Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union Summary

Trade Practices Act s.45D.

No. G123 of 1985

COR.&?:

Bowen C. J.

2 1 June i985

Sydney

I N THE FZDERBL COURT OF A U S T P U

) )

>JZ>l SOUTH WALZS DISTRICT REGISTRY

No.

G 1 2 3 of 1985

)

GPJERFL DIVISION

)

B m E E P J :

MUDGINBE!?RI STATION PTY. LIMITED

Appl icant

AUSTRALIAN MEAT INDTJSTRY EPIPLOYEES

UNION

Firs t 2es.sondent

JBCX O’TOOLE

Second i?espo.n.dent

TREYOQ SURPLICE

Third	Respondent
D i C R	.UI>”;ilx

Fourth Respondent

PAT ROUGHAN

Fif Yn

Respondent

MEAT INSPECTORS

ASSOCIATION

Sixth Respondent

GORDON McCOLL

Seventh Respondent

ALEX THOMPSON

Eighth Respondent

M I N U T E

ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDEE:

Bowen C . J .

WZFE MADE:	Sydney
W:	21 June 19R5
THE COmT ORDERS WAT:

The notlon In respect of the Second to

Fifth Respondents be

stood over	671th	liberty to rescore on seven	( 7 7 days
notice.

2. The

First

Xespondent

be fmed Ten

Tnousand

Dollars

($10,000) in respect of breacn of or&%

of Beaumont J., of

June

1985

and from service of thls order onwards,

furt'ner fine of Two Thousand Dollars (S2,OOO) per day so

long 25 the breach contlnues.

3 .	Liberty be given to	all partles to ap;?ly cm two ( 2 ) days
notice.

Tre First Respondent

1 s to pay the costs of the

Applicant

of this motion against the Flrst Respondent.

The fine

of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10 ,000)

be ?aid to the

Registrar of this Court withln seven

( 7 ) days of service of

this order upon the First Respondent.

6. A daily fine of E J O Thousand Dollars ( $ 2 , 0 0 0 , if and $her. Incurred be paid to the Registrar within forty-eight (48) hours of it being incurred.

W:	Settlement and entry of o r d e r s 1s dealt with ir? Order 36 of the Federel Court Rules.

IN TrIZ FDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

KZhT SOUTH NALES DTSTXICT REGISTRY-

1	No. G123 of 1385

DIVISION

GENERAL

)

BETWEEN :

MUDGINBERRI STATIOV PTY. LIXTTED

Applicant

AUSTFALIIIN J W T

INDUSTYP EM?LOYEES

UIJION

First Res2cndent

JACK D ‘TOOLE

Second Respondenr:

TREVOR SURPLICE

Third Respondent

DICK AiNNF3R

Fourth Respondent

PAT R0UGH.W

Fifth Respondent

PETIT INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION

Sixth Respondent

GORDON McCOLL

Seventh Respondent

ALEX TiIONFS0p.I

Eiqhth Respondent

CORAN: Bowen C.J.

W: 21 June 1985

BObJEN C.J. Thls is an appllcation by Mudginberri Sratlon Pty.

Limited, the applicant, agamst the Australasian Pleat Industry

Employees Union

("the AMIZU"), Jack O'Toole, Trevor Surplice,

Dick Annear, Tat Roughan,

Meat Inspectors Association, Gordon

XcColl and Alex Thompon, the elght respondents.

The notice

of motion seeks orders first Ynat the first

to the fifth of the respondents show cause why they should not

punished for concempt of court;

- and; secondly, thar: the first to

the fifth respondents show cause

why

fines or Im2risonment

other penalties shoulcl Rot be inposed uFon each

o r all of t'nem as

a punishnent, for contempt and a3

a deterrent to future conduct

There is a statemect af charge :n

the notice of inotlon

referring to an order daced 12 June 1985 made In proceedings G123

of 1985 in the nature of an injunction restraining the first to the fifth respondents from engaging in conduct

m he nature of

picket line and ban upon the abattoir and meat processing plant

of the applicant at MudginSerri.

The

matter before me arises out of

a long dispute

relating to the abattoir and export meat processing works

Mudginberri which

is near Jabiru, east

of Darwin.

The histoq of the matter 1 s set forth in

some detail In

the

reasons

for

judgment

delivered

Beaumont

J. an 12 June

- . . .

1385, followinq which be mzde

t'?.e rescraming orders whlch are

the sub;ect of che present motion.

shall not repeat those

d?tails.

The matter before Seaumont J. was an application vhich

came before hlm for Interim relief in the course

of proceedings

under s.45D

of the Trade Practlces Act 1974.

It appeared that

from ahout 10 May 1985

the abattolr had been the subject of a

secondary boycott in the form

of a

picket organized hy tne

WIEU, an

organization

of em2loyees

regiszered

under

the

Conciliation and Arbitration Act

1904, and it further appeared

-. .

that the second, third and fifth-respondents, who are officers

the AMIEJJ,

were participatlng in one way or anocher in relation

t3 the plcket.

_ _

The

substantive matt5r arising in

those proceedings,

lncluding a

defence which was put on m relatlon CO sub-sectlon

45D(3) was not

of course to be determlned

by Beaumonc J.

The

application to h m was

for interim relief pending

tine hearing of

the issues in the case.

He considerzd that

there was

a serious question to he

tried between the parties, and

thar; r;he overvhelming balance of

convenience was

to preserve the position until thls issue could

determined

a proper

hearing.

He made his interim

injunctions in an endeavour to permit

the abattoir to operate and

to remove the plcket pencllng that hearing.

- 4 -

It should be mentloned that the actual issue between the

partres, whether a tally system should

be introduced at the

abattoir, is not before me

i,n

these proceedrngs as It was not

before Beaumont J.

The sole question before me is whet'ner there

has been a breach of the order of the Court which Beaumont

macie on

12 June 1985 and, if so, whet'ner some punishnent should

be ordered by the Court

with a

n e w to obtaining obedience to its

order. That

1 s the only matter before me and I express no view

about the substance

of the dispute.

Before this matter came

on before Seauaont

J. on 12 June

the dispute had been notified

to the Conciliatlon

and Arbitration

Commission. It was referred to Deputy Commissioner Keoqh, who

held a compulsory confsrence on 3 June 1985. The evidence of Mr.

Surdis before me concerned what took place at ch1s compulsory

conference called with a view to

solvlng the substantive dispute

by conciliation, and

h? was asked this:

"How did that conference conclude, would

you

.i	tell his Honour?"

Kr. Bwdis' evidence WES

''KelL, t h e

conference concluded after certain

mtters of report were put

on transcript by

the Deputy President interviewlng separately

the differenr; parties in

his chambers and, ar;

the concluslon of

the

conference when the

matter

was before the bench, the commisslon

had reassembled,

was by a statement

from

Deputy President Keogh, which, In

brlef terms,

he stated that the

dispute was slmilar to that

of 1984, in terms of its effect.

He also said

tBat

the

difference

Setween

1984 and

the

current period of

time was that in

1984 there

was no award and the arguments baslcaily were

- 5 -

in respect to an award to cover the Industry in the Northern Terrlcory hut on thls occaalon

there was

award and thac only onz party

appeared

abidlnq

that

axard

notwithstandlng the undertaklng glven by the parcles concerned both co abl$.e by Lhe awara when It was handed dom, w h c h was on 2 May thls year.

Wow t'ne Deputy President's final comments xeYe

by way of a recommendation that the	unlor?
should lift the Picket lines and that they

should attempt tb confer with all

the

parties to resolve the current dispute."

It appears from che evidence that

no notice has been

taken of

the Deputy Presldent's recommendation that the picket

l m e s be

lifted.

Mr. Burdis shortly afterwards

m evidence recorded a

scatement made by Mr. O'Tocle, ths Secretary of the ANiZU, In relation to the conference before the Deputy ?resident and in answer to the qaestion:

"At best you can use his words	o r the substance
of them?"

Mr. Burdis said:

"Well, to the best

of my recollection, he made

the statement that the plcket lines were

place at Mudglnberri Abbatoir and that

terms of

the current dispute and the union's

demands that

those picket lines would remain.

That is the best of my recollection as to his	I '
actual words.

The application f o r contempt of

court in relation to

disobedience

cf the Court's order came before Morling

FridalJ, 14 June 1985, when he gave leave to serve short notlce

6 -

the solicitors who were then on the

:-ecord for the flrst to fifth

respondents. It was made returnable

cn Monday, 17 June 19E5, and

on that occasion

came before me.

_ _

Tne sollcltors on the

record for the first to the fifr;h

respondents then appeared and

obtamed leave from me to file and

did file a notlce of their ceaslng to act in the matter.

Tiey

were excused

from further attendance. There was no apFearance by

any of the respondents.

After hearing certain evidence on

l? June I stood the

mEtter over untll

today, giving certain directians

as to the

service of furthPr material- on -certain

of the respondents.

Further evlcience has

been given today and those directions ylven

on-17 June

have

been complied with.

On the

evidence which is now before me I am satisfied

that the AHIEU

has been served wich the order made by Beaumont

J. dated

13 June

1985 and that it was endorsed with a notice

calling the attention of the Unlon to the possible consequences of non-compliance. I am further satisfied that t% picket line

remaim in place with the approval

of the P ! I N carryzng out its

earlier declared intentlon stated by Mr. O'Toole, its Secretary.

There has been clearly

a breach of the Court's order and

thls, I

believe, calls for an order in this appllcation against

the IIMIZTJ.

Sefore I discuss the form of that order I should say

--.=.-----.--A

______

~ __._-_

L_-.. ..I_

I-

i.2-

.? I . t

- 7 -

that when the matter was before me on

1 7 June l’i

was apparent

that althougk

telex message had been sent

to each of the

second, thlrd, fourth

and. fifth respondents setting forth the

mlunction, pursuant to leave to do thls granted by Beaumont

J.,

no effective servlce had

beeil

proved of

the order upon them,

certalnly not of an order with a

notice calling their attention

to the consequences of non-compliance.

Affidavits have now been filed indlcatlng

that‘ these

second, third, fourth and fifth respondents have been served with

a copy of the order and

a notice calling their attentlon to the

consequences . of non-compliance-.-

In the case of some of the

respondents a reaction has been obtained by which they indlcate thar: they fully understand tine present position and are prepared to go to gaol if necessary.

The

tlrne

since they have been properiy served with

notice of the present

hearmy is short. They have not been

legally represented here today and

am not

at. this stage

prepared to make orders agalnst

t‘ne individuals. However, I will

make an order standing the matter over

as far as they are

concerr.ed so t’nat tine matter 1 s still alive in that respect.

The purpose of orders when cor.tempt proceedings

for

breach of

court’s order are brought (as distinct from some

order made.

for

exarr.ple, for scandalizing the court or

f o r

contempt in-the face of the court), is to secure obzdlence to the

g,	- 8 -
I

coL,r~'s

order.

The orrier b'nlch

I now make will be directed at

_ _

that objective.

I order that the Union, in respect

of its breach of the

orders of Beaumont J. on

1 2 June 1985, be flnrd the sum of

$10,000, and I order further that from the service of tine order onwards there be 2 furt'ner Tine of $2,000 a day should that

breach continue.

I order thar; the matter

far ss the second, third,

-_ .

fourth and

fift'n

respondents are concerned stand over with

liberty to restore it

to t'n? list on seven days notice. I give

each party llberty

to apply on two days notice, and

I order that

the FiIEU pay r;he costs of this application

tcr Mudginberri

Station Pty.

Llmited - that is, the costs which the Station has

incurred to date in relatlon to this notlce

of notlon.

I further order that the fine of $10,000 5e paid to the

Registrar of thls Court within seven days of the servlce of this

order upon the ANIEXJ, and that the daily fine of $2,000, if and

when incurred, be paid to the Registrar	oi this Court within	48
hours of its beir?g incurred.

Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established