).

As s t a t e d , the S t a t e Unlon has been asked only the

one 1-nterrogatory . Such interrogatory has been answered and

ver1fi.ed by one , Edward C McReat ty , the Secre ta ry of t h e

Union. That In te r roga tory and answers a re as fol lows:-

3 7 A . Look a t t h e l e t t e r d a t e d 7 November 1380

1980 wrxt ten by the Secretdry Treasurer

t o t h e ( a ) Did I n d u s t r i a l R e g i s t r a r and say

the second respondent du thor i se

the respondent NcLean t o a d d r e s s

t h e m e e t l n g r e f e r r e d t o l n t h a t

l e t t e r ?

( b ) I f n o , d3.d the respondcnt YcLean

addres s th i S meeti.ng dur1r.g t h e

course of h1s employment as an organi.zcr of the second respondent.

Answers (a) Yes

- 11 -

(b) not appli .cable-

Despl.te t h e l e n g t h of t h e o t h e r 36 l n t e r r o g a t o r t e s l t

I S necessary , In my vyew, t o s e t them o u t 1.n f u l l t o g e t h e r

wl th the answers to those t o whtch M r Mch'ally or Mr McLean d id

n o t o b ~ e c t . Each m t e r r o g a t o r y 1.s numbered wi.th t h e l e t t e r "A"

wh l l s t t he answer t he re to a s ve r l f t ed bea r s t he co r re spond tng

number wxth t h e l e t te r " B " or " B ( t ) and B ( x 3 . ) " .

I n t e r roga to r l e s a sked o f Mr McNally

1 A . On or about the 2 1 July 1980, were you

employed by MOBIL O I L AUSTRALIA LIMITED

a t Its depot a t Eankstown Ai.rport?

1B. Yes.

2A .	If yes ,	i n what	capaclty	were	you so
employed?
28.	Refue l l e r .
3.4.	Dtd

part r e f u e l l i m g t h e t a n k e r v e h l c l e o f t h e Applycant when requl red? of your dutl .es 1-nclude

30. Yes.

4 A . On or t e l ephone the about the 21 J u l y 1 9 R 0 , did you

Managing Dlrec tor of

t he App l t can t , M r J . D . B . Hazleton?

4E .	Yes.
5A.	If so, f o r what purpose d7.d you
te lephone hlm? (objected t o )
6 A .	I f so d1.d you say t o h1.m these words
or words havi.ng a s l m l l a r e f f e c t : "You
have been seen t o f i l l your tanker
t ruck from seen t o happen aga1.n. we ~ 1 . 1 1 the key- lock sys tem af te r
t h e d e p o t h a s c l o s e d . I f th1.s 1 s

t u r n

o f f t h e power for the key-lock system

so	t h a t	nobody can use	1 . t . " ? ( o b ~ e c t e d
t o )

7 A . Were you between 2 1 July 1980 and 10

September 1980, a member o f t h e

Transport Workers Unlon o f A u s t r a l t a ,

New South Wales?

7 u .	Yes.
@ A .	Were you between the same d a t e s a
member of the Transport Florkers
Unlon o f Aus t r a l l a?

- 1 2 -

su.	tJO .
O h .	On 2 1 J u l y 1980 werc you requestcd by
M r J . E . D . Hazleton t o r e f u e l o r p e r m i t
to b e r e - f u e l l e d , t h e p e t r o l t a n k e r
%fehxcle of the Applxcant?
9t3.	Y e s .

1 OA Tf y e s , d1.d you re-fuel such vehi.cle?

103 K O .

11A	If n o , f o r what reason dld you not
r e f u e l t t ? ( o b ~ e c t e d t o )

1 2 A If you d1.d n o t r e f u e l i t had you

previously di.scussed your declslon

n o t t o r e f u e l 3 . t w1.th any o ther

F e r s o n ? ( o b ~ e c t e d t o )

1 3 A I f y e s , wxth whom d1.d you dxscuss your

deci.sxon not t o r e f u e l ?

130 ( 1 ) n o t a p p l ~ c a b l e

( 1 1 ) I f a p p l i c a b l e , ( o b j e c t e d t o )

1 4 A For what purpose d3.d you r e f u s e t o

r e f u e l o r permtt t o b e r e f u e l l e d

the s a t d v e h l c l e ? ( o b l e c t e d t o )

1 5 A Dtd you i n t e n d , b y y o u r r e f u s a l t o

r e fue l t he sa id veh i . c l e t o co-erce(s1.c)

the Applicant i n t o engagung members

of the t h e s a t d v e h i c l e ? ( o b ~ e c t e d t o ) Second Respondent t o dri-ve

1 6 A	If no, what	was your purpose	1.n so
r e f u s m q ?

16n ( I ) no t app l l cab le

(1 .1) 1.f nppl i -cable , (ob lec ted t o )

1 7 A If y e s t o q u e s t t o n 1 4 ( s l c ) , d1.d y o u

In tend , i n o r d e r t o achi.eve your purpose,

t o c a u s e damage t o t h e b u s m e s s o f t h e

Appll can t?

178 ( I . ) no t app l l cab le

(1.1) t f a p p l i c a b l e , ( o b l e c t e d t o )

18A If no t o question 1 7 , how dld you 3ntend

t o ach1.eve your purpose?

1sn ( 1 ) no t app l l cab le

( 1 1 ) I f a p p l i c a b l e , ( o b ] e c t e d t o )

13A	Do you know the Respondent	McLean?
198	Y e s .

2 OA I n what capaclty do you know htm?

20R As an off1 ci .al of thc Transport Workers

Unlon	of	A u s t r a l ~ a (New	Sou th	Wales
Branch) .

21A On o r p r i . o r agree wi.th the Respondent t o 2 1 J u l y 19n0, c1i.d you

McIean t h a t

you would r e fuse 1.0 r e f u e l t.he t anke r

veh ic l e o f In t c r roao to r i e s a sked o f t h e A p p L ~ c a n t ? ( o h ~ e c t e d t o )

Mr FcLean

22A Cn or about 30 May 1980, d1.d you

- 13 -

address a meetxng of a t r c r a f t

o p e r a t o r s	a t t h e	Royal	Aero	C l u b ,
Bankstown	Al rpor t ?

2 2 B	Y e s .
23A	If y e s , d t d you Inform people
t h e r e p r e s e n t t h a t a "ban" would
be appl led t o t h e r e f u e l l t n g of
t a n k e r v e h t c l e s a t Bankstown
AI rpor t when such vehlcles were
being dr lven by non-members of
t h e Second t he r e fue l l t ng o f such vehsc le s Respondent? (oblected to)
24A	If
y e s , d l d on such occastons would you mean t h e r e b y t h a t

he h indered

or prevented?

248 ( 1 1 no t app l t cab le

(11) I f a p p l ~ c a b l e , ( o b ~ e c t e d t o )

2 5 A If no, what dtd you mean thereby?

250 ( I ) n o t applxcable

(11) s f a p p l t c a b l e , ( o b ~ e c t e d t o )

26A I f yes t o ques t ton 2 4 d1.d you mean

thereby that such ban would be

Imposed by members o f t h e	Second
Respondent?

268 (1.) no t app l l cab le

(11) 1.f a p p l l c a b l e , ( o b j e c t e d t o )

27A D1.d you c o n s u l t wi.th Davsd Arthur

McNally I n r e l a t t o n t o t h l s ban?

( o b ~ e c t e d t o )

28A D1.d you lnform Davtd Arthur McNally

t h a t t h e Second named Respondent had

dec tded tha t the ban should be

i.mposed? 29A Dld you Inform Dav1.d Arthur McNally ( o b j e c t e d t o )

t h a t , unt1.1 f u r t h e r n o t l c e , h e s h o u l d

n o t r e f u e l , or perm1.t t o b e r e f u e l l e d ,

the t anke r veh tc l e o f t he App l i can t?

( o h ~ e c t e d t o )

30A Did you 1.nform hsm t h a t t h e r e a s o n f o r

such ban was t h e d e s l r e o f t h e Second

Respondent (The Transport Workers

Unl on, New South Wales Branch) t o

en fo rce the p rov l s sons o f t he

Transport Industry Petroleum and

Dl s t r tbu t l . on Indus t ry (S ta t e ) Award?

( o b ~ e c t e d t o )

31A Was t t your In t en t ton to coe rce the

Appltcant Into employtng members of

t h e Second Respondent t o dri.ve l.ts t anke r veh1.cle when 1.t was engaged i n r e f u e l l m g a l r c r a f t . ( o b ] e c t e d t o )

32A I f y e s , was 1 t your purpose, I n

o r d e r t o ach1.eve t h e o b ~ e c t 1.n

ques t lon 31 , t o cause loss o r

- 14 -

damage t o t h e b u s i n e s s o f t h e

Appll.cant?

32B (1) n o t a p p l l c a b l e

(11) i f a p p l x c a b l e , ( o b l e c t e d t o )

33A If no, what purpose d1.d you expect the

ban t o a c h i e v e ?

33R (1.) not appll.cable

(11) 1.f a p p l x c a b l e , ( o b j e c t e d t o )

34A D1.d you, by means of the ban, intend t o

hinder the Applxcant I n c a r r y n g o n

Its b u s ~ n e s s ? ( o b ] e c t e d t o )

35A D1d you by means of t h e ban i.ntend t o

prevent the Applxcant from compet1.ng

wl.th o t h e r a l r l l - n e s xn o f f e r m g c h a r t e r

and o t h e r s e r v ~ c e s ? ( o b ] e c t e d t o )

36A Dxd you have, as a r e a s o n f o r t h e b a n

a pu rpose o the r t han to coe rce the

hpplxcant t o employ members o f t h e

Transport Workers Unlon (New South

Wales Branch) a s d r l v e r s o f l.ts

t a n k e r v e h x c l e ? ( o b ~ e c t c d to )

Order 16 r . 2 ( 2 ) o f the Rules of Cour t p rovxdes tha t

''a p a r t y servxng on the par ty requl rxng the answers : s h a l l , . . . . answer lnterrogator3.es by f111.ng and

( a ) a s t a t emen t 3 n

accordance wxth	r u l e 6 ;	and	(b) an	a f f ldav1 . t	very l - fy ing	tha t
s ta tement . ' I .

Order 16 r .6 (3 ) p r o v l d e s t h a t " a p a r t y may o b ~ e c t t o

answerxng any lnterrogatory on the fol lowlng rounds b u t no

o t h e r : ( a ) where the answermg 1s not required by a n o r d e r ,

t h a t t h e questi.on i n t e r r o g a t o r y d o e s n o t r e l a t e t o a n y m a t t e r I n

between hlm and t h e p a r t y requ1.rxng the answer : (b )

t h a t t h e p r l v ~ l e g e . " . l n t e r r o g a t o r y 1.s vexa t ious or oppressxvc: and (c)

The grounds of o b ~ e c t ~ o n to 1nterrogatorq.es numbered

5 , 6 , 11, 1 4 , 2 1 , 31, 34. 35 and 36 have bcen ve r l f1 .d a s

- 15 -

fol lows :

(a) t h a t oppress1.ve and an abuse 1.t ( t h e x n t e r r o g a t o r y ) IS vexati.ous,

of t h e p r o c e s s

of the Cour t .

(b ) tha t 1 t IS a f I s h I n g I n t e r r o g a t o r y .

( c ) t h a t 1.n answering t h e I n t e r r o g a t o r y

I may ImposItl.on of tend t o expose myself t o t h e

a p e n a l t y .

( d ) t h a t t h e I n t e r r o g a t o r y s e e k s t o

questxon m e as t o my s t a t e o f m l n d .

( e ) t h a t t h e a n s w e r may t e n d t o I n c r l m l n a t e

me.

Grounds of ob]ecti.on t o l n t e r r o g a t o r y numbered 1 2

have been verl .f l .ed as the same a s g r o u n d s ( a ) , (h), ( c ) and

( e ) a b o v e 28, 29 and 30 a r e w h l l s t g r o u n d s o f o b ~ e c t ~ o n s t o m t e r r o g a t o r 1 . e ~ 2 7 ,

v e r x f l e d a s t h e same a s g r o u n d s (a) , ( b ) ,

( c ) and (e ) toge ther In each case wI th a f u r t h e r g r o u n d t h a t

t h e l n t e r r o g a t o r y subs t ance seeks d e t a l l s o f w h a t was sasd and no t the

t he reo f . In t e r roga to ry 23 1 s a l so o b ~ e c t c d t o on

th1.s f u r t h e r ground t o g e t h e r wyth ground ( c ) and (e) above.

I n answers , 138(1 .1 . ) , 16E(11) , 1 7 R ( > . I ) , 1 8 R ( l I ) .

24B( 1 1 ) , 2 5 B ( x i . ) , 26B( ~ l . ) , 32E(1.1) and 33E(1 I ) t h e s o l e

o b ~ c c t l o n , ~f each or any of the In te r roga tory IS a p p l l c a b l e ,

1 S t h a t t h e a n s w e r "may t e n d t o ~ n c r ~ m l n a t e m e ' ' .

After argument, Mr McFevItt Counsel for the Appllcant

lnd1ca ted tha t he was no t p re s s l -ng ln t e r roga to r ses 5A 2nd 6 A .

- 16 -

Eefore conslderlng the val1.dlty of the above grounds

of o b - ~ e c t ~ o n s r e l e v a n t p a r t s o f s u b - s e c t l o n s of s . 4 5 D and

o the r suc t lons o f t he Act a r e r e f e r r e d t o . The a p p l c a n t ' s

claim a l l e g e s J breach of t h o s e p a r t s of s . 4 5 r ) ( l ) . whi.ch

read	: -
45D(1) S u b ~ e c t t o th1.s s e c t l o n , a p e r s o n s h a l l
n o t , m conce r t w l th a second person, engage
i n conduc t t ha t hmders o r p reven t s t he supp ly
of goods or servi.ces by a t h i r d - p e r s o n t o a
four th person . . . . where-

( a ) ....

( b ) t h e and the conduct IS engaged 3n f o r t h e f o u r t h p e r s o n 3s a co rpora t lon

purpose, and would have or be lskely to

h a v e t h e e f f e c t , o f c a u s l n g ( t h e ) loss o r

damage( re fe r r ed to i n the sub-sect l -on) .

As c l a ~ m e d the "pe r son" r e fe r r ed t o 1.n s . 4 5 D ( 1 ) 1.s

c1 t h e r ::r McNally o r M r McLean, the "second person" 3 S then

respec t lve ly e1 . ther Mr McLean or Mr XcNally, the "thi .rd

person" 1.s Mob1.1 011 wh2ls t the " four th person" 3 . 5 t h e

a p p l l c a n t , Naval r P ty . Llmi.ted.

The appli .cant does not claim t h a t e l t h e r t h e F e d e r a l

o rqan1za t lon and /o r t he S t a t e Union d l r e c t l y a c t e d i n c o n c e r t

wlth one respondents another or wl th el.ther or both the t h l r d and fourth

for a purpose cont ra ry t o S . 4 5 D ( 1 ) . Conseqnently

It 1s u n n e c e s s a r y , a t t h i s s t a g e a t l a s t , t o d e t e r l n i n e

whether thc second respondent IS a "person" wI th7n the meani.nq

of that bord 1.n S . 4 5 D ( l ) but 1 t 1.s noted tha t "person" 1 S n c t

c jef lned in the Act . Sect lon 22 of the Acts In te rFre ta t3on Act

1301 provxdcs t ha t , un le s s t he con t r a ry 1ntent1.on appea r s ,

- 17 -

"person" sha l l Inc lude a body po l l t1 .c o r corpora te as w e l l a s

an l nd lv tdua l . Sec t lon 4 ( 5 ) of t he Ac t a l so p rov i .des t ha t

" t h e e x p r e s s r e f e r e n c e s I n t h l s A c t t o co rpora t ions and bodles

c o r p o r a t e s h a l l n o t b e t a k e n t o i.mply t h a t r e f e r e n c e s t o

persons do n o t a l s o i .nc lude re ferences to persons who a r e n o t

na tu ra l pe r sons . ' I .

B u t t h e applicant c l a l m s t h a t a s a r e s u l t of t h e

al leged conduct of t h e t h u d and four th respondents bo th the

first a n d s e c o n d r e s p o n d e n t s ( t h a t I S , t h e F d e r a l

organlzat1.on a d t he S t a t e Un1.on) a r e deemed t o h a v e

contravened the provl .s lons of s .45D(1) of the Act as a r e s u l t

of t h e p r o v l s l o n o f s u b - s . ( 5 ) o f t h a t s e c t l o n .

Sub-sectlon ( 5 ) of s.45D reads:

" I f t w o or more persons (1.n th1.s sub-sect1.on

r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e " p a r t l c i . p a n t s " ) e a c h o f

whom 1s a member o r o f f 1 c e r of t h e same

organlzat lon of employees (bemg an organi-zat lon

t h a t e x i . s t s or i s c a r r l e d on f o r t h e p u r p o s e , o r

f o r p u r p o s e s t h a t l n c l u d e the purpose, of fur ther i -nq

t h e i n t e r e s t s of Its members 1.n r e l a t i o n t o t h e l r

employment) engage ~n conduct 1.n conce r t w l th

one another, whether or not the conduct 1.s also

engaged i n i n c o n c e r t w l t h o t h e r p e r s o n s , t h e

organiza t i .on sha l l be deemed f o r t h e p u r p o s e s of

- 18 -

th1.s A c t t o engage In that conCuct t n conce r t

w l th the pa r t i - c tpan t s , and so t o engage 1.n t h a t

conduct for the purpose or purposes for which tha t

conduct 1.s engaged i n by the participants, u n l e s s

t h e o r g a n i . z a t i o n e s t a b l l s h e s t h a t 1.t t ook a l l .

r e a s o n a b l e s t e p s t o p r e v e n t the par txc3pants f rom

engaglng In that conduct .“

Clear ly bo th the Federa l Organl -za t lon and the S ta te

Unton a re “o rgan1 .za t lons o f employees“ w l th~n t he mean1.ng of

t h a t p h r a s e in S .451)(5 ) .

Further, constderat3.on m u s t be gJ.ven t o the ques txon

whether the second respondent ( the S ta te Un3.on) 1.s a “body

c o r p o r a t e ” w1thi.n t h e meantng of t h a t p h r a s e 1.n s.451)(6).

Th~s complex quest l .on Involves constderat lon of the New South

Wales Trade Unlon A c t 1881 and the I n d u s t r m l Arhl t ra t l -on Act

1940 and numerous d e c x s ~ o n s of the Engl l sh Cour ts , o f the H1.gh

Court of predecessor the Commonwealth Aus t ra l la , o f the Aus t ra l l -an Indus t r l -a1 Cour t arid 1.ts

Indus t rxa l Cour t , of t h e

Supreme Court of New South Wales, of the New South Wales

I n d u s t r l a l C o m i s s t o n a n d more r e c c n t l y of the Federa l Cocr t

o f A u s t r a l l a .

- 19 -

The New South Wales Industri-a1 Arbltrat1.on A c t 1940 provtdes

tha t " any t r ade un ion of employees" may be reg is te red under

t h a t Act and on r eg t s t r a txon sha l l be an xndus t r l - a1 unl.on

u n t t l s u c h Arbltrntxon r e g y s t r a t l o n 1.5 d u l y cance l l ed . The I n d u s t r t a l

Act def1.nes a " t rade unlon" as meanxng a t r a d e

union regl s tered under the Trade Unlon A c t . That A c t d e f l n e s

the term t h e r c l a t t o n s b e t w e e n "Trade Unl.on" t o mean any comb1natl.on fo r r egu la t lmg

workmen and employers or between workmen

and workmen .... and f o r t m p o s ~ n g r e s t r i c t x v e conditions of

a n y t r a d e A c t ( N .S.W. )1881) . o r b u s m e s s e t c . ( s e e S .31 o f the Trade Un~.on

Both A c t s a r e s l l e n t a s t o t h e l e g a l s t a t u s

of a r e g x s t e r e d t r a d e u n l o n a n d a n 1 n d u s t r l . a l unl.on

r e spec txve ly .

Although there 1s s t rong suppor t for the conclus~ .on

t h a t d registered t r a d e and imdustrxal uni.on i n New South

Wales has , by ]udlci .a l lmpltcat ion, a c o r p o r a t e c h a r a c t e r ,

par txcular ly tn proceedxngs brought under the New South Wales

Act , hxs quest l -on general ly IS, I n my vlew. s t x l l t o be

f t n a l l y and au tho r l t a t tve ly r e so lved ( s ee Ta f f Va le s ' s Case

1901 A . C . 426, Osborne's Case 1910 A . C . 87 , Kel ly ' s Case( lY15)

84 L. J . K . B . 2236, Bonsor's Case 1956 A . C . 1 0 4 , Wllli.ams -v-

I i u r s e y ( 1 9 5 9 ) 1 0 3 C . L . R . 30 @ 63, 66, Egan -v- - Shop

D l s t r l b u t l v e and Allied Employees Assocl.atlon (1979) 2 5 A . L . R .

2 5 7 . Egan -v- Barrier Branch Amalqamotfd of Ml.ners '

Assoc~.at ton (1917) 17 S . R . 243 , Bra l lcy -v- Sydney Branch of

the Waterstde Workers Federatxon (1935) A . R . ( N S W ) 1 4 8 $ 153;

- 20 -

1,asbies -v- blackay (1945) A . R . ( N 5 W ) 562 0 574, Cos te l lo -v-

G i e t z e l t 1 F.L.R. 446, Hoolahan -v- GietzeLt 1 F.L.R. 361,

Murphy -v- Applebee (1959) 3 F.L.R. 361 @ 364-3G5,Moore -v-

- DovLe ( 1 9 6 9 ) 1 5 F . L . R . 5 9 , T r a n s p o r t W o r k e r s Uni.on ( N S W -

Eranch) S O r s -v- Leon La lde ly P ty . Limi.ted 28 A . L . R . 583) .

I r e spec t fu l ly adop t t he r emarks of Bowen C . J . ~n

LaIc!ely's Case( supra) @ 595 where he s ta tes : "Deal 7 ng wl th

t h e p o s l t l o n of the un lon the re IS some di-vergence between the

Engllsh and A u s t r a l i a n a u t h o r l t l e s r e l a t i n g t o t r a d e uni.ons,

whxcn l eaves ~t a m a t t f r o f some doubt and di-ff lcul ty whether

a t r a d e Industrial unxon Arbl t ra t i -on s u c h as th i s respondent , reg i -s te red under the

A c t 1940 and governed by the Trade

Unxon Act 1881, has l ega l personal l ty or 1s t o b e r e g a r d e d a s

a "body c o r p o r a t e " f o r t h e p u r p o s e s of t h e A c t s I n t e r p r e t a t s o n

Act 1901 or ds a "person" for the purposes of S .45D(1) of t.he

Trade Pract lccs Act 1976. This agaln appears t o me t o b e a

serious q u e s t l o n t o b e t r i . e d I n t h e l l g h t of a l l t h e f a c t s as

t h e y e x i s t a f t e r t h e f u l l t r l a l of the ma t t e r and no t a m a t t e r

t o b e d e c l d e d d e f m i t i v e l y a t th1.s interlocutory s t a g e . " . J

am a l s o o f Lhe o p l n l o n t h a t t h l s q u e s t i o n s h o u l d n o t 1.n a11

the c i rcumstances be deci.ded d e f l n x t l v e l y a t th1.s s t a g c of

t h l s p r o c e e d i n g . S u f f i c e It t o s a y , t h a t , my i.n vJ.ew, t h e r e

IS a r e a l possi.bi.1i.ty t h a t , c o n t r a r y to v~ews expres sed by

Ceane J . In Laide ly ' S Case (supra (J 602) and by LuckhzrC J . In

Leon L a i d e l y P t y . L i m i t e d - v - T r a n s p o r t W o r k e r s U n i o n o f

Aust ra lxa h O r s 28 A.L.R. 129, the second respondent here1.n

( t h e S t a t e Unxon) IS n o t a "body co rpora t e" w1.thl.n t h e meanxng

of t h a t p h r a s e I n S .45D(6) of the A c t .

R e a p p l x c a n t ' s a c t i o n f o r loss o r damage

I n t h e p r e s e n t p r o c e e d m g t h e applicant 1.5 a l s o

claimlng damages under s.82 o f t h e A c t . Secti-on 45D(6) ( b )

p r o h l b i t s s u c h a c t x o n a g a x n s t t h e t h u d and four th respondents

i f It 1 s determimed t h a t t h e o r g a n x z a t l o n of employees of

whlch t ey were members a t t h e r e l e v a n t t i m e was a body

c o r p o r a t e . On the o the r hand , If 1.t 1 s determxned that such

organxzatxon was, a t t h e r e l e v a n t t u n e , n o t a body corporate

w1.thi.n t h e m e a n l n g of t h a t p h r a s e xn S . 4 5 D ( 6 ) t h e n o

proceedmg under s.82 can be dx rec t ly b rough t agams t t he

t h l r d a n d f o u r t h r e s p o n d e n t s ( ~ . 4 5 D ( G ) ( c ) ( i ) ) .

Accordxng ly t he on ly fu r the r o rde r t ha t t he Court

could make xn the present proceedi-ng agal-nst e i . ther the thi . rd

or f o u r t h xn]uncti.on under and r e s p o n d e n t 1 s a n o r d e r g r a n t x n g a permanent

xn accordance wxth S .80 of t h e A c t .

I€ the appl i .cant was not seeklng an i.n]unct>.on under

S .80 of the Act agai .nst the th1.rd and fourth respondents , then

the Cour t damages would aga lns t have no ]urxsdi.cti.on t o h e a r t h e a c t i . o n for

them. Under such cxrcumstances, should t h e

Court entertain a mot1.on seekxng orders dxrec tmg those two

- 22 -

r e s p o n d e n t s t o a n s w e r 1 n t e r r o g a t o r i . e s r e l a t m g t o a l l e g e d p a s t

conduct by damage t o the appli.cant when an them whlch If proved might support a fmdxng of

order could not be made

a g a i n s t them p e r s o n a l l y f o r t h e payment of such damaces as a

r e s u l t o f t h e i r c o n d u c t .

Obvlously xf t h e t h l r d and fourth respondent were n o t

p a r t y e s t o t h e p r o c e e d x n g t h e n no such In t e r roga to r i e s cou ld

be admmlstered. Simply b ]oln.r.ng the thi . rd and fourth

r e s p o n d e n t s a s p a r t y e s t o a p roceedwg 3.n whlch damages a r e

c l a lmed agams t o the r r e sponden t s for the purpose of seekimg,

i n t h e a g a i n s t same proceeding, an Injunct i -on under s .80 o f t h e A c t

t h o s e two respondents does n o t mean t h a t 1n t h o s e

c l r c u m s t a n c e s t h e a p p l 1 . c a n t I S e n t l t l e d t o a d m x n l s t e r

mte r roga to r1 . e . s d l r ec t ed t o t he t h l rd and four th respondents

whych dre n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h e l s s u e whether d permanent

~n ]unc t ion unde r s .80 should be g ran ted . Such i .nterrogatcri .es

would 1.n my o p ~ n ~ o n be oppresstve and need not be answered.

Re C1ai.m of Pr lv i - lege

( 1 ) P o s s ~ b i l i ___ t y o f p r o c e e d l n q a q a j n s t -_----__ _- T h 1 . r d a n d F o c r t h

Respondents for Percunxary Penal ty

I respec t fu l ly agree wi th the observa t1 .ons of Deanc

J . i n Ref r igera ted Express L ines (A/as ia ) P ty . L lml ted -v-

A u s t r a l i a n Meat and Lxvestock Corp. L O r s . ( 1 3 7 9 )

- 23 -

A.T.P.R. (Para .40-137) (Vol.2 A . T . P . R . 18,484) 1.n whxch a revsew

o f t h e e a r l y c a s e s d e a l x n g w i t h t h e p r t n c i . p l e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e

rals lng of discovery of documents and the providmg of an ob]ect i .on by a p a r t y t o l t t i - g a t t o n t o b o t h the

1.nformatJ.on 1.f t h e

r e s u l t t h e r e o f would be t o p r o v l d e e v l d e n c e a g a t n s t h1.m whsch

may be used t o e s t a b l t s h h l s l t a b l l l t y t o a p e n a l t y s n o t h e r

proceed lng S.

A t 18,486 Deane J. s t a t e d :

" I t IS a w e l l e s t a b l s s h e d p r m c s p l e t h a t a

defendant sn proceedimgs which are solely for

the recovery of a pecuniary penal ty should not

be ordered documents whi.ch t o d l s c l o s e 1.nformati.on or produce

may assxst s n e s t a b l x s h m g h1.s

liability t o t h e p e n a l t y (see, g e n e r a l l y , p e r

I s a a c s J., ___ R. -v- A s s o c ~ a t e d N o r t h e r n

C o l l i e r l e s ( l 9 1 0 ) 11 C . L . R . 738 a t pp.741-748;

Naisrnlth -v- McGovern(l953) 90 C . L . R . 336 a t

p p . 341-342; Mart tn -v- Treacher ( 1 8 8 6 ) 1 6

Q.B.D. 507) . Even where, a s i n t h e p r e s e n t

ca se , t he p roceed imgs a r e no t fo r r ecove ry of

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

xn]ury, a p a r t y t o l l t lga t i .on ought no t t o be

compelled to p rov tde i n fo rma t ion or produce

documents for inspec t ton by the o ther par ty 1 f

t h e r e s u l t t h e r e o f w l l l be t o provtde evtdence

a g a l n s t htm whi.ch may be used t o establish h1.s

l i a b l l l t y t o a p e n a l t y 3.n other proceedi.ngs

( D e r b y C o r E o r a t i . o n __ - v - D e r b y s h i r e C o u n t y

Councll (1897) A . C . 550 a t p . 5 5 2 ) .

In the former c a s e , t h a t 1.s t o s a y i n a mere

a c t i o n for a p e n a l t y , a c o u r t should, I n t h e

a b s e n c e s t a t u t o r y o f p r o v s s i o n t o t h e

c o n t r a r y , r e f u s e t o make a n y o r d e r a t a l l

a g a i - n s t t h e d f e n d a n t f o r d i s c o v e r y o r

p r o d u c t i o n of documents or p r o v i . s l o n o f

t n fo rma t ion fo r t he r eason tha t t he who1 e and

avowed o b ~ e c t o f t h e p r o c e e d l n g s b e l n g t h e

x m p o s l t t o n a n d t h e r e c o v e r y p r o v t s t o n of

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

a s the p rosecu to r o f t he ac t ion 1.s concerned,

- 24 -

proper ly have no o t h e r 1.ntended consequence

( s e e R . -v- Assocxated Northern Col11 er1 es ,

s u p r a , a t p . 7 4 2 ) . . . . . . . . .

I n t h e thc present l a t t e r c a s e , t h a t 7.5 1n a c a s e such a s

where the proceed1.ngs a r e nc;t f o r

:he recovery of a p e n a l t y , t h e r e 1.s no g e n e r a l

r u l e p r e c l u d m g t h e maklng of an o rder for

d l scovcry or m t e r r o g a t o r 1 . e ~ a n d t h e r e ~1.11

ordxna r l ly be no p r o p e r g r o u n d f o r o b ~ e c t ~ n g

t o an order provlsxon of 1.nformatl.on being	for	productxon	of documents o r
made. The

p a r t y a g a m s t whom such an order 1.s made 1s

l c f t t o documents o b ~ e c t t o p r o d u c l n g p a r t x c u l a r

or providi .ng par t lcular 1.nformatl.on

on t h e provxsxon may tend t.o g r o u n d t h a t s u c h p r o d u c t l - o n r expose h1m t o a p e n a l t y .

(See Nayor of the County Borough of Derby -v-

Derbyshxre County Councll , supra, a t p . 5 5 3 ) ."

If t h e S t a t e Unxon 1.s a body corporate wl.th1n t h e

mcanxng o f S .45D(6) and It 1.s determined t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e

provxsxons o f .45D(5) , the S ta te Unxon 1.s deemed t.0 have

contravened S .45D(1) as a r e s u l t o f t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e t h i r d

and four th respondents then a percunlary penal ty not excccdimg

$ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 c o u l d b e l m p o s e d a g a i n s t It p u r s u a n t t o t h e

p r o v ~ s ~ o n s of S .76(1) . Sub-sect l .on(2) of S .76 provuics :-

"Plothxng 1 n sub-sec t lon ( l ) authorizes t h e maklng of an o rde r

a g a i n s t a person n o t bexng a body corpora te by reason tha t thc

pcrson has contravened or at tempted t o contravene, or beer.

Involved In a contravent l on o f , s ec t1 on 45D . . . . "

Accord1.ngly 1 f t h e s e c o n d r e s p o n d r n t I S a body

co rpora t e neither the thi . rd nor the fourth rcspondent could be

pxposed to the i .mpos l . t~on of a percun1ary penal ty for any

- 25 -

contravention or at tempted contravent1.on or belng i .nvolved 1.n

a cont ravent lon of s.45D whlch might be determlned ln the

present proceedmgs to have been commlt ted by exther or both

of them.

On the other hand, in such c1 rcumstances, If t h e

State Unlon, 1 s not a body corporate wl-thln the meanlng of

s.45D(6) a proceedlng may b e m s t l t u t e d 1.n t h e C o u r t f o r t h e

r e c o v e r y o f t h e p e r c u n l a r y p e n a l t y r e f e r r e d t o I n s.76 for an

a l leged breach of s.45D by the un lon aga lns t an o f f l ce r o f t he

S t a t e Uni.on a s a r e p r e s e n t a t l v e o f t h e members o f t h e uni.on a t

t h e r e l e v a n t tune ( s e e S .45D(6) ( c ) (I) and S .77) . In such a

c a s e t h e p r o v l s l o n s o f S .76 ( 2 ) o f t h e A c t do not apply

(S .45D(6) ( c ) (11) ) so t h a t a n o r d e r 1mposl.ng such a percunl-ary

pena l ty could be made a g a m s t u c h o f f i - c e r . The max1.mum

pena l ty ha cou ld t be imposed t hose in c l r cums tances 1s

$ ~ ~ O . O O O ( S . ~ ~ D ( ~ ) ( C ) ( I I ~ ) ) . Although such a proceedmg can be

m s t l . t u t e d o n l y a g a m s t s u c h o f f l c e r , S. 45D(6) ( c ) (I) provi.des

tha t such a g a l n s t p roceed lng sha l l be deemed t o be a proceedlng

h e t h l r d and fou r th r e sponden t s a s members o f t he

unl.on.

Any Judgment o r o r d e r made i n such proceeding may be

enforced by process Issued and executed agal-nst any property

In which the State UnIon has o r any members thereof have in

t h e l r c s p a c l t y a s s u c h members a bene fxc la l In t e re s t whe the r

ves ted I n t r u s t e e s or however otherwise held, as 1.f t h e S t a t e

- 26 -

Unlon was a body corpora te and the absolu te owner o f t h c

p rope r ty or lnterest(s.45D(6)(c)(v)).

Accordmgly, a l though no process for the enforcement

of such a ~udgment or order could be Issued and executed

dx rec t ly agaxns t any o the r p rope r ty of t h e t h i r d or f o u r t h

respondents , those respondents would, xn such ci.rcumstances,

p robably be In te res ted I n t h e p r o p e r t y a g a l n s t wh1.ch executxon

may b e e f f e c t e d u n d e r s . 4 5 D ( 6 ) ( c ) (v) . I n my vl.ew, a ~udgment

o r o r d e r cxrcumstances xn a proceedi .ng brought under S . 77 I n s u c h

could be saxd t o o p e r a t e t o e f f e c t - l v e l y e x p o s e

t h e t h i r d unposxtxon and f o u r t h r e s p o n d e n t s t o t h e p o s s t b i l l . t y o f t h e

of a percunxary pena l ty so a s t o perm1.t t h o s e

r e s p o n d e n t s c l a x m i m t e r r o g a t o r l e s whxch p r l v l l e g e t o a q a i . n s t a w c r l n g

may t e n d t o e x p o s e them t o such pena l ty .

R e C l a I m of P r i v i l e g e

( 1 1 ) Poss ibxlx ty of Crirnl.na1 Prosecutxon

The prxnci .p les re la txng to such ob]ec t i .on a re well

e s t a b l i s h e d a n d h a v e b e e n s u c c i . n c t l y s e t o u t i n

Intercontinental Dcvelopment Corporatxon Pty. Llm1tcd(1975) 1

A . C . L . R 253, by Bowen C . J . In Equi.ty, Supreme Court of New

South Wales, ( a s he then was) . A t p .259 he s t a t e d :

"Before turning t o t h e p a r t x c u l a r q u e s t i o n s ,

i t 1.s conven1.ent t o r e f e r t o t h e law r e l a t i n g

t o th1.s head of pr ivi legc. . . . . . The yues t lon

IS a s t o when th1.s ob]ccti.on may p rope r ly be

- 27 -

t aken . The p o s s t l o n appears t o be t h a t a

wl tness LS e n t i t l e d t o r e f u s e t o answer a

ques t ion on the g round tha t the answer may

incriminate htm, lf the answer may t e n d t o

expose the w x t n e s s , o r t he husband or wlfe of

t h e w t t n e s s , t o a c r ~ m i n a l c h a r g e o r p e n a l t y

o r f o r f e l t u r e . ( S e e R . -v- Boyes( l861) . 1 B . &

S . 311; (18821, 20 Ch.D. 294; Lamb -v- Munster 1 2 1 E . R . 730; E x p a r t e R e y n o l d s

(1882),

10 Q . B . D . 110; TrIplex Safety Glass C o . Ltd.

-v- Lancegaye 2 A l l E . R . Safe ty Glass (1934) L td . , (1939)

613; Mortmer -v- Brown (1970) , 1 2 2

C . L . R . 493 a t p.495; ( 1 9 7 2 ) A . L . R . 723; Re

J o h n P r i n g l e ( 1 9 3 4 ) . 34 S . R . ( N . S . W . ) 508 at

p . 5 1 2 ; Ex p a r t e P . ; Re H a m l l t o n ( 1 5 7 ) , 74

W.N. ( N . S . W . ) 397 a t p.399) . The ba re oa th o f

the wxtness r e g a r d e d tha t he IS endangered IS n o t t o b e

as necessarily c o n c l u s l v e o f t h e

mdt t e r . I t IS f o r t h e c o u r t t o c o n s ~ d c r from

the c l rcumstances of t h e c a s e , and t h e n a t u r e

of the g tve , ev tdence the w l t n e s s i s c a l l e d upon t o

whe the r t he re 1.s reasonable ground t o

apprehend danger of p r o s e c u t l o n o r f o r f e l t u r e

I f t he w l tnes s IS compelled to answer . The

danger m u s t b e r e a l and apprecsable, and not

o f an magmary or i n s u b s t a n t l a l c h a r a c t e r .

I f t h e r e s s a r l s k , t h e c o u r t d o e s n o t

g e n e r a l l y go Into the quest l .on of whether x t

1s probable or no t ha t p roceedmgs wi .11 , 1.n

f a c t , b e t a k e n .

?MO o t h e r comments may be made, namely, t h a t a

q u e s t l o n whi.ch a t f l r s t s i .ght may a p p e a r

Innocent may, by a f ford ing a l m k I n t h e c h a l n

of events , o f f e n c e become a means of bri-nglng home an

t o a wi-tness, (see Osborn -v- London

Dock Co.(1855) , 10 E x . 698); 156 E . R . 620.

Once t h e c o u r t IS o f t h e vxew t h a t t h e w s t n e s s

IS in danger , some l a t i t u d e w ~ l l be allowed t o

the w l tnes s s u p r a , a t p . 330 ) ” . 1.n - - _ ludsxns for h l m s e l f t h e e f f e c t ~~~ ~ ~ ~

of any pa r twu la r ques t lon ( s ee Boyes ’ Case ,

M r Toomey Q.C. who, wxth M r Douglas , appeared for the

respondents submitted t h a t , d e s p l t e s . 7 8 o f t h e A c t , t h e thi.rCi

and fou r th r e sponden t s were en t l t l ed t o r e fuse t o answer each

o f t h o s e interrogatories o b ~ e c t e d t o or. th1.s ground of

p r l v l l e g e i f t h e a n s w e r t h e r e t o may tend t o expose them t o a

c r l n m a l c h a r g e o r p e n a l t y o r f o r f e i - t u r e .

- 2 8 -

Sec t ion 7 8 provides :

"Crlmlnal proceedings do not l ~ e agal.nst a

person by r eason on ly tha t the person-

(a) has contravened a provi.sIon of Part IV;

( b ) h a s prov 1.s l.on ' a t t e m p t e d t o c o n t r a v e n e s u c h a

( c ) h a s a i d e d , Frocured a b e t t e d , c o u n s e l l e d o r

a p e r s o n t o c o n t r a v e n e

such a provIs1on;

( 2 ) has Induced, or a t t empted to Induce ,

a person, whether by t h r e a t s o r

promlses or o the rwise , t o con t r avene

such a provi.si.on:

( e ) h a s been 1.n a n y w a y , d l r e c t l y o r

Indirect ly , knowingly concerned I n ,

or p a r t y t o , t h e c o n t r a v e n t i o n b y

a person of such a provls lon: o r

(	f)	has conspl-red wlth others to contravene
such a M r Toomey submitted tha t p rov i s ion . "

the p rov1s i .ons of S .45D do

n o t r e q u l r e t h e a p p l l c a n t I n a proceedxng such as the p resent

t o prove that the conduct complalned of was done wi.th t h e

l n t e n t of causlng damage. A l l t h e a p p l l c a n t 1 S r e q u i r e d t o

prove IS a n i n t e n t t o d o an a c t . H e need not prove an Jntent

t h a t damage would flow from t h a t a c t ( S e e Ti.llmanns Rutchcrles

P t y . Limited -v- Australasi-an Meat I n d u s t r ~ a l Employees' IJnTon

and O t h e r s , 2 7 A . L . R . 367 @ 376 and 382-3 : La ide ly ' s -

Case ( supra ) 0 593-4, 600-1).

The Interrogatories oblectecl t o on t h l S p a r t J c u l a r

ground were cause harm o r damage and such t h a t a n y w e r s accordlngly t h e r e t o may p rove an i n t en t to

may tend t.o expose the

two r e s p o n d e n t s t o a crimlnnl charge, namely common law

consp t r acy t o do something con t ra ry to l aw , o r t o do somethl.nq

wrongfu l o r ha rmfu l t o ano the r pe r son , o r t o u s e unlawful

. - 29 -

means 1.n carryi.ng o u t an oblect	not	otherwl	se	u n l a w f u l .	( a s
t o	t h e

n a t u r e P u r n e l l , o f s u c h o f f e n c e s e e g e n e r a l l y , Watson a d

C r i m m a l Law I n N e w South Wales @ p.383 para . 1151

and c a s e s t h e r e cited.) . Such answers, it was c l a m e d , would

be yond a p p l i e d the protectxon glven by s.78 of the Act wh1.ch

o n l y t o a c t s whlch cons t l tu ted a cont raventJon of

S .45D.

I am s a t l s f l e d from the cmcumstances of the case and

t h e n a t u r e r e sponden t s a re ca l l ed of t h o s e p a r t l c u l a r 1 . n t e r r o g a t o r l . e ~ t h a t h e

upon t o answer t h a t t h e r e >.S reasonable

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

p rosecu t ton fo r common law consplracy or of civil act>.ons for

p e r c u n i a r y p e n a l t ~ e s . A c c o r d l n g l y , my 1.n opIn1.on. ne1.ther

respondent IS requl red t o answer those 1n te r roga to r1 . e~ .

Fu r the r , If a c o n t r a r y vl.cw IS taken regarding t h e

danger t o t h e t h l r d and four th respondents of prosecut l .on for

common law consplracy or of civil a c t l o n s f o r p e r c u n l a r y

penalties, I a m of t h e o p l n l o n t h a t t h o s e r e s p o n d e n t s a r e .

e n t l t l e d t o c l a m t h a t t h o s e questions t o which t h e c1a.m of

prxvl lege has been made a r e I n f a c t oppressive wxth ln the

meanlng of that term In 0.16 r . 6 ( 3 ) ( b ) .

Ground o f ob lec t ion (d ) above

Th1.s ob ]ec t l . on r eads “ tha t t he In t e r roga to ry seeks t o

- 30 -

questxon m e a s t o my s t a t e o f mimd". In suppor t of th1.s

ground Mr Toomey rel1.ed on the c?ecl.sJon 1.n S e r v ~ c e and

Anor.-v- Coote (1891) Vol. 1 7 V . R . 40 . In r ep ly Mr Mc1:evitt

r e l l e d o n t h e d e c x s x o n 3x1 Jo rdan and Anor . -v - Sande r s and

- Anor.1934 S . A . S . R . 424 . N o r e f e rence was made t o Servi.ce -v-

Coote xn Webb J. I n Serv lce -v- Coote t h l s l a t t e r d e c x s l o n . I understand the ludgment of

has been followed both 1.n t h e

Equxty D1.vlslon of t h e New S o u t h Wales Supreme Court and 1.n

t h e Vxctor1.an Supreme C o u r t f o r many y e a r s . Jn my v3ew t h a t

declsxon should be followed. Accordi.ngly my 1.n oplnxcn th l S

ground of objec t lon , where taken , has been va l id ly taken .

For the r easons set out above the Kotl.ce of Motlon 3 s

dlsmlssed wl th cos ts .

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No.	G51 of 1980.
GENERAL DIVISION.

BETWEEN: NAVAIR PTY. LIMITED

Appllcant

- AND:

Respondents.

O R D E R

J W E MAKING ORDER: FRANK1 J.

DATE OF ORDER:	15 August 1980.
WHERE MADE:	Sydney.

Upon the applicant by its Counsel undertaking to

pay any party adversely affected by this Interlocutory the Court orders that:

- --.

1. Australia New South Wales Branch, by itself, its servants and agents, the third respondent John The second respondent, Transport Workers' Union of McNally be each restrained until the determlnation

2.

of the proceedings in No. G.61 o f 1980 or f u r t h e r

order from engaging i n conduct in contravent lon of

s.45D o f the Trade Practices Act 1974 in conce r t

with any person that hinders o r prevents the

supply of aviation gasolene o r other petroleum

product by Mobil O i l Aus t ra l ia L t d . t o any d r lve r

o f a not in breach of the Transport Industry tanker vehicle of Navair Pty. Limited who 1 s

- Petroleum

e tc . Dis t r ibu t ion (S ta te ) Award o f 18 April 1980,

where such conduct i s engaged in fo r t he pu rpose

and has causing substant ia l o r would b e l i k e l y t o have the effect of

loss o r damage t o the business

o f t he app l i can t ;

2. Liberty be granted t o any par ty upon twenty-four

hours notice t o the o ther par t ies to apply genera l ly ;

3. The quest lon o f cos ts i s reserved.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G61 o f 1980.

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN: NAVAIR PTY. LIMITED

Applicant

-	AND:	TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF
AUSTRALIA AND TRANSPORT WORKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH JOHN BARRY McLEAN AND DAVID ARTHUR McNALLY AND WALES BRANCH AND
GEORGE HENRY McKAY

Respondents

CORAN: FRANK1 J.

15 August 1980.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

I c o n s i d e r t h a t t h i s i s a matter i n which I p re fe r

t o g ive o ra l Judgment, r a t h e r them t o delay t o express my

reasons, perhaps more f u l l y i n a reservedjudgment. This

i s an appl icat lon under sect ion 80 o f the Trade Practices

Act 1974 fo r an in t e r locu to ry in junc t lon to restrain conduct

s a id to be in cont ravent ion o f sec t ion 45D o f the Act. The

appl ica t ion is brought by Navalr Pty. Llmlted, a company

whlch operates approximately 30 a i r c r a f t from Bankstown

Airport . The a i r c r a f t a r e used f o r f l i g h t t r a m i n g , a n -

char te r se rv ices and commuter a i r l i ne ope ra t ions .

The flrst respondent i s the Transport Workers' Unlon

of Australia. I am n o t s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e r e i s evidence

o f any s igni f icance aga lns t the first respondent.

The second respondent i s the Transport Workers' TJnion

of Austral ia New South Wales Branch, and It i s admit ted that

i t 1s an industrlal union registered under the provisions

of t he Indus t r i a l Arb i t r a t ion Act 1940, New South Wales.

The t h u d respondent is John Barry McLean, a union

organlser employed by t h e second respondent.

The fourth respondent i s David Arthur McNally, an

employee of Mobil O i l Australia Llmited, which I w i l l c a l l

Mobil O i l , which operates a depot a t Bankstown s i tua t ed

wi th in the a i rpor t per imeter . It is admitted tha t he i s

a member of the second respondent.

The f i f t h respondent i s George Henry McKay, but there

i s no evidence against him.

The a p p l l c a n t r e f u e l s a i r c r a f t a t Eankstown Airport

u t i l i s l n g a mobile fuel tanker vehicle . Pr ior to a tlme

towards the end o f May 1980, the tanker had been drlven by

two employees of the applicant, a t l e a s t one o f whom was a

non-unionist.

3.

It was the prac t ice to dr ive the tanker t o t h e

Mobil 011 depo t i n the a l rpo r t where it was f i l l e d , e i t h e r

by an employee of Mobil 011 o r by the dr lver of the vehic le .

It was then the prac t ice t o d r lve the tanker t o the var ious

a i r c r a f t and r e fue l them from the tanker .

On 18 Apri l 1980 an award was made under the New

South Wales Indus t r ia l Arbi t ra t lon Act ent i t led "Transport

Industry - Petroleum Etcetera Distr ibut ion (State) Awardtv.

Clause 40 sub-clause (1) of tha t award provides:

"Preference o f employment t o members

of the Transport Workers' Union o f

Austral ia NSW	Branch	s h a l l be	I n t h e
following terms:

( a ) I n be exercised against t h e employment of members persons by

an employer no discr lminat lon shall

of the

union.

(b ) Where a worker other than a member

of the union 1s engaged, such worker

sha l l wi th in 14 days a f t e r commencing

work make the unlon and app l i ca t ion fo r membership o f

i f accepted shall complete

such application.

( c ) Workers a t p r e s e n t employed s h a l l

within 14 days from the da te on which

t h l s award takes e f f e c t make appl lca t lon

f o r membership o f the unlon and i f

accepted shall complete such appllcatlon.

( d ) Any person who has made appl lca t ion

f o r membership of the unidn i n accordance

wi th th l s c l ause , and whose appl ica t ion

is re jec ted , and any person expelled

f rom membership, s h a l l be deemed t o be

a member o f the union f o r the purpose o f

this award, except a person struck off

t h e r e g l s t e r f o r a r r e a r s o f dues.I'

Whilst it is necessary to express some views upon

the evidence It must be remembered t h a t I am only forming

such views a s a re appropr i a t e f o r interlocutory proceedings

4 .

and tha t no th lng I say is t o be regarded a s a conclusive

f ind ing re levant to the de te rmina t ion of the appl ica t lon

f o r a permanent i n p n c t i o n when tha t app l i ca t lon comes on

fo r hea r ing , o r re levant t o any other proceedings whlch a r e

o r may be before any court o r tribunal.

It would appear the prmcipa l task o f the dr lver of

t he t anke r , fo r example, before 7 August 1980 - one was a

Mr Namroud r e f u e l l i n g a l r c r a f t , - was to opera te the tanker f o r the purpose o f

and t h l s would appear to be wlthm

the de f in i t i on	of	"aerodrome	a t t endan t " i n c l ause	2	o f
t h e award.

I and po ln t ou t t ha t t he re r e i t e r a t e I am making no f i n d m g t o t h i s e f f e c t ,

i s no evidence before me as t o t h e

scope of the Carters Etcetera (State) Conci l ia t ion Committee,

and it seems t h a t t h e award only appl ies t o employees re fer red

t o i n c lause 1 of tha t award. I am simply saymg that on

the mater ia l before me it appears l ikely that the d r ive r

of t h l s t a n k e r , a t l e a s t i n the past , has been wlthin that

c l a s s i f l ca t ion o f aerodrome attendant.

Since about 23 May 1980 a t tendants employed by Mobil

O	i	l	have refused to allow the applicant 's tanker vehlcle to
be	f i l l e d w l t h f u e l a t t h e d e p o t . On about 30 May 1980

the respondent, M r McLean, addressed a meeting of a l r c r a f t

operators , saylng i n substance that there was a d ispute

because the Transport Workers' Union wanted t h e award

enforced, and that the award was the law o f the land and

t h a t anybody who r e f u e l s a i r c r a f t must be a member of t h e

Transport Workers' Union,

5 .

Mr McLean a l so produced on that occasion a copy

of the award. There was some question whether M r McLean

used t h e word 'Idispute" o r i n s t ead , t he word llbanll. On

21 Ju ly 1980 the fourth respondent , M r McNally, telephoned

t h e managing d i r e c t o r of t he app l i can t , M r Hazelton, and

complained tha t the appl icant ' s t anker was being refuelled

a t night, and said that If this was seen t o happen again

'I we it w i l l mean w i l l t u rn o f f t he power f o r t h e key-lock system and

t h a t nobody can use the key-locks".

I t seems t h a t a f t e r normal workinghours there was

a bowser where f u e l could be obta ined , bu t tha t tha t

bowser was possession a key t o t h e bowser. locked and tha t t he app l i can t had i n i t s

On 25 J u l y 1980 the fourth respondent refused to f i l l

the tanker when driven t o the Mob11 011 depot by M r Hazelton

af ter the fourth respondent had asked him - t h a t i s , Mr

Hazelton - whether he	had	a union badge and he had said that
he had not.

An appl ica t ion was made t o me i n chambers on 30

Ju ly 1980 to g ran t an ex p a r t e i n p n c t l o n , b u t I refused

t o do t h i s , and this appl icat ion-that i s before me now was

f i l e d on 4 August 1980 and served on t h e second respondent

on 5 August 1980. I t h ink the a f f idav i t o f se rv lce , whlch

I have looked a t , s a i d a t about 3.20p.m. on t h a t day.

The third respondent said in evldence that s ince 1969

t h e o i l sec t ion of the Transport Workerss Union has been m

dispute with Mobil O i l Austral ia Llmlted on many occasions

6 .

over the sa id tha t i n ea r ly Apr i l issue of mannmg a t Bankstown a i r p o r t . He a l so

1980, before the award which I

have mentioned came in to force , there were discussions

between him and o thers and Mobil O i l concerning issues of safety, manning and the use of non-union labour. I

am not impressed with the relevance of those aspects to

the proceedings now before me.

It seems p r i o r t o 5 August 1980 the appl icant had

been a b l e t o f u e l t h e a i r c r a f t t o t h e i t s a i r c r a f t a t Eankstown by taxi- ing

bowser a t t h e k b i l depot but that

union action prevented this since about 5 August 1980

and t h a t t h i s union action applied not only t o the appl icant

bu t a l so t o the Royal Aero Club of New South Wales which

habitually used	Its own tanker t o r e fue l i t s planes a t
t he a i rpo r t .

I make re ference to some al legat lons concerning the

way I n which members o f the Hazelton family performed work

bu t I am not impressed w i t h the relevance of that mater ia l

i n these proceedings. I cons ide r t ha t f1 rega rd M r McNally

a s t h e f i r s t person, M r McLean, o r t h e second respondent,

as t h e second person, Mob11 O i l Australia Limited as t h e

third person and the app l i can t a s t he fou r th pe r son wi th in

t h e words of sect ion 45D, and I think it 1 s appropriate so

t o do , then there has been conduct between the f irst person,

M r McLean and the second person, elther Mr McNally o r the

second respondent which, s o far as is necessary for the

proof of a prima facie case, should be regarded as havlng

7 .

been engaged i n f o r the purpose and as being such as would

have o r be l l k e l y t o have the e f fec t o f caus ing subs tan t la l

l o s s o r damage to the business of the appl lcant . I have

i n mind sec t ion 45D(5) i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e second respondent.

It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that

any relevant conduct fell within the defence provided by

sec t ion 45D(3). However, wl thout dea l ing wi th th i s sec t lon

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

this case, it seems t o me c l ea r that looking a t t h e m a t t e r

as I should look a t it in r ega rd t o the establishment of

a prima engaged I n was f a c i e c a s e , t h e dominant purpose for the conduct

for the purpose o f ensuring that persons

who dr ive the re levant tanker were members of the second

respondent. It seems t o me as f a r a s i s r e l e v a n t f o r

determination o f whether	a	prima	f ac i e case ex i s t s	tha t
the applicant has succeeded.

I then come to consider the balance of convenience

and a l so t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t the ques t ion o f i s managmg the cour t ’ s d l scre t lon . It seems

t o ge t i t s p lanes re fue l led

a t p l a c e s o t h e r t h a n Bankstown a i rpo r t bu t t h i s i nvo lves

considerable extra expense to the applicant. There has

been some delay in br inging these proceedings t o cour t

--.

but it ordinary pr inciples of laches has been previously held by t h l s c o u r t t h a t t h e

and o the r equ i t ab le p rmc ip le s

whlch have been worked ou t i n the Cour t s of Chancery do

not necessar l ly , they may but do not necessar l ly , apply to

appl icants under sect ion 80. It was &o put t o ne t h a t

damages would be adequate i f t he app l i can t u l t ima te ly

succeeded in the p roceedings which according to

the t imetable I f ixed on the summons f o r

8.

di rec t lons , w i l l no t come on f o r some time. But thls

court has habi tual ly given lnter locutory injunct ions in

r e l a t i o n t o t he t r ade p rac t i ces f i e ld ,Pa r t Four of the

Trade Practices Act in particular,and I th ink tha t this is

a case where it i s appropr i a t e t o cons ide r t ha t damages

would not be the only remedy t o which the appl icant would

be e n t i t l e d i f it succeeds ult imately and not the only

remedy t o which it 1s ent i t led today.

Any order which I would make would have no e f f e c t

on any conduct whlch was not in breach of the Act and I am

a l so ca re fu l t o ensure that any such order would not be

one which would encourage conduct in breach o f t h e award

t o which reference has been made. On the balance of

convenlence I think an order i s appropriate . No leg i t imate

busmess of the relevant respondents o r any other persons

would be affected by the order but undoubtedly the business

of t he app l i can t i s ba.ng ser iovsly affected by the conduct

of the second, third and fourth respondents. I consider

t h a t a c r l t i c a l q u e s t i o n I n this case is t h a t a r i s i n g from

examination o f c lause 40 of the award t o which I have referred

and I the exerc lse of the cour t ' s d i scre t lon . think t h i s is a very important quest ion in re la t lon to ,

It seems t o me t h a t t h i s i s a mat te r tha t I have t o

bear carefu l ly in mind. I consider that the court should

proceed on t h e basis t h a t t h e award is va l id ly made although,

as I have sa id , i t s scope is by no means c l e a r on t h e

evidence before me. If I were to gran t an order sought in

the appl lca t ion l imi ted in te rms to conduct in cont ravent lon

9.

of sec t ion 45D, a l though the applxant would not be, so

it appears , in breach of the award by engaging a non-

union driver,if a non-union dr iver were employed and he

d i d not apply for membership of t h e second respondent

within fourteen days of commencing work it would appear

t ha t worker might well be in breach o f the award.

There began i n May 1980, M r Namroud had made any application i s no evidence whether a t the t ime the t rouble

f o r

unlon membership. I am not, of course, concerned wi th

whether any person has o r has n o t appl led f o r union

membership, except insofar as that ques t ion r e l a t e s t o

a provls ion i n any re levant s ta tu te , regula t lon o r award.

Mr Hazelton, in paragraph 4 o f h i s a f f i d a v i t o f

12 August, s a i d t h a t on 16 June 1980, he t o l d M r McLean

t h a t he would become a member of the Transport Workers'

Union and t h a t M r McLean said he would send him t h e

necessary papers, but	a t t he da t e	o f	t h e a f f l d a v l t ,	no
papers had been recelved.

An undertaking has been tendered today on behalf

of the second, thlrd and fourth respondents in a f o r m ,

exh ib i t 1 , but that undertaking does not seem t o me t o

--.

be adequate, having i n mmd the terms of clause 40 of

t h e award assuming, as I have, somewhat aga lns t t he

app l l can t , t ha t tha t award is appl icable .

A s t o the general approach to be made to app l l ca t ions

of t h i s s o r t , t h e r e a r e a number of cases to whlch I

suppose one could make reference, but I r e f e r g e n e r a l l y t o

10.

t h e Judgment aga ins t The Federated Storemen I n Industr ia l Enterpr ises Proprietary Llmited

and Packers Union of

Aus t ra l ia , and I am looking a t the repor t i n Volume 2 o f

the Australian Trade Practices Reports a t paragraph 40,100.

No application has been made to the court under sect lon

8 0 A A of t h e Trade Practices Act. I propose t o make an

o rde r i n the folowing terms. Havlng said what I have

sa ld , I do n o t know whether e i ther counsel wish to add

anythlng to what was said before as t o the form of the

order. I thmk it has been fully discussed and the order

I make i s t h l s , upon t h e applicant by i t s counsel undertaklng

t o pay any par ty adverse ly a f fec ted ( tha t par ty means par ty

to these proceedings) by the in te r locutory orders I am

about to make, such compensation ( i f any) as the court

thinks f i t .

I order:

(1) The second respondent, Transport

Workers Union of Austral ia (New South Wales Branch) by i t s e l f , i t s servants

and agents, the third respondent, John

Barry McLean and the fourth respondent ,

David Arthur McNally, be each res t ra ined

until the terminat ion o f the proceedlngs

number G61 o f 1980, o r fu r the r o rde r ,

from engagmg i n conduct m contraventlon

of sect lon 45D of the Trade Practlces Act 1974,

i n concert with any person that hlnders o r

prevents the supply of aviat ion gasol lne

o r other petroleum product by Mob11 O i l

Austral ia Lmlted t o any dr iver of a

11.

tanker vehicle of Navalr Proprietary

l lml ted who is n o t i n tree& (and I

have eliminated the words of clause 40,

whlch I had suggested before) of the

Transport Industry - Petroleum etcetera

Dis t r lbu t lon (S ta te ) Award o f 18 Apri l ,

1980, where such conduct 1s engaged i n f o r

the purpose and has o r would be l i k e l y t o

have the effect of causlng substari ial

l o s s o r damage t o the business o f the appl icant .

( 2 ) I hours no t i ce to the o the r pa r t i e s g r a n t l i b e r t y t o any party upon 24

t o apply

general ly ,

(3)	The question o f cos t s i s reserved.
Now,	those a re the o rde r s t ha t I make. I add

these comments, t h a t I have elimmated the reference

only to c lause 40 of t h e award i n t h e f i r s t order. I

would a l so add these comments, that In the event of any

appl ica t ion t o apply coming before a Judge other than myself, I would n o t regard this-judgment as inhibit ing

any view whlch t h a t Judge might wish t o t a k e a t t h e

time any application might come before hlm. I think

that covers the matters that are proper to cover in

t h e Judgment. If anybody would l i k e me t o , r ead tha t

order again, I am happy t o do s o .