Wilson, Colin Edward v Westpac Banking Corp

[1984] FCA 146

MR MARSHALL: Yes, your Honour.

H I S HONOUR: Thank you, M r Marshall. A s I b d l c a t e d b e f o r e ,

I have r ead the t r ansc r lp t ca re fu l ly ove r t he weekend.

I do no t see any p o l n t l n r e s e r v l n g z decls lon .

This 1 s an appl icat lon under section 119 of t h e

Concl l ia t lon and Brbl t ra t lon Act , 1904, ( the A c t )

f o r t he lmpos l t l on upon Westpac BanMEg Corporatlon

(the respondent) of a pena l ty of t he c l l eged b reach

of a term of the Bank Messengers (FeEeral) Award

1966, I n t h a t It d ~ d , " d i s r a t e E a r l E, E l l l s a s a

r e s u l t of a charge or complaint made a g a l n s t t h e

s a l d Earl R. E l l i s r n thou t . i n fo rm~ng hlm of t h e

nature of such charge or com2lalnt wlrhout

qlvlng him a reasonable opporcunlty	t o make an
explanatlon. . . . . . . . . . . . .

M r Marshall, counsel, zppeared for the . app l l can t .

M r Dowling of Queen's counsel appeared with XL- Turner

c for the respondent .

It was admitted by t h e responder;L t h a t a t a l l

ma te r l a l tlmes : 1. The app l l can r , i.Ir Colln Edward

Watson was secretary of the Vlctoriar? 5ranch of

t h e A u s t r a h a n Bank Employees I Union ( rhe organlsa t lon) ,

an o f f l c e r of t h e o r g a n l s a t i o r anE ax tho r l sed unGer

1cs r u l e s t o sue on Its beha l f . 2, The organlsatlon

was an organlsa t ion of employees reg is te red under the

A c t and a parry CO a 2 bound by t h e a-szrd. 3. The

respondent was a du ly Inco rpora t ed co lpay and bound

by t h e award. The e v l d e n c e e s t a b l l s k s d t h a t a t a l l

mater la l rlmes M r E l l l s was 2 member .of the organrsaclon

and t h a t he had been employed by the respondenr for

about four years as hea-d messenger =--;er belng a

messenger f o r m a n y years . -

M r E l l1 . s gave evldence t h a t on 22 November 1982 ,

In response to a reques t h= went ta t h e o f f l c e of t h e

respondent 's accountant , M r Gordon Jaasph , wlth t h e

ass l s ran t accountant , N r Tichard E?e~-r=y. He s a l d t h a t

M r Joseph asked hxn t o remain qule t ntil he had flnlshed

saylng what he had t o say. In cross-examlnatlon It I rzs

p u t t o Y r Ellls e x p r e s s l y t h a t t h e k t t e r s ta tement ,

"is a complere and u t t e r f z b r ~ c a t l o n " , and t h a c ,

"no such chlng was s a l d t o him a t a l l a t any t m e on

22 November o r a t any o t h e r rime". Z completely reject

those suggest lons by M r Dorvllng whrck were denled by

M r E l l l s and whlch \rere not suppor tee by any evldence

ca l l ed by the respondent. X r Joseph then cold M r Zllls

that the personnel depzrtmezr "had recsived anorher

l e t t e r of complalnt", and referred to "two o r th ree

o ther let ters of complalnt rscelvee o-er t h e l a s t

two or three years both In che persarzel department

and 1s the accountant ' s area". R e t a l d Nr E i h s tha:

" In v lev of chese complaints, ser.lor mmagement had

dec ided tha t he could no loncer hold t'ne pos l t l on 05

I,

head messenger . . . . . . . . . . .

watson 25.5 - 8 4 160

gk lam l a

. M r Joseph to ld M r Ellis t h a t h i s pay ra te would

remaln the same sub jec t t o good conduct and asked

hlm would h e c o n t l n u e t o car-ry o u t t h e d u t l e s of

head messenger u n t l l 29 November 1982, when a bank

afflcer would take over . E 4 r E l l i s asked if he could

see t h e p a r t i c u l a r le t ter or' c o m p l a m t t o which

M r Joseph had referred and any other complalnts

t h a t had been received but was t o l d t h a t t h a t was

"not possible". M r E l l l s made a s a r c a s t l c remark

and expressed hls disgust a t the r e sponden t ' s ac t ion ,

inc luding Its r e f u s a l t o make h l n aware 05 the complalnts

o r of t h e names of t h e persons maklng them. M r Ellls

was t o l d t h a t t h e Cieclslon had been made and t h e r e was

nothing he could do about it. In f ac t , he con tac t ed

the organrsa t lon and var lous d iscuss ions took p lace

betveen i t s o f f l c e r s and chose of the respondent .

Mr.See, the respondent 's personnel manager, gave

evldence thac one such matter dlscussed was "whether

we would b e p r e p a r e 6 t o r e l c s t a t e M r E l l i s a t head

messenqer l e v e l w 2 t k two subordlnate messeng6rs"

I accept a l l of I.lr E l l l s ' evidence as t o what was s a l d

by M r Joseph t o hlm on 22 November 1982-

Clause 11 of t h e award is i n t he fo l lowlog	terms:
"Dlsmlssals.

When a messenger 1s dismissed, suspended or reduced

-1n vages. o r 1s inrbrmed t h a t he-ls 6i-srSce6, -_ - .--- -- ~f

-12 one'ro_ntli Fheyrizfcer sach nesseEger ssks I n

__- --- _ -

wrlt2-g t o se EGralshTec? i r l th tke r&sons for- ssch

7 - _- _-

action, 'le s3iSlLbe Inforrned'zr IrriFing of such

>

re'asons wl th ln a f o r t n i g h t from t h e r e c e l p t of

'?=i-e-Fauest therefor: provzCe5 thLt no messenaer shal l

-A-- F---_ . -- --

Qe-alsmlssed!ssJgkd <rL-@cuc&5-zn j : r q e s -S- a result of

-

'-any - _ cherge o r complaint rnade -aqalcst--hlm wlthout jelng

Informed of the Ee tu re of such charge or- '-

complaint and b e n g g l v e n S r e a s o n a l e o p p o r t u n l t y

to make an explanatlon. "

M r Dowllng has submitted t h a t t h e a p p l l c a t l o n

should be dlsmissed because che applicant h a s f a l l e d

t o d l s c h a r g e t h e onus of proof . H e advances four

arguments i n s u p p o r t of tha t submlss ion . F i r sz ly ,

t h a t on =he evxience M r Ellls has not been "d;srated".

The Shor te r Oxford Dic t lonaq def lnes "d ls ra te" as

meaning " to reduce t o a l o w e r r a t l n g o r r a k " .

M r Dowling conceded c h a t t h e e f f e c t OE the respondent ' S

decls lon was t h a t M r E l l l s w a s re l le i red of t h e t l c l e

of head nessecger and :i+s r e l l eved 05 h i s d u t l e s a s

head messenger. I n my oplnlon he was "disr2ced" by

the respondent rrl thln the meznicg of t h a t word l n

c lause 11 of t h e awzrd. The r e s p o n d e n t ' s f l r s t

submlsslon 1s r e j ec t ed .

watson 25. i . a 4 161

gk lam 22 (Continued 011 page 161a)

.

Secondly, it was subrnl t ted that it had noc been

shown thzt any d i s r a t l n g , If it occurred, was "as a

r e s u l r " of any complalnt made a a a l n s t hlm. I have

a l ready se t o u t p a r t of the ev ldence of M r E l h s

a s to what he was t o l d by Mr Joseph 03 behalf of

the resaondent on 22 November 1982. That evidence

was not denied. M r See gave evldence for t h e

resp0nder.t t h a t t h e d e c i s l o n I n r e l a t i o n t o M r E l l l s

was made on 18 o r 19 November 1982. H e s a l d t h a t

he had " rece lved the r r r l t t en comgla ln t v la my supe r io r

manager of t h e management servlces and immedlacely

Informed 41r Joseph of t h e c o n t e n t s of it". The

dec l s ion s s t o M r E l l l s "was t aken OE a c o l l e c t l v e

b a s i s " w i t h t h e t:io superiors- of M r See and M r Joseph.

M r See sz1d t ha t t hey a l so dec lded that t h e t a s k of

c o m u n l c s t i n g t h e d e c l s l o n t o M r E l l i s rrould be

d e l e g a t e d t o Kr Jcseph. The submlssion that Nr E l l i s

was no t d i s r a t ed "a s a r e s u l t " of any complamt must

be r e j ec t ed .

Thiydly, it was submi t t ed tha t ~t had not been

shown that any d is ra t lng occurred wl t3out M r E l l i s

"belng izformed of the na tu re .of such, . . . . . . . . .

c o m p l a I n t " . - ~ ~ e _ r e ~ a r e two elements ir t h l s s u h n s s l o n .

. ,-One - was t h a t t h e words "belng inZorme2 D€ €he nature

-_ -. --__ -

of . . . . . . . . . . such . . . . . . . . . . com~lalnc"

d id noc require chat che messenger be s o lnformsd by

t h e employer. It was p u t t h a t lt was s u f f l c l e n t I f t h e

information vas recelved by che messenger from any source.

I accept thac , where It is shown -;hat a messenger

1s i n p o s s e s s l o n of knowledge of a c o G l a l n t , t h e extenc

of t h a t knowledge may be re levant ln de ts rn ln lng whether

he has been "Informed of the nature of . . . . . . . . . .

such . . . . . . . . . . .complaint" wi'Lhln t h e meanlng

of the c l ause . However, I reject the sabmlss lon cha t

t h e r e i s no breach of t he c l ause where the employer

has d l s r z t ed a messenger a s a r e s u l t 05 a complalnt an6

has t a k e n no steps whatever t o Inform The messenger of

t h e n a t u r e of the complalnt made aqa ins t hlm, bu t sssks

t o deny any award breach on t h e b s s l s c h a t t h e messenger

had some :knowledge of t h e n a t u r e of the complalnt, gamed

from soU--ces other than the ernployer- The respondent 's

submlssicn on th i s a spec t l nvo lves coz - t ru lng the words

"wlthouc belng lnformed" as meenlng "wichouc belng aware''

and cannot M r E l l i s vas not be upheld. In any event, on the evldence,

informed by anybody of the "na tu re of

( t he ) coxg la ln t " , In the sense thac he had never seen

the Fa r t i cu la r wr l t t en compla ln t whlch Mr Joseph referred

to on 22 November 1982, and was t o l d that It was not

- Dosslble f o r him t o see t h e e a r l l e r c c i n p l a l n t s .

watson 25-5-86 161a

gk lain 3s (Conanued on i;aqe 151b)

The o the r a spec t of t h e t h l r d s u b m l s s l o n was

t h a t It was sald t h a t Mr E l h s had bccn "lnformcd

of the nature of such corrglalnt" and it was no t

necessary f o r hlm t o b e g l v e n d e t a l l s of t h e complalnt.

I a c c e p t t h a t t h e TTords "ns tu re of the complalnc" a t

f l r s t g l a n c e may n o t a p p e a r t o r e q u i r e d e t a l s .

However, those words must be read m thelr context.

The c l a u s e , I n r e q u l r l n g t h a t t h e employee be "informed

of t he na tu re of" a comp1axr.t i s p l a 9 f l y ln tended to

g i v e t h e employee ( I n t h l s c a s e M r Ell is) "a reasonable

oppor tun l ty to make an explanacion"; that purpose 1s made

c l e a r by the fo l lowlog words o f t h e c l a u s e . I n t h a t

con tex t , t he words "lnformed of t he r zzu re o f t he

complalnt" must be construed as r e q e r i n g t h a t an

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

complalnt t o e n s b l e hlm t o kake advzmtage of t h e

" reasonable oppor tunl ty to make eo erraplantlon" vhlch

the remalnder of clause 11 r equ l r e s 'his ernployer t o g l v e

t o him. i n my opinlon, the evrdence showe2 t'nat Nr E l l l s

was noc g lven , e l ther by t h e responde=% o r by anybody

else, informatlon as eo " t h e t a c u r e oE (che) complalnt"

t o t h e e s t e n t n e c e s s a r y I n o r d e r t o comply x l t h c h e

requlrement that he be "inforin& of tke nature of such

. . . . . . . . . . compla ln t" ; tke respondent ' s th l rd

submlssion 1s rejected.

Las t ly , Mr Dovllng submitted thzt zny "d l s r a t lng"

of M r E l l l s dld not occur on 22 Novem3er 1982, contefielng

t h a t It d ld not occur before 29 NoveF3er 1982, because

the respondent ' s dec ls lon , as corcmunicared t o hlrn,

dld not requlre hlm t o han2 over che respons lb l l l t l es

of t h s p o s l t l o n of head messenger u n t i l 29 November 1082.

In h ls submlss lon the words I n c l a u s e 11 "pro-nded thEt

no messenger s h a l l be . . . . . . . . . . d l s r a t e d

. . . . . . . . . . . . r e f e r t o t h e d a y upon whlch any

s u c h d l s r a t l n g t a k e s e f f e c t , and do not refer t o t h e

day upon whlch the dec l s lon 1 s made.

The evldence made It c l e a r t h a t t h e d e c l s i o n t o

d i s r a t e M r E l l l s occurred on 18 or 19 Xovember 1982

and was conveyed t o h l n on 22 November 1982. I accept

h i s ev ldence tha t on t h a t l a t e r date ke was s p e c l f l c a l l y

t o l d by M r Joseph " that the decls lons had been made and

the re vas nothlng I could do about it". I n my opxnlon

a t t h a t time he had been "d l s r a t ed" t:Zzhln che meanmg

of c l ause 11 - notwl ths tandlng tha t he was asked would

he con t lnue to ca r ry ou t t he du t l e s	of	head messenger
f o r one week.

The purpose of c lause 11 1s t o ensure t h a t a

messenger 1s not d l s ra ted "without being Informed of

t h e n a t u r e of such . . . . . . . . . . complalnt and

belng given a reasonable opportunle1 50 make an

exp lana t lon" , t ha t ls, before any d e c i s i o n t o d i s r a t e .

I n my opln lon the words "LO messenger s h a l l b e

. . . . . . . . . . i n t he l r

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

context , mean t h a t t h e employer s h a l l =at dec lde to

d l s r a t e a messeocor w l t h o u t f l r s t g l v l n g hlm t h e

ln fo rm+t ion ( a s t o t h e com_olalnt) and t3e "reasonable

opportunlcy", boch of whlch z r e r e q u i r e d by t h e c lause.

watsor! 25.5.84 16 lb

gk lam 4a (Continued on page 1 6 1 ~ 3

M r Dowllng submltteii t h a i Mr Ellis had !lad an I

oppor tun i t l r t o "make an explanat lon" wirhin the meanlng

of the c l ause in tha t he cou ld have made an explanatlon

dur lng the week follorrlng 22 No\-ember 1982 when Mr Joseph

t o l d him of t h e b a n k ' s d e c l s i o n t o d l s r a t e him.

However, by t h a t t l m e , the decls lon had been made and

I n my opinlon It 1s n o t t o t h e p o l n t , i n c o n s l d e r l n g

wherher clause 11 of the awird was breached on o r before

22 Bovember 1982, t o con tend tha t it was t h e o r e t l c a l l y

posslble that that decls lcn might have been subsequent ly reversed or that the respondeix nlght have been persuaded by the o r g a n l s a t l o n " t o r e i n s t a t e MrE l l l s ac head

messenger level". Accordingly, the respondent I s las t

submlsslon 1s a l so r e Jec t ed .

I f i n d on tine evldence that che respondent on o r

about i9 Movember i982 comnltted a breach of c lause

11 of t h e award I n t h a t lt d l s r a t e d Nr Ear l E l l i s 2 s a

r e s u l t of a congla ln t made aqalnst him, wrthout lnformlng

him of t h e n s t u r e of the compls ln t arid wltnout glvlng

him a reasonable opportunl ty t o make an explanat lon.

The maxlmum penal ty tha t -msy be lnposec! 1 s $1000

and i n m ! oplnion the respondenc 's breach 1s 2 se r lous

one. Eowever, I have taken Into account whzt E4r Turner

has persuaslvely advanced this mornlng and also the

fact t h a c has prevrously breached It has not been al leged ther the respondent

che aw=rd o r any o t h e r aw2rd.

Horiever, I must reject M r Dowllng's submlsslon

of l as t Frl6ay t h a t the respondenc "acted I n a most

' reasonable rasnner here" and acts?. "Groperly". On

t h e c o c t r a r y , It acced in breach of i ts c l e a r o b l l g a t l o n

under the award t o g l v e M r E l h s ln format lon as eo t h e

complaint, and i n addlclon It f a l l e d t o glve hxn any

oppor tuni ty CO make an explanatlon.

i n a l l the,clrcumstances a pena l ty of 'S500 1s

imposed. A s requested by t h e app l l can t , It 1s ordere6,

under seccion 120 of t h e Act, t h a t t h e p e n a l t y of S500

be paid by the respondent , Viespec Banking Corporatlon,

t o t h e A u s t r a l i a n Benk Enployees linlon.

I

I

vatson 28.5.84	161c
sw lam 5a