| Title | Alleged payments to maritime unions Royal Commission - Final Report, April 1976 (Sweeney Report) |
| Source | Both Chambers |
| Date | 25-05-1976 |
| Parliament No. | 30 |
| Tabled in House of Reps | 26-05-1976 |
| Tabled in Senate | 25-05-1976 |
| Parliamentary Paper Year | 1976 |
| Parliamentary Paper No. | 147 |
| System Id | publications/tabledpapers/HPP032016001246 |
Parliamentary Paper No. 147/1976
The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
ROYAL COMMISSION INTO ALLEGED PAYMENTS TO MARITIME UNIONS
Final Report
April 1976
Presented by Command 25 May 1976
Ordered to be printed 4 June 1976
The Government Printer of Australia Canberra 1976
ISBN Î 642 02120 1
F. D. Atkinson, Government Printer, Canberra
ROYAL COMMISSION INTO ALLEGED
PAYMENTS TO MARITIME UNIONS
23 April 1976
Your Excellency,
In accordance with Letters Patent, dated
5 September 1974, I have the honour to present the
Final Report of the Royal Commission into Alleged
Payments to Maritime Unions.
Yours sincerely,
J . B . SWEENEY Commissioner
His Excellency the Honourable Sir John Kerr, A.C., G.C.M.G., K.St.J. , Q.C., Governor-General, Government House, Yarralumla, CANBERRA A.C.T 2600
C O N T E N T S
Chapter Para Page
1 CONTINUATION OF INQUIRY 1
1.1 COURSE OF HEARING
1.2 UNIONS APPEARING
1.3 EVIDENCE 2
1.4 SCHEME OF REPORT
1.5 CONCLUSION 3
2 THE INDUSTRY AND THE PROBLEMS 5
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 SHIPPING AGENTS
2.3 SHIP REPAIRERS 6
2.4 SHIPS' CREWS
2.5 NEED FOR CLEANING 7
2.6 PROCEDURES FOR CLEANING 8
2.7 NEED FOR LABOUR FORCE
2.8 UNION CLAIMS 9
2.8.1 Painters and Dockers Union
2.8.2 Shipwrights 10
2.8.3 MUU
2.8.4 Summary
3 HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE 11
3.1 OVERVIEW
3.2 BEFORE 12
3.3 ORIGINS
3.4 THE PROBLEM OF JURISDICTION 13
3.5 THE 1950 AGREEMENT ON FITTING-OUT
3.6 THE 1950 AGREEMENT UNDER STRESS 14
3.7 SAFETY 15
3.8 THE CAMPAIGN STEPS UP
3.9 THE ACTU DRAWN IN
3.10 CONFERENCES 16
3.11 THE END OF THE 1950 AGREEMENT 17
3.12 THE PROBLEM CONTINUES
3.13 THE ACTU ENDORSES BANS 18
3.14 FAILURE OF THE BANS
3.15 INTRODUCTION OF BULK SHIPS 19
3.16 FIRST DEMAND AND PAYMENT
3.17 GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT 20
3.18 AN ULTIMATUM
3.19 MORE DISPUTES 21
3.20 BANS, SANCTIONS AND A PAUSE IN THE
CAMPAIGN
3.21 SUCCESS IN THE FITTING-OUT 22
CAMPAIGN
3.22 THE 'NEW' CAMPAIGN 23
3.22.1 More Meetings & Resolutions
(v)
3.22.2 More Disputes 24
3.23 THE 1968 ACTU DECISION 25
3.24 THE PROBLEM CONTINUES
3.25 MORE CONFERENCES 26
3.26 MORE DEMANDS
3.27 THE ACTU ACTS 27
3.27.1 An Ultimatum
3.27.2 The 1971 Decision 28
3.27.3 The Effect
3.28 THE EXISTING SITUATION
3.28.1 The 1975 ACTU Decision 29
FEDERATED SHIP PAINTERS & DOCKERS UNION OF AUSTRALIA 30
4.1 THE UNION
4.2 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
4.3 WORK SITUATION 31
4.4 DEMANDS FOR PAYMENT 32
4.5 NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH 33
4.6 SYDNEY
4.6.1 Work Situation
4.6.2 Demands for Payment
4.6.3 Saf Ocean Albany 34
4.6.4 Consideration by Membership 36
4.6.5 Notification to Shipping
Interests
4.6.6 The Significant Exceptions
4.6.7 Glyfada Summer 37
4.6.8 Port de France 40
4.6.9 Hyoqo Maru 41
4.6.10 Summary 44
4.7 PORT KEMBLA 51
4.7.1 Work Situation
4.7.2 Demands for Payment
4.7.3 Aqano Maru 52
4.7.4 Sari R. Trapp 53
4.7.5 Summary 54
4.8 VICTORIAN BRANCH 55
4.9 MELBOURNE
4.9.1 Work Situation
4.9.2 Demands for Payment 56
4.9.3 Renewal of Demands 57
4.9.4 Moresby Express
4.9.5 Summary · 58
4.10 GEELONG
4.10.1 Maria Rosa 59
4.10.2 Ho Chi Min
4.11 CONCLUSIONS 60
ι â1 > â1 ι
-1
< d "
The Early Demands
Chapter Para Page
4(Contd) 4.11.2 The Later Demands
4.11.3 Uhat uas done uith the Moneys? 62
4.11.4 A Curious Union Branch
4.12 NEWCASTLE BRANCH 68
4.12.1 Work Situation
4.12.2 Demand
4.12.3 Shirrabank
4.12.4 Summary 70
4.13 PORT ADELAIDE BRANCH 72
4.13.1 Work Situation
4.13.2 Demands for Payment
4.13.3 Summary 73
5 FREMANTLE 75
5.1 INTRODUCTION
6 FREMANTLE PORT AUTHORITY 78
6.1 ROSTER
6.2 EMPLOYMENT OF LABOUR
6.3 PAYMENT OF LEVIES 79
6.4 PAYMENT OF WAGES 80
6.5 CHARGE BY FPA
6.6 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
7 MARITIME WORKERS' UNION 82
7.1 WORK PERFORMED
7.2 WORK SITUATION
7.3 THE TERM 'JOB AND FINISH' 84
7.4 DEMANDS FOR PAYMENT 85
7.5 METHODS EMPLOYED 86
7.6 INVOLVEMENT OF SHIP REPAIR FIRMS
7.6.1 James Stove 88
7.6.2 Octavia 89
7.6.3 Sea Crest 92
7.6.4 Cape York 94
7.6.5 Breim 95
7.6.6 Seizan Maru 96
7.6.7 Oranpefield 97
7.6.8 Amstellaan 99
7.6.9 Chennai Perumai 101
8 THREE SPECIFIC MATTERS AT FREMANTLE 108
8.1 FREMANTLE PORT AUTHORITY 109
8.1.1 Involvement of FPA
8.1.2 Machinery of FPA 'Used1 in
Campaign
8.1.3 Need for FPA to Exercise Powers 112
8.2 CASH PAYMENTS TO WELLS BY SHIP Î Î ^
REPAIR FIRMS ÏÏο
(vii)
Page Chapter Para 8(Contd) 8.2.1 Uells 'Ghosted'
8.2.2 Henderson's Evidence 114
8.2.3 Marshall's Evidence
8.2.4 Oohansen's Evidence 115
8.2.5 Uells' 'Virtue' Rewarded 116
8.2.6 Receipts for Casual Donations
8.2.7 Conclusion 117
8.3 PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS IN THE
DECISIONS
118
8.3.1 Minutes
8.3.2 Ad Hoc Basis
8.3.3 Reports Recorded in Minutes 119
8.3.4 Union's Bulletin
8.3.5 Conclusion 120
THE FEDERATED SHIPWRIGHTS & SHIP CONSTRUCTORS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA 121
9.1 THE UNION
9.2 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
9.3 WORK SITUATION 122
9.4 WORK CLAIMED
9.5 DEMANDS FOR PAYMENT 123
9.6 NEU SOUTH WALES BRANCH
9.6.1 Work Situation
9.6.2 Demands 124
9.6.3 Summary
9.7 VICTORIAN BRANCH 125
9.7.1 Work Situation
9.7.2 Demands 126
9.7.3 Melbourne
9.7.4 Geelong
9.7.5 Summary
WATERSIDE WORKERS' FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA 132 10.1 NEU SOUTH WALES
10.1.1 Port de Franee
10.1.2 Astree 133
10.1.3 Uaqlan Island
10.1.4 Lone Star
10.2 QUEENSLAND 134
10. 3 SOUTH AUSTRALIA
10.4 NORTHERN TERRITORY ' 135
10.5 VICTORIA
10.6 WESTERN AUSTRALIA 136
10.7 RECENT DISPUTES IN VICTORIA 137
(viii)
Chapter 1 1
Para Pag e
139 THE SUBSEQUENT OR PROPOSED USE OF THE PAYMENTS 11.1 PAINTERS & DOCKERS UNION
11.1.1 Brisbane
11.1.2 Newcastle
11.1.3 Sydney 140
11.1.4 Port Kembla
11.1.5 Melbourne 141
11.1.6 Port Adelaide
11.1.7 F remantle
11.2 SHIPWRIGHTS 143
11.2.1 Sydney
11.2.2 Melbourne
11.2.3 Geelong 144
11.3 UUF
THE REASONS FOR AND THE PURPOSES OF THE PAYMENTS OR DEMANDS 149 12.1 THE STATED REASONS
12.2 DEMARCATION
12.2.1 Acquisition of a Right to Work
12.2.2 The 'Right' to Cleaning Holds 150
12.2.3 No 'Right' to Work 152
12.2.4 Mr. Elliott's Vieus
12.2.5 Shipwrights 153
12.2.6 Conclusion
12.3 OVERSEAS PRACTICES 154
12.3.1 Argentine
12.3.2 Canada
12.3.3 United States of America 155
12.3.4 Summary
12.3.5 Conclusion 156
12.4 ACTU RESOLUTIONS
12.4.1 Resolution of September 1971
12.4.2 Resolution of April 1973 157
12.4.3 Resolution of September 1975
12.4.4 Reluctance of the ACTU to be
Involved 158
12.4.5 Unions' Actions not Supported 160
12.4.6 Conclusion
12.5 THE REAL REASONS 161
12.5.1 Ships ' Agents
12.5.2 Painters & Dockers Union & MUU
12. 6 CONCLUSION 162
12.6.1 Sydney
12.6.2 F remantle 163
12.6.3 Port Kembla 165
12.6.4 Tax Free
(ix)
Chapter Para Page
12(Contd) 12.7 SHIPWRIGHTS 166
12.8 WWF
13 THE LEGALITY AND THE PROPRIETY 157
OF THE DEMANDS AND PAYMENTS 13.1 LEGALITY
13.1.1 Functions of a Royal Commission
13.1.2 Course to be Adopted 168
-13.1.3 Commonwealth Crimes Act S.30K 169
13.1.4 Conspiracy at Common Lau 171
13.1.5 Statutory Conspiracy 172
13.1.6 Demanding Money with Menaces
13.1.7 Other Tortious Liability 173
13.1.8 Moneys Had and Received
13.1.9 Unsuitability of Existing Legal 174
Remedies
13.2 PROPRIETY 175
13.2.1 Permit Vessels
13.2.2 Painters & Dockers Union
13.2.3 Shipwrights 178
13.2.4 WWF 179
TERM OF REFERENCE 2 181
14 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 45 OF 182
THE NAVIGATION ACT
14.1 UNION PROPOSALS
14.1.1 Shipwrights
14.1.2 Painters and Dockers 183
14.1.3 Maritime Workers 1 Union 184
14.1.4 Summary of Submissions
14.2 THE PAINTERS AND DOCKERS' CASE 185
14.2.1 Most Evidence Concerns ,
Fremantle
14.2.2 The Case in Opposition 188
14.2.3 Conclusions 190
14.2.4 Recommendations -
Painters and Dockers 192
14.3 THE SHIPWRIGHT'S CASE 194
14.3.1 Recommendations -
Shipwrights 195
14.4 STABILISATION SCHEMES 196
14.4.1 MWU .
14.4.2 Painters and Dockers 197
14.4.3 Shipwrights
15 OTHER STATUTORY AMENDMENTS PROPOSED 199
±5.1 OBLIGATION TO REPORT DEMANDS AND
PAYMENTS
15.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISPOSAL OF 200
MONEYS
(x)
15.2.1 Interim Report
15.2.2 Second Stage of Inquiry 201
15.2.3 Conclusion
15.3 PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER MONEYS PAID 202
15.4 PENAL PROVISIONS 203
15.5 SUMMARY 204
16 ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND FINANCIAL 205
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
16.1 INTRODUCTION
16.2 GENERAL PRINCIPLE 206
16.3 EXISTING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
16.4 CURRENT PRACTICE 207
16.4.1 Painters and Dockers Union 208
16.4.2 Port Kembla Sub-branch
16.4.3 Victorian Branch 209
16.4.4 The Marine Industry Group of
Western Australia
16.5 CONSULTANT'S REPORT 210
16.6 ADEQUACY OF EXISTING LEGISLATION
16.7 CONCLUSIONS 211
16.7.1 Accounting Principles and 212
Practices
16.7.2 Training
16.7.3 Disclosure of Information
16.7.4 Financial Reports 213
16.7.5 Statements as to Conduct and
State of Financial Affairs
16.7.6 Duties of Auditors 214
16.7.7 Financial Reporting to Member- 2i5
ship
16.7.8 Filing of Financial Reports with
the Registrar 216
16.7.9 Powers and Duties of the
Registrar
16.8 RECOMMENDATIONS 217
Chapter Para Page
15(Contd)
(xi)
APPENDIXES Page
I TERMS OF REFERENCE 219
II ABBREVIATIONS 220
III APPEARANCES 221
IV WITNESSES 222
V LIST OF EXHIBITS PART 1 228
VI LIST OF EXHIBITS PART 11 242
VII PAINTERS AND DOCKERS UNION - 259
VICTORIAN BRANCH SUMMARY OF STATISTICS OF LABOUR ALLOCATION THROUGH MELBOURNE PICK-UP 1971-1975 VIII AWARD - SHIP PAINTERS & DOCKERS 260
6 - SCOPE CLAUSE
IX EXTRACTS FROM REPORT BY PRICE WATERHOUSE 262
ASSOCIATES ON TRADE UNION ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS -.OBSERVATIONS REGARDING ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING
.TRADE UNION ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND 265 PRACTICES .DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION 272
.REPORTING AND AUDIT 276
.REGISTRARS POWERS AND DUTIES 291
TABLES 1 FEDERATED SHIP PAINTERS AND DOCKERS UNION OF 45 AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH - DEMANDS AND PAYMENTS
2 FEDERATED SHIP PAINTERS AND DOCKERS UNION OF 66 AUSTRALIA VICTORIAN BRANCH - DEMANDS AND PAYMENTS
3 MARITIME WORKERS' UNION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA - 105 DEMANDS AND PAYMENTS
4 FEDERATED SHIPWRIGHTS & SHIP CONSTRUCTORS 126 ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA NSW BRANCH - DEMANDS AND PAYMENTS
5 FEDERATED SHIPWRIGHTS & SHIP CONSTRUCTORS 130 ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIAN BRANCH - DEMANDS AND PAYMENTS
6 PAINTERS AND DOCKERS UNION NEW SOUTH WALES 145 BRANCH - DISPOSAL OF PAYMENTS â
7 MARITIME WORKERS UNION - DISPOSAL OF PAYMENTS 147
(xii)
1 CONTINUATION OF INQUIRY
An Interim Report uas made by this Commission on 8 July 1975.
It dealt uith demands by, and payments to, seagoing maritime
unions in respect of the operations of permit vessels. At that
time, I noted that there had been some evidence of payments made
in response to demands by other unions uhere members of ships1
creus had performed certain work. Houever, I allowed that part
of the Inquiry to stand over until I had made my Interim Report.
1.1 COURSE OF HEARING
The Commission resumed its hearings on 18 July 1975 to deal uith
questions of payments and demands in recent times in respect of
the use of ships in voyages to and from Australia. Hearings
uere held in Sydney, Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne. Witnesses
uere also called from the Ports of Geelong, Port Kembla, NewÂ
castle and Brisbane. The hearing of evidence occupied forty-
two days. Addresses were then taken. During the course of
the Inquiry, written submissions were received from the InterÂ
national Shipping Federation Limited, the Australian Chamber of
Shipping, Western Australian Branch, and the Baltic and InterÂ
national Maritime Conference of Copenhagen and were made availÂ
able to the parties appearing. The Overseas Shipping RepresenÂ
tatives' Association and the Australia Northbound Shipping ConÂ
ference were invited to make submissions and, in general, supÂ
ported the submissions made by the Australian Chamber of ShipÂ
ping.
1.2 UNIONS APPEARING
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) uas advised of
issues being raised at the hearing but did not seek to appear.
The two unions primarily concerned were the Federated Ship
Painters & Dockers' Union of Australia (Painters and Dockers
Union) and the Federated Shipwrights and Ship Constructors'
1
Association of Australia (Shipwrights). Both Unions appeared
throughout the hearing when their interests uere involved. In
addition, in Fremantle, the Maritime Workers' Union of Western
Australia (MWU) was concerned and Mr. P. L . Troy uas granted
leave to appear for it. During the hearings, when it became
clear that there uere some references to the Waterside Workers
Federation of Australia (WWF) that body uas advised and invited
to attend hearings but did not seek to appear.
1.3 EVIDENCE
A list of appearances is in Appendix 111 and a list of uitnesses
is in Appendix IV. Appendixes V and VI list all the documents
uhich uere tendered during both parts of the Inquiry. Although
descriptions of these exhibits uere officially recorded in
transcript at the time they uere tendered, I have consolidated
them in this report for easier reference.
1.4 SCHEME OF REPORT
The report first examines briefly the industry and seeks to
identify the particular problem and uork in dispute. It then
proceeds to a consideration of the history of the dispute,
shouing the attempts made by painters and dockers and ship-
urights and their Unions to secure additional uork in the light
of various changes in the industry. The disputes have existed
since at least the 1940's and have been dealt uith at various
levels at various times, including the Governmental level.
I then move to a consideration of the demands by and payÂ
ments to the Federated Ship Painters & Dockers' Union. These
are taken branch by branch, dealing uith Neu South Wales
Branch, including Port Kembla, then the Victorian, Neucastle and
South Australian Branches and, finally, the Maritime Workers'
Union of Western Australia.
In dealing uith Western Australia, I also examine three
particular matters - the involvement of the Fremantle Port
2
Authority, Uells' receipt of cash payments from ship repair
firms and the degree of participation by members of the Union.
The report then examines the payments to and demands by the
Federated Shipurights and Shipconstructors1 Association and the
Waterside Workers' Federation. I then briefly consider the
use and disposal of the payments.
It then turns to the reasons for and the purpose of the
payments or demands, examining the claims that the reasons were
based on demarcation rights, on overseas practices and on ACTU
policy.
In considering these matters, reference is also made to
circumstances of payments uhich appeared to involve evasion of
taxation.
The report turns next to the legality and propriety of the
demands and payments.
It then considers the second term of the Terms of Reference.
I recommend an amendment to Section 45 of the Navigation Act,
legislation requiring the reporting of the demands or payments
and a neu remedy enabling effective action to be taken to reÂ
cover any moneys paid.
The report next considers changes proper to be made in the
requirements of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and ReÂ
gulations concerning the accounting practices and financial
reporting of registered employer/employee organisations.
1.5 CONCLUSION
The evidence and addresses concluded touards the end of NovemÂ
ber 1975. Further written submissions by both unions and
shipping interests were received in December 1975.
I had intended making a report during the month of January
1976, but uas unable to do so due to illness uhich prevented me
resuming work on the report until the middle of March.
In making the report, I uish to place on record my gratitude
for the assistance given me by Counsel assisting, firstly, Mr.
R.B. St. John, until the time of his appointment to the
3
Australian Industrial Court and, thereafter, by Mr. F.G. Tinney.
I should also mention the work, involving considerable hours and
dedication, done by their Instructing Solicitors, Mr. Peter
Hastings and later Mr. Tony Wadick of the Deputy Croun Solicitor^
Office, Sydney. .
I should also express my thanks for the assistance given me
by others appearing.
Particular mention should be made of the contribution by Mr.
P. Troy uho appeared for the Maritime Workers' Union. He came
out of retirement to do so and I found his vast knowledge of the
industry and his able and resourceful advice of his case of very
considerable assistance.
I also wish to express my appreciation of the efforts of the
Secretary of the Commission, Miss Anne Hickerton, and the
Research Officer, Mr. Ross Williams.
I may mention that I understand this is the first occasion
on which a woman has acted as Secretary of a Royal Commission
and her work was of very great assistance to me. During my illÂ
ness both she and Mr. Williams undertook duties, I think, beyond
the normal call and I desire to express my gratitude to them.
My Associate, Miss Marjorie Hutchinson, by virtue of the
conduct of the Commission, also undertook somewhat unusual and
demanding tasks and I record again my gratitude for her work.
A
4
2 THE INDUSTRY AND THE PROBLEMS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
It is necessary for an understanding of the issues to describe
briefly the industry involved and the work in dispute. In this
part of the Inquiry the unions principally concerned are the
Painters and Dockers Union and the Shipwrights. The vessels inÂ
volved are all foreign ships.
Generally speaking, cargo to and from Australia is handled
in foreign vessels. Some of these are engaged on regular trips
to and from Australia but the majority of those relevant to this
Inquiry appear to have made one trip only.
The foreign vessels, with a very feu exceptions, have foreign
crews. The feu exceptions which have Australian crews are
generally vessels chartered by Australian interests. The wages
and conditions of employment of the foreign crews are regulated
by agreements, usually with the national union of seamen of the
nation of registration of the ship. The vessels are operated
in some cases by the owners, in other cases by the charterers,
and the charters may be long or short term.
So far as this section of the Inquiry is concerned, the
issue centres around the problem whether crews of foreign
vessels or shore-based labour should perform the work of the
nature I set out below.
2.2 SHIPPING AGENTS
In the operation of the vessels in Australian ports, the general
practice is for the owners or charterers to use the services of
a shipping agent. The shipping agent takes care of the needs
of the vessel when in a particular Australian port and, for
example, makes arrangements for the stevedoring operations,
both unloading and loading of cargo. It attends to the general
husbandry of the vessel, arranging for stores and the like. It
attends to the preparation of the vessel or of particular holds for the loading of cargo. This may involve washing and cleaning
5
or laying of dunnage or attending to such things as the gratings.
In some cases bilges etc. must be cleaned and in other cases they
must be burlapped as uell. So far as actual cargo is concerned,
it normally must be unlashed as part of the unloading of cargo.
It may need to be lashed or otherwise secured or supported by
shoring or tomming as part of the loading operations.
In addition to these activities, it may be necessary for
repairs to be undertaken, in the main, to parts of ships' gear.
Uhen these are necessary the gear is normally stripped and the
actual repairs carried out ashore by a ship repair firm.
2.3 SHIP REPAIRERS
There are in each port one or more ship repair firms who, among
other things, normally carry out the operations I have mentioned
above, except the stevedoring operations. The ship repair firms
employ permanent staff, including painters and dockers and shipÂ
wrights, and supplement them as required with casual labour.
There seemed to be no case where casual labour was employed by a
ship's agent, the employment invariably being by a ship repair
firm.
In addition to the work I have mentioned, ship repair firms
undertake other work as required on Australian and foreign
vessels which may extend to major repairs or a complete refit.
2.4 SHIPS' CREUS
During the period the vessels are in port, ships' crews perform
a multitude of duties. They keep watch, do maintenance work
and generally are employed in the preparation of the vessel for
its voyage. In addition, seamen become entitled to periods of
leave proportionate to their actual service, and advantage is
sometimes taken of the ship's stay in a port for some of this
leave to be taken.
6
2.5 MEED FOR CLEANING
The general nature of the problem is illustrated by dealing with
the question of cleaning. Generally speaking, the foreign ships
either bring cargo to this country, discharge it here and leave
in ballast or, bring cargo here and, after discharging it, take
other cargo from Australia or, arrive in Australia in ballast
and load and take cargo from this country. There are other comÂ
binations of work which may arise but those I have mentioned conÂ
stitute a big majority of the vessels where disputes have arisen.
Where a vessel comes in ballast and then loads cargo in AusÂ
tralia the general practice is to have the holds of the ship
cleaned either in a foreign port e.g. Singapore or Hong Kong,
or to have the holds cleaned by the crew while on the voyage to
Australia.
In the case of vessels which bring cargo to Australia and
after discharging that cargo load and take other cargo from AusÂ
tralia it may be possible to clean some or all of the holds while
in port in Australia or while sailing between Australian ports.
In cases where a cargo is brought to and discharged in Australia
and the vessel is then proceeding in ballast to some other counÂ
try, cleaning is usually done at sea on the voyage from Australia
By reason of the nature of the cleaning which may be inÂ
volved in particular cases, the equipment on various vessels,
the numbers of the crew and weather conditions, there may be
different practices used on different occasions.
A further factor which may occasion changes is the nature of
the cleaning which may be required. A particularly high stanÂ
dard of cleanliness is required in the case of ships taking grain
cargoes and the precise amount of cleaning involved may not be
determined until after the vessel arrives in port and is exÂ
amined by Marine Surveyors. In cases such as this, even though
cleaning has been done at sea or in foreign ports, iurther cleanÂ
ing may be necessary in Australian ports.
7
2 . 6 P R O C E D U R E S F O R C L E A N I N G
The general practice is for members of the UUF to perform a
rough sweep of the holds after cargo has been discharged. In
other cases the contractual arrangements may call for the vessel
to be 'shovel-cleaned1 , and this too is performed by waterside
workers. If further cleaning is necessary at this point, then
in ports where a branch or sub-branch of the Painters and Dockers
Union exists, the work will be usually performed by their memÂ
bers. In other ports, e.g. outside Fremantle in Western AusÂ
tralia, the work is performed by waterside workers and in a
further series of ports, such as some of those in South AusÂ
tralia, the work is performed by casual non-union labour picked
up for the purpose.
In the major ports, however, the work in port is usually perÂ
formed by painters and dockers. There have been some instances
of the work being performed in port by crew members but the more
frequent practice and, in some ports the exclusive practice, is
for it to be performed by painters and dockers.
2.7 NEED FOR LABOUR FORCE
It will follow from what I have said that there is a need for a
casual labour force of painters and dockers to be available. The
evidence discloses that particularly on large bulk carriers the
numbers of the crew have been reduced over the years and the
area of cleaning and the number of the crew available to do that
work could involve a long delay to the ship. The practice is
for as many painters and dockers as can usefully be employed to
be engaged for the cleaning. This is important because each
day's delay in port / , is costly. The daily costs vary conÂ
siderably between vessels but appear to be in a range between
$4,000 to $12,000 per day. When cleaning is necessary it is in
the clear interests of the industry that it be performed as
quickly as possible and for this reason there must be a labour
force available. Some of the cleaning may involve work at
considerable heights, some will involve rigging and in the
8
major ports not only must a labour force be available, but it
must be a relatively experienced force to be able to carry out the uork.
Cleaning is the major factor in the uork of painters and
dockers but other uork uhere their services are required are in
such things as the securing and unsecuring of cargo, dunnaging
of holds and stripping of gear for repairs to be carried out in
various ship repair land shops.
In the case of shipurights the uork involved is largely the
preparation of holds for cargo, securing of cargo by tomming or
otheruise, and repairs of one sort or another, all involving the
use of shipurights' tools of trade. The need for a skilled
force of shipurights able to be called on at short notice arises
in other cases also.
Uhen this uork is necessary it is desirable that it be perÂ
formed as quickly as possible in order to avoid delays to a
vessel and the consequential costs. In order to achieve this,
there is a need for a casual labour force of skilled men to be
available.
2.8 UNION CLAIMS
2.8.1 Painters and Dockers Union
The Ship Painters & Dockers Auard sets out a uide variety of
uork in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry that can
be performed by painters and dockers, including cleaning and
general labouring uork on ships. The claim of this Union uas
at first, that it had an exclusive right to cleaning and other
uork set out in the Auard on foreign ships uhich come to AusÂ
tralia, regardless of uhether the uork uas done in port, betueen
ports, or on the high seas. The claim uas in respect of
foreign ships only and, as first expressed, it extended to all
uork specified in the Auard and some other practices differing
betueen ports. As the hearing developed, it became clear that
the practices fluctuated violently betueen ports.
9
The Union maintained to the end that it had an exclusive
right to various work, subject to demarcation agreements, and
this justified their actions in seeking payments because work
had been done by ships' creus.
2.8.2 Shipwrights
The Shipwrights Union made a somewhat lesser claim which
in its ultimate formulation appeared to be that shore shipwrights
had the right to perform any work involving the use of shipÂ
wrights' tools of trade, in the preparation of holds and in the
securing and unsecuring of cargo and in the lashing of deck
car g i).
2.8.3 muu
The mUU advanced a claim somewhat similar to the Painters
and Dockers Union.
2.8.4 Summary
In general, it may be said that it was not in dispute that
claims had been made for payment, and that payments had been
received. There was some dispute as to the circumstances of
certain payments and whether threats had been made. Before
examining the position in each port, I propose to put the disÂ
putes into perspective by tracing the history since the 1940's .
/â
1 0
3 HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE
3.1 OVERVIEW
The history of the dispute goes back at least to 1946, when the
painters and dockers and shipwrights in Western Australia comÂ
menced a campaign of industrial action for the work of fitting
out ships loading bulk wheat. The Western Australian branches
of the two Unions have featured prominently in the campaigns
which have continued, with some developments and modifications,
up to the present. Their prominence reflects their greater
dependence on the casual work associated with shipping, in the
absence of any significant shipbuilding and ship repair work.
fir. P. L. Troy, the former Branch Secretary of both the
Shipwrights' and Painters and Dockers' Unions in Western AusÂ
tralia, has taken a leading role in the campaign over the years,
actively representing the claims of his members for work and
canvassing support from other State Branches, the Federal Office^
other waterfront unions and the ACTU.
The nature of the work and the emphasis placed on different
aspects has changed through the years with advances in shipping
technology, which has altered the type of work to be done. In
the early to mid 60's for example, with the introduction of bulk
vessels into the wheat trade and the falling off in demand for
fittings, the thrust of the campaign shifted to the cleaning of
vessels. Again, when containerisation and unitisation were
introduced in the late 60 ' s , work associated with securing and
releasing this cargo was joined with the claims for the other
work. The joint involvement of the two Unions in the campaign reÂ
flects their dependence on the shipping industry and their close
working relationship in some of the classes of work undertaken;
the painter and docker as labourer and the shipwright as tradesÂ
man . The owners and operators of foreign ships coming to AusÂ
tralia and their agents in Australia have resisted the demands
of the Unions in order to avoid the increased costs that they
1 1
claim would result. They have been represented in Australia by
three bodies, the Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association
(CSOA), the Overseas Shipping Representatives Association (OSRA)
and the Association of Employers of Uaterfront Labour (AEWL).
While making concessions from time to time, they have never
surrendered their right to use crews in accordance with the
agreements existing with the various unions covering the crews
of foreign vessels.
The intensity with which the campaign has been conducted has
varied over time, as has its effect. What follows is a brief
history of the dispute from the mid 1940's to date.
3.2 BEFORE
In the mid 1940's it appears that the practice had grown up
whereby fittings required to be erected in grain ships, partiÂ
cularly in Western Australia, were erected by shore labour and
this formed the bulk of the work for casual painters and dockers
and shipwrights employed in Fremantle. I presume the position
was similar in other major grain loading ports in Australia,
although there is no clear evidence of this before me.
3.3 ORIGINS
In the immediate postwar years as shipping became more comÂ
petitive it appears that shipowners, in order to reduce costs,
commenced the practice of using crews in place of shore labour
for the fitting out of wheat ships. It was this situation
which in 1946 caused the painters and dockers and shipwrights in
Fremantle, at that time represented by the Coastal Docks, River
& Harbour Workers' Union and the Coastal Shipwrights & Boat
Builders Union respectively, to bring industrial pressure to bear
on shipowners and agents for the work of fitting out British
ships loading wheat in Western Australia.
1 2
3.4 THE PROBLEM OF JURISDICTION
A number of disputes arose, but the practice of using crews conÂ
tinued. In February 1948 the Unions declared their intention
of placing bans from the 1st March on the fitting out of all
ships arriving in Fremantle already partly fitted. The bans
became the subject of a compulsory conference before the then
President of the Western Australian Court of Arbitration, Dunphy,
J. In his judgment His Honour held that he had no jurisdiction
to make an award, but made the following recommendation :
However, there is one avenue available which may bring substantial settlement to this matter. It is obviously to the benefit of Fremantle workers and to all employers of waterside labour and to the town of Fremantle, and the whole of the State for that matter, to have as much work as possible done on the waterfront. Provided the necessary materials and labour are available here, the carrying out of a great deal of this work, which is
really new work, would add security to working con ditions at Fremantle and contribute to a stable labour market which the employers themselves require.
The only method which can be availed of to achieve such a desirable end is for the employers to endeavour to persuade the people for whom they are acting as agents to have as much work as possible done in the port. I therefore suggest to the employers that they make strong recommendations to their principals along
these lines, supplying them with any facts and figures which are available, in an endeavour to demonstrate the benefit of having their work done locally.
It appears that for a time the recommendation was followed
and there was a relatively large portion of work being done by
shore labour. However, the Unions remained vigilant and during
1949 several disputes arose over ships arriving partly fitted.
3.5 THE 1950 AGREEMENT ON FITTING-OUT
Eventually, in April 1950, agreement was reached between the
Shipwrights and the OSRA concerning British ships. While reÂ
serving the right of British shipowners'to have vessels fitted
or partly fitted prior to arrival in Australian waters' and to
1 employ ships' crew in accordance with the ship's articles,
13
whether in or beyond the Territorial Waters of the Commonwealth
of Australia', it expressly provided 'that within the three mile
limit, or within Australian Territorial Waters, all further work
of fitting up or refitting shifting boards for the carriage
of wheat', be done by shore labour, if available. This
agreement was later extended to Norwegian shipowners and to
shipowners of other flags. Although the Painters and Dockers'
Union was not a party to the agreement, it had the effect of
giving its members the work of assisting shipwrights and doing
cleaning work.
3.6 THE 1950 AGREEMENT UNDER STRESS
During the years 1950, 1951 and 1952 more than 50% of the sixty
to seventy ships loading wheat in Western Australian ports each
year were fully fitted by shore labour. Then, in 1953, wheat
exports dropped suddenly and only a total of thirty ships loaded
grain in Western Australia. Of these only three were fully
fitted out by shore labour and nineteen partly fitted, the reÂ
mainder being fitted by the crew or in overseas ports. The
reduced volume of shipping and the reduced share of the work
resulted in unemployment and focused the attention of the
unions on the work being done overseas and by crews. In the
circumstances the 1950 Agreement was found to be of little
practical assistance in obtaining work; the work falling to
Australian shipwrights and painters and dockers was mainly that
occasioned by failure of survey and on ships arriving to disÂ
charge cargo rather than in ballast. In some cases, even
ships which discharged in Australian ports would, to reduce
costs, leave port after unloading and proceed outside the three Jfr mile limit to allow crews to perform the work.
From this point on the Western Australian Branches, agitated
for' the termination of the agreement.
14
3.7 SAFETY
The greater use of crews at sea in erecting fittings appears to
have brought about an increase in accidents to seamen working in
holds, and this safety aspect became an important ingredient in
the argument by the Unions against this work being done by crews.
3.8 THE CAMPAIGN STEPS UP
From 1953 on, disputes over work done by creus occurred sporadiÂ
cally in Fremantle, Melbourne, Geelong and Adelaide, their inÂ
cidence no doubt resulting from periodic reductions in the
volume of the grain trade and increased unemployment among the
members.
At the Federal Council meeting of the Painters and Dockers
Union in mid 1958, a resolution was passed calling for a meeting
of the representatives of the WWF, Seamen's, Shipwrights and
Painters & Dockers' Unions for the purpose of initiating action
to stop crews working.
3.9 THE ACTU DRAWN IN
By late 1958, the situation in Western Australia appears to have
deteriorated significantly. During the months of September and
October almost 50% of casual painters and dockers were unemÂ
ployed . This rose during some weeks in November to 75%. Over
the full period September to December, unemployment averaged
approximately 40%. Faced with this situation, Mr. Troy actively
sought support from branches of the other water front unions to
assist in the campaign. As a result of the Western Australian
situation being represented by the Federal Secretary to the
ACTU, the matter was considered at a meeting of the Interstate
Executive of the ACTU in October 1958.
The Western Australian branches of the two Unions took inÂ
dustrial action in support of their claims on 24 November 1958,
placing a ban on the completion of fitting out the Kin_gi David,
a ship which arrived in Fremantle, partly fitted, en route to
15
taking on a cargo of wheat at Geelong. On the advice of the
respective Federal Secretaries, that the matter had been reÂ
ferred to the ACTU and therefore should be left to the Federal
body, and also because of the threat of deregistration and canÂ
cellation of their Awards, the men returned to work. At about
the same time, the Victorian Shipwrights placed a similar ban
on a ship of the same line in Melbourne, the King Agres.
3.10 CONFERENCES
The Melbourne dispute came before Commissioner Horan of the
Conciliation & Arbitration Commission, the Commissioner in charcp
of the industry. The Shipwrights returned to work on the
understanding that a conference would be arranged on a Federal
basis between the Unions aid OSRA, under the chairmanship of Mr.
Conciliator Whitehead.
The proposed conference cut across the plans of the ACTU
for a similar conference between the parties. An Emergency
Committee meeting to determine policy was held by the ACTU on
17 December with the two Unions. It was decided that the 1950
Agreement should be terminated, the use of crews at sea to do
this work discontinued, and the work carried out by contractors
in port.
Three conferences took place under the chairmanship of Mr.
Whitehead. At the final conference on 8 January 1959, the
Union advised its intention of terminating the agreement from
26 January. OSRA reguested that a conference be held before
the effective date between the parties, under the auspices of
the ACTU. At that conference, which took place on 21 January
1959, the deadline was withdrawn. The ACTU and the Unions A· maintained the view that the agreement should be terminated,
but the matter was deferred pending a final decision on the
question by the full ACTU Interstate Executive in February. It
was determined that both parties should undertake to obtain more
precise information on the extent of the problem, particularly
on the amount of work actually done by ships' crews. The
question of work, other than fitting out, being done by ships'
16
crews, uas apparently discussed for the first time at this meet ing .
3.11 THE END OF THE 1950 AGREEMENT
During 1959/60 the information gathered by both parties uas preÂ
sented progressively at meetings chaired by Mr. Whitehead withÂ
out any positive decision being reached. A meeting of the
ACTU Executive in February did not act decisively on the quesÂ
tion of terminating the agreement but merely endorsed the conÂ
tinuing conferences. The conferences resulted in a deadlock
and on 3 March 1960 the Shipwrights Union, apparently with the
backing of the ACTU, announced that as from 31 March 1960 they
would retire from the 1950 Agreement.
3.12 THE PROBLEM CONTINUES
On 1 April 1960 the painters and dockers at Fremantle refused to
release the mooring lines on a freighter Elizabeth Bakke to
allow her to move to a wheat loading berth. The ship had been
fitted out at sea by the crew. The action resulted in the
eight men involved being suspended by the Fremantle Harbour
T rust.
The dispute came before Commissioner Schnaars of the WesÂ
tern Australian Court of Arbitration. He found that under the
Award, the employer did not have the right of suspension and the
men were reinstated. The dispute was resolved when the ship was
switched to load general cargo.
The Fremantle Harbour Trust took legal action and charged
three members of the Union, including Troy. After receiving
representations from the ACTU, and a deputation from unionists
and Western Australian MLA's, it appears that the charges were
finally dropped.
17
3.13 THE ACTU ENDORSES BANS
The dispute came to the attention of the ACTU uhich convened a
meeting, on 1 June 1960, of all the uaterfront unions involved.
The meeting recommended to the Interstate Disputes Committee
that a ban be imposed on all vessels, 'the grain fittings of
uhich have been erected by the creu of such vessels'. The ban
uas subsequently ratified by the Committee and uas to operate
from 20 June.
The Uestern Australian Branches lost no time in imposing the
ban. Tuo Dutch ships, the Amstellaan at Geraldton and the
Amstelsluis at Fremantle, and a British ship The Great City at
Albany, uere declared 'black' by the tuo Unions, uith the supÂ
port of the UUF.
The Dutch ships uere released from the bans after nine days,
when the ouners gave a guarantee that in future their ships
uould not be fitted out by creus. The dispute came before
Commissioner Horan, uho, follouing the agreement concerning the
Dutch ships reserved his decision on the insertion of a bans
clause in the Shipurights Auard. The ban on The Great City uas
also lifted follouing similar assurances from that ship's ouners
some fourteen days later.
3.14 FAILURE OF THE BANS
Implementation of the ACTU-backed action appears to have only
solved the problem temporarily. By mid-1961 it uas realised
that the net result had been to move the concern from uork being
done by creus in Australian ports to uork being done in overseas
ports. The quality of the uork came into question and it uas
suspected that fals'fe certificates uere being issued stating that
the uork had been carried out by shore labour in overseas ports.
The ,matter came before the 1961 ACTU Congress in September, uhich
passed it over for attention by a committee of the unions conÂ
cerned, to be convened by the ACTU President. The first meetÂ
ing of the committee uas held the follouing ueek. The unanimous
decision of the meeting uas that a demand should be made for all
18
ships loading grain in Australia to be fitted out by Australian shore labour.
3.15 INTRODUCTION OF BULK SHIPS
In I960, the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea had
decided that the requirement of installing centre line shifting
boards in vessels carrying bulk grain should no longer apply.
This decision foreshadowed the era of the 'bulk' ships. These
ships required almost no fitting out for grain cargoes and,
slouly at first,as these ships were introduced into the grain
trade, the amount of fitting out work began to decrease and
cleaning work started to grow in importance as a major item of
uork for painters and dockers. As the need for fitting out
decreased, so did the use of crews at sea for this work and
reports of accidents to crew working in holds decreased..
On 5 December 1961 the Empress, a bulk tanker, arrived in
Fremantle. The ship had been partly cleaned by the crew en
route to Fremantle, and the crew continued to clean in port.
Troy demanded and got the remaining work for his members.
Also in December 1961 the ACTU Interstate Executive endorsed
the decision of the shore-based unions and called for the
Minister of Shipping and Transport to convene a meeting of all
interests involved in the carriage of grain cargoes. In the
resolution, the claim for cleaning and other preparatory work web
formally joined with the claim for fitting out.
3.16 FIRST DEMAND AND PAYMENT
In Sanuary 1962 what appears to be the first payment for work
done by ship's crew in port took place in Fremantle. This was
in relation to the Martha Bakke. Painters and dockers comÂ
pleted the work and the fourteen men employed received an addiÂ
tional four hours' pay, as compensation for the work done by the
crew, apparently cleaning of holds.
19
3.17 GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT
As a result of the December 1961 decision of the Interstate
Executive, which was reaffirmed at a subsequent meeting of that
body in March 1962, the Minister for Shipping and Transport uas
requested by the ACTU to call the meeting of interested parties.
On 31 May 1962 a meeting took place under the chairmanship
of the then Secretary of the Department of Labour and National
Service, Mr. (nou Sir) Henry Bland, between the employers,
Unions and the ACTU. The meeting decided that -1. The Department of Trade be asked to request employers to arrange to have ships fitted out in Australia;
2. Employers be requested to ensure that certificates stating that work had been performed by shore labour in overseas ports were genuine, and
3. A conference be held between the representatives of his Department in Uestern Australia and the Unions, with a view to ensuring a higher level of employment for their members in that State.
3.18 AN ULTIMATUM
The employment situation in Uestern Australia remained poor and
in July 1962 the Fremantle Harbour Trust moved to cancel the
registration of 17 casual painters and dockers, due to lack of
work. This uas opposed by the Union and not proceeded with.
In October, a general meeting of the Union resolved that unless
the problem of the use of crews uas finally solved by 31 DecemÂ
ber, a ban to operate from 1 January 1963 would be imposed on
all ships fitted out in overseas ports. The ban received
Federal Office endorsement and agreement of the Uestern AusÂ
tralian Branch of the Shipwrights Union uas obtained later.
The ACTU intervened and directed that the ban be deferred
while the discussions, chaired by the Department of Labour and
National Service, continued, and until the matter had been conÂ
sidered by the Interstate Executive at a meeting which was to
be held on 11 February 1963. The decision at that meeting uas
against industrial action. It endorsed the negotiations to
date and authorised officers to proceed with the discussions and report back to the next meeting of the Executive.
20
3.19 MORE DISPUTES
In September 1963, Shipwrights in Sydney took industrial action
against the Bikara, which had been partly fitted out by the crew.
The Shipurights insisted on the demolition of fittings in three holds and completely fitted out the ship.
In October 1963, following an incident in which the Silver
Lake put to sea from Fremantle and used the crew to clean the
residue of sulphur cargo in Ourien Bay, the WWF, whose members
performed this work in all Uestern Australian ports except FreÂ
mantle, discussed the cleaning problem at their Federal
Conference and sought unsuccessfully to be included with the
other unions in future discussions.
3.20 BANS, SANCTIONS AND A PAUSE IN THE CAMPAIGN
The Unions were bitterly disappointed with the result. Troy, who
had again attended as the representative of the Painters and
Dockers Federation, called for bans to be imposed from 1 December
1963 on ships fitted overseas and on ships cleaned by crews. This
was subsequently endorsed by the Shipurights Union at their
Federal Conference.
On 16 December 1963 shipurights and painters and dockers
employed to make good fittings which had been condemned, walked
off the Welsh City in Fremantle in protest over the vessel having
been fitted out in Calcutta. The Painters and Dockers Union was
brought into a compulsory conference before Mr. Commissioner
Schnaars of the Western Australian Court of Arbitration. The
conference was stormy and resulted in Troy walking out after reÂ
fusing to recommend to his members that they go back to work. A
meeting of the Union after the hearing, passed resolutions exÂ
pressing confidence in the Secretary and endorsing his action at
the conference. A decision was made to return to work on the
Welsh City provided fittings already erected were demolished.
This decision was taken reluctantly, in view of -
24228 / 76â 2 21
1. an application for the insertion of a 'bans' clause
in the Shipwright's Award;
2. an order by the Court against the Shipwrights Union, and
3. lack of backing by the Interstate Executive of the ACTU.
The men returned to work and, lacking ACTU backing, inÂ
dustrial action in support of the campaign appears to have eased
for a time.
3.21 SUCCESS IN THE FITTING-OUT CAMPAIGN
In December 1965 the Star Billabonq arrived in Fremantle to
load grain. The ship was surveyed and found to require conÂ
siderable cleaning which the crew commenced. Troy visited
the ship and threatened industrial action by the UUF to prevent
the ship loading, if the cleaning continued. Unknown to Troy,
the UUF had an agreement with Star Shipping Line, which provided
for exemptions from stoppages on a number of matters, and for
consultation prior to stoppages on all others. The UUF did not
take kindly to .Troy threatening industrial action on its behalf.
Even so, it supported the view that painters and dockers should
be employed and the Secretary, Mr. Fitzgibbon, assisted in
obtaining an agreement from the Star Shipping Company that in
future it would use shore labour in Fremantle, as it did in the
other Uestern Australian ports, where UUF members did the work.
Acceptance by agents and owners of the use of shore labour
for fitting-out work appears to have become general after this.
The disputes over fitting occurring after this time were mainly
isolated incidents, where Masters were not fully informed. HowÂ
ever, the increasing use of bulk ships was resulting in a
steady decrease in the amount of fitting-out work required.
Cleaning of holds and other cargo preparation work, and the work
of securing cargo gradually overtook fitting-out as the major
items of work.
22
3.22 THE 'NEU' CAMPAIGN
In April 1966, in r remantle, the Cassandra uas taken from her
berth, under protest from the Painters & Dockers Union to an
anchorage where the creu were employed in cleaning the vessel.
The incident uas referred to the Trades & Labour Council of
Uestern Australia, which supported the policy that cleaning and
fitting etc., uas the work of shore-based labour, and endorsed
industrial action in support. The decision of the Labour
Council uas then referred to the ACTU and other Trades and
Labour Councils and Troy agitated the other branches of the
tuo Unions to pressure their local Labour Council. Houever,
the ACTU appears not to have responded.
3.22.1 More Meetings and Resolutions
At the Federal Conference of the Painters & Dockers Union in
mid 1966, a resolution uas carried seeking to have the NaviÂ
gation Act s .45(1) amended to give Australian shore labour exÂ
clusive rights of cleaning, loading and discharging of cargo
and stores, and preparing holds for cargoes. The proposed
amendment uas endorsed by the UUF and Shipwrights and, with the
support of a number of State Labour Councils, the ACTU uas
approached to raise the matter with the Federal Government.
There appears to have been no approach made.
On submission from the Painters and Dockers Union, the proÂ
blem became an agenda item at the biennial meeting of the ACTU
Transport Group in October 1966. At that meeting it uas reÂ
solved that the matter be referred back to the Painters &
Dockers, Shipwrights and the UUF, for their view on hou to
overcome the problems and a copy of a suggested amendment to
s.45(l) uas referred to the ACTU and the Seamen's Union and
other seagoing unions. Gordon, the Federal Secretary of the
Painters & Dockers Union, described the meeting as a waste of
time.
23
3.22.2 More Disputes
Late in November 1966 a claim uas made for $10.67 represenÂ
ting four hours uork for tuo men cleaning the holds of the
Australian Surf at Fremantle. The outcome of the claim is not
known.
On 19 December, Troy made another claim, this time against
the Hafnia for the creu tank-cleaning at Fremantle after failure
at survey. He claimed $356.74, representing eight hours uork
for sixteen men. The ship uas being operated by the 'Star1
line and Troy pointed to the 1965 Agreement in support of his
claim. The facts of the case were disputed by the company and
the claim uas not paid.
From the start of the 1966/67 wheat export season in WesÂ
tern Australia in December 1966, the full impact of bulk ships
on fitting-out uork uas felt and it uas not until April 1967
that a full fit on a conventional ship uas required. The uork
situation of shipwrights in Fremantle uas poor and the demand
for painters and dockers shoued a 46/ drop on the previous year.
The position in Adelaide uhere casual shipwrights uere heavily
dependent on this uork uas also very poor. Troy called on the
Federal Offices of both Unions to take up the case for a
guaranteed uage.
In April 1967 painters and dockers ualked off the Artemis,
a Greek ship, in protest over the use of crews for cleaning in
port. The Master paid $70 to the Union in response to a
demand for compensation.
During May, a number of ships discharged cargo in Western
Australian ports and put to sea, to allou the creu to clean,
before loading wheat. Troy appears to have made an issue of >* one of these, the Exninq, which discharged sulphur in FreÂ
mantle and departed for Geraldton to load bulk wheat. . The
ship took three days to complete the 200 odd mile journey while
the creu cleaned the holds.
24
3.23 THL 1968 ACTU DECISION
Troy raised the case of the Exninq uith the ACTU and this
action apparently prompted them to act on the previous request
of the U.A. Trades & Labour Council to consider bans on ships
using creu labour. A meeting of the UUF, Shipwrights and
Painters & Dockers was convened for 15 June 1967 in Melbourne. The meeting resolved that :
Once a vessel has discharged at an Australian port all work of cleaning or preparing of holds for loading other cargoes in any other Australian port shall be performed by shore-based labour.
In addition to this requirement being sought by the ACTU, the possibility of an amendment to Section 45(1) of the Navigation Act should be investigated by the ACTU to determine whether or not the Govern ment should be requested to alter this Act to legally provide that shore-based labour should have a sole
right to perform all work coincidental to the loading or discharging of cargoes in Australian ports.
Before becoming ACTU policy, the resolution had to be subÂ
mitted to a meeting of the Interstate Executive. It uas not
discussed for several meetings, but in May 1968, the Executive
finally passed the following resolution :
The Executive of the ACTU decides that shore-based labour should be used to clean or prepare the holds of vessels for loading of cargo in Australian ports. The Executive requests the officers to meet the ship ping employers uith a request that shore labour shall be used for the above work. Uhen the vessel is in port or at anchor in roads that vessel will not be taken from the port deliberately to avoid employing
shore labour for cleaning or preparation purposes.
LJe authorise the officers to advise the employers that failing agreement on the question, the ACTU will be forced to call a meeting of the Maritime Unions to consider this matter.
3.24 THE PROBLEM CONTINUES
In the intervening period, the work situation in Fremantle had
deteriorated even further. For the first three weeks in SeptÂ
ember 1967 casual painters and dockers averaged 7 2% unemployÂ
ment. Ships were being cleaned by crews on the coast and in
25
port, and when cleaning uas discovered and contested in port,
they simply put to sea and cleaned there. Troy continued the
campaign, with special emphasis on ships which discharged prior
to taking on further cargoes.
In February 1968, the holds of the Janecke were cleaned by
the crew at roads in Fremantle. Painters and dockers employed
on the ship when she berthed walked off in protest, and a
demand for $236 as compensation, representing wages for seven
men for two days, was made.
3.25 MORE CONFERENCES
The 1968 ACTU resolution proved to be of little benefit to the
Unions. In June 1970 the maritime unions and the ACTU again
met with overseas shipping interests represented by the Overseas
Shipowners and Commonwealth Steamship Owners. The shipping
interests indicated they would agree to the use of shore labour
when the vessel loaded and discharged in the same port, but
they would not at any time surrender their right to clean ships'
holds whenever they wished. The outcome of the meeting was
that the shipping representatives undertook to provide detailed
information on the use of crews as against shore labour. This
was to be submitted for checking by the unions and discussed at
a further meeting.
The result of that survey was given by Mr. Joblin in his
evidence -The result of the survey indicated that generally speaking shore labour, principally Painters & Dockers and Shipwrights, was employed in any cleaning
job of major importance - the UUF was used on smaller jobs - rough cleaning and other work requiring minimum engagement^'. Usually the use of the crew was only for comparatively small jobs.
3.26 MORE DEMANDS
In the interval between the meetings there were periodic comÂ
plaints by the Unions to the ACTU and, in some cases, agreeÂ
ments were entered into with individual shipowners or agents,
26
giving ths uork to shore labour.
Demands uere made on tuo ships, one in Geelong and one in
Fremantle. The Geelong demand uas in respect of the Maria Rosa
in October 1970, in compensation for the hold preparation uork
done by the creu. The Victorian Branches of the Shipurights
and Painters & Dockers Unions received payments of $340 and $180
respectively. In Fremantle, the Painters & Dockers Union, nou
represented by the Maritime Workers Union of Western Australia,
demanded and received payment of $784.56 for cleaning uork done
by the creu of the Jersey Bridge in January 1971.
3.27 THE ACTU ACTS
The further meeting agreed to in June 1970 uas held on 19 July
1971 and both sides remained firm in their opposite points of
view. The conference concluded uith the ACTU declaring their
intention to urite to all employers individually, asking for
assurances that shore labour, uhen available, would be used for
the cleaning of all overseas vessels in Australian ports, and
advising that failing these assurances, steps would be taken to
stop crews working in Australian ports.
3.27.1 An Ultimatum
The problem continued and in September 1971, as a result
of disputes over crews working, especially in Melbourne and GeeÂ
long, the ACTU again convened a meeting of the Unions concerned.
At the meeting, it was resolved that employers be given the
ultimatum date of 1 November. The resolution was as follows :
That the Overseas Shipowners be advised through their Australian representatives by letter from the ACTU that, as from the 1st November 1971, uhen a ship is in Port for loading or unloading, the shore-based labor shall be
used to clean or prepare cargo holds of the vessels and also to release and secure cargo -subject to the exist ing agreement on lashing or unlashing of cargo.
27
3.27.2 The 1971 Decision
On 25 October 1971, the AEUL for the Australian represenÂ
tatives of the overseas shipowners, replied to the ACTU, adÂ
vising that this uas unacceptable. The ACTU circulated the
reply to the UUF, Painters & Dockers Union, Shipwrights and
the MUU, on the day the ultimatum expired. The covering letter
authorised implementation of the September decision.
3.27.3 The Effect
After this letter uas circulated, the claims for payment
really began.
The ACTU had advised AEUL of the decision, and some corresÂ
pondence took place. A further conference uas suggested but
none appears to have been held.
Using the ACTU decision as the authority, the various
branches of the Unions took action in accordance with their
situation. In Uestern Australia, the situation improved during
November and December but by late February the problem uas again
to the fore and a meeting of the Marine Industry Group of UesÂ
tern Australia (see Chapter 5.3 of the Interim Report for descriÂ
ption of this body), resulted in a letter being sent to the
local AEUL Branch on 3 March 1972, advising that ' the time for
talking about this matter is past' , and that the Unions of FreÂ
mantle would fully implement the 1 ACTU policy' .
Victorian shipwrights employed through the casual roster in
Melbourne appointed a full time Vigilance Officer and a number
of demands were made both in Melbourne and in Geelong.
A
3.28 THE EXISTING SITUATION
The situation has continued much as it was after the 1971
decision; with the Unions probably obtaining much of the work
but remaining vigilant and taking action when they obtained
evidence of crews working. Those instances which resulted in
demands for payment as compensation for this work and form the
28
subject of this second phase of the Commission's investigations
are considered later in detail.
The only subsequent formal action taken by the Unions uas at
a full meeting of maritime unions convened by the ACTU at the
request of the Shipwrights in April 1973 and a decision by the
ACTU Congress in 1975. The meeting of the maritime unions
resolved that :
The practice of using foreign crews in the performance of work which is traditionally the right of shore-based labour (preparing or cleaning of ships' holds, shoring off, dunnaging, and such like work) must cease. Whilst we appreciate that some companies co-operate reasonably well in the matter of the use of shore-based labour,
there are others who are notorious in the practice of utilising crew labour to the exclusion of shore-based labor.
Accordingly, we request that the ACTU make immediate representation to the Overseas Shipping Agents for the adherence to Trade Union Policy for this work being performed by shore-based labour.
We call on the unions concerned to strengthen their vigilance to secure implementation of ACTU policy on this matter and suggest the unions concentrate on a particular company in each State. Further, that the
ACTU make representations to the Federal Government for amendment of the Navigation Act to preclude the perform ance of cleaning, preparatory, and similar work being done by the crew.
3.28.1 The 1975 ACTU Decision
The September 1975 ACTU Congress resolution, inter alia,
declared: Congress approves the principle of the elimination of permit vessels in the coastal trade and in pursuance of this objective amending the Navigation Act or any
other relevant Acts to provide :
(f) that crews of vessels of foreign registry shall not be used to perform work that can be performed by shore-based labour.
29
4. FEDERATED SHIP PAINTERS & DOCKERS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA
I consider firstly the demands by and payments to the Federated
Ship Painters & Dockers' Union of Australia.
4.1 THE UNION
This union, with a total membership of about 2,100-2,150 is a
federation of seven branches, viz.
Neu South Uales - 750-800 members
Victoria - 370 t t
Newcastle - 360 t t
Queensland - 275 f t
Uhyalla - 200 f t
Uestern Australia - 110
Port Adelaide - 44
Branches existed separately until federated in 1916 and
each remains autonomous in the management of its internal
affairs, the Neu South Uales B r an ch , for example, still functions
as a state registered union and operates under its oun c o nÂ
stitution. The operation of the Federal Office of the Union,
located in Neu South U a l e s , is funded from annual capitation
fees from the branches.
The Uestern Australian members are also members of the
Maritime W o r k e r s ' Union of Uestern Australia and are represenÂ
ted by that Union in all m a t t e r s , including those before the
Uestern Australian Industrial Commission. This branch of the
Union uill be dealt uith separately in Chapter 7 of this
r e po rt.
4.2 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
Members are mainly-*·employed by dock ya rd s, naval and civilian,
shipping c om pa ni es, and ship and boat building, repair, and servicing firms. '
They obtain work as permanent employees, casuals, or semiÂ
permanents, that is working full time for only one employer but
receiving casual rates and conditions of employment. Those
members working as pure casuals obtain work through pick-up
30
:rosters operated by the branches as a method of allocating the
^available casual work to members on an equitable basis.
The proportion of workers in each of these three classes of
iemployment varies between branches, depending mainly on the mix
::of the types of work available in the relevant ports but also of
rcourse, on the preferences of the members.
â4.3 WORK SITUATION
"The Union has suffered a large decrease in membership since the
lend of the Second World War. As an indication, the membership
:of the largest branch, the N.S.U. Branch, which has in fact
fared better than the other branches because of the greater
amount of ship repair and servicing work in the port, fell from
approximately 3,500 to its present strength of 750-800 in the
period. The fall in membership is a reflection of the decline
in ship building, changes in the pattern of shipping and changes
in technology, which have reduced the work available to members
of the Union. In the various ports, these changes have affected
the three sectors of the workforce to different extents.
The casual sector of the work force is the barometer of unÂ
employment in the industry and, while the campaign to have work
performed by shore labour has been directed at securing a
greater amount of work for the membership as a whole, it is this
sector which has been the focus of attention. The volume of work
falling to the casual sector depends mainly on peaks in the deÂ
mand for labour, occasioned by the arrival of ships with work to
be done which is beyond the capacity of the 'permanent' work
force maintained by the ship repair and servicing firms. The
pattern of work falling to the casual workers varies between
branches but is characteristically irregular in occurrence and
duration.
For those times when peak demands are beyond the capacity
of the Union membership, including the casuals, provision is
made for non-member labour to be recruited through the roster
systems.
31
4.4 DEMANDS FOR PAYMENT
The demands have all been made by individual branches in their
oun right and the distribution of the proceeds of any payments
has likewise been determined at branch level. There is no
evidence that the federal body has been directly associated with
any demands or received any moneys as a result of the demands.
I consider, "therefore, that the circumstances of the demands and
payments, the use or disposal of payments, and the propriety of
the demands are best examined at branch level.
All branches, with the exception of Queensland and Uhyalla,
have been involved in recent demands and/or payments. Excluding
the Uestern Australian Branch, the total amount paid as a result
of demands made by the Union since 1970, both as payments direct
to Union funds and as amounts involved in payments to members,
to which they were not entitled, exceeds $50,000.
I proceed now to consider each branch separately.
A*
32
4.5 NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH
Active membership of the N.S.U. Branch is between 750 and 800.
The bulk of the membership is located in the Port of Sydney, a
sub-branch uith tuenty-fiue members exists at Port Kembla, and
approximately eight to ten members are located on the North Coast.
4.6 SYDNEY
A casual roster operates in Sydney with an average weekly attenÂ
dance of approximately sixty members. Provision is made for nonÂ
members to be picked up when shortages of Union labour occur. The
Branch officers play an important role in the industry by
obtaining this non-member labour when it is needed.
4.6.1 Work Situation
As mentioned previously, active membership fell from 3,500
in the immediate post-war years to 750 in 1970, its present level.
Though there has been some temporary reduction in the interÂ
vening years, membership is presently increasing. There was
evidence that painters and dockers in the Port of Sydney, with
its greater proportion of ship building and repair work, have not
experienced unemployment problems to the same degree as other
branches.
Little useful evidence could be obtained on the actual
amount of unemployment suffered by members working through the
roster system. However, evidence did indicate that the volume of
work is highly variable.
On the evidence of the Vice-President, Mr. G. Young, the
average earnings of casual painters and dockers in Sydney during
the financial year 19 74/7 5 was about B 6,00 0.
4.6.2 Demands for Payment
The N .5.U . Branch appears to have done little in pursuit of
the claim for work being done by ships' crews in the Port of
33
Sydney until 1974 when, on the retirement of the Branch Secretary
for tuenty-six years, Mr. E . Mackey, Mr. I. Uyner, the former
Vigilance Officer, uas elected to that position and Mr.
R . Galleghan to the position of Vigilance Officer.
Since the first demand in Sydney in January 1974, demands
have been made in respect of some thirty-six ships. Thirty deÂ
mands resulted in payments, and a total of $41,047.74 uas paid,
of uhich $19,381.47 uas received by the Union and the remaining
$21,666.27 uas involved in payments made direct to members,
$1,035.40 in respect of the Glyfada Summer demand and $20,630.87
in respect of the Hyogo Maru demand; the circumstances surÂ
rounding these tuo payments to members are set out in some detail
later in this section.
In the six cases uhere payment uas not made, the ouner or
agent refused in three, and the Union did not pursue the remainÂ
der. Genuine agreement uas clearly reached betueen the parties
on the payment of compensation for uork done by the creu in only
three cases. The remainder involved industrial pressure, and in
at least half of the incidents express threats of bans or stopÂ
pages uere made. In seven cases, bans uere actually imposed; in
four cases by the Painters and Dockers Union itself, and in the
other three by the Firemen and Deckhands Union.
A list of the demands and payments is set out in Table 1.
4.6.3 SAF Ocean Albany
Uith a small number of significant exceptions, this, the
first of the demands, set the pattern for those uhich folloued.
In December 1973, the SAF Ocean Albany, a ship ouned by
Royal Interocean Lines of Holland, carrying the Dutch flag and
under charter to SAF Ocean Pty. Ltd. of South Africa, reached
Sydney. Uhile the vessel uas at anchor, prior to berthing, the
creu uere used to strip fire bricks and insulation from the
interior of a damaged boiler, to enable the amount of damage to
be ascertained.
Subsequently, a contract uas let to Houard Smith Industries
Ltd. to repair the boilers. Painters and dockers and tradesmen
uere employed on the job and, uhen they commenced, the delegates
34
of the Painters and Dockers Union informed Mr. Martin, Engineer
Manager for the contractors, that a claim would be made by the
Union for the work already done by the crew. A meeting uas
arranged between the owner's representative, Mr. Van Holtz,
and the Union Vigilance Officer, Mr. Galleghan, by Martin,
fit this meeting, the Vigilance Officer informed Van Holtz that
the Union would be seeking reimbursement for the value of the
uork done by the crew, based on the rates applicable to shore
labour.
Demand
Further communication took place between Van Holtz
and Galleghan, culminating on 16 January 1974, in a letter
to Royal Interocean Lines from the Union. The letter uas
signed by the Vigilance Officer on behalf of the Union and
claimed payment for eight hours work for four men at double
time plus allowances, a total of $172.76.
Payment
About the time the repairs were completed, towards
the end of January, Martin received instructions from Van
Holtz to make payment to the Union for the amount claimed and
to add it to the cost of the job.
Payment uas made by Howard Smith Limited by a crossed
cheque which uas banked by the Union to its 'General Fund1
account. The ship sailed without experiencing industrial
trouble.
There is no evidence of express or implied threats on
this occasion, and the discussions held on the ship between
Van Holtz and Galleghan, and attended by Martin and a Union
delegate, were described by Martin as 'friendly'. The barÂ
gaining position of the owners however, is demonstrated by the
advice Van Holtz received from Martin when he requested his
views on whether payment should be made. This advice uas, that
if serious consideration was not given to the payment, the
vessel, which had already been delayed by some four to five
weeks because of the boiler repairs, could expei ieni,e
further delays.
35
4.6.4 Consideration by Membership
The payment in respect of the SflF Ocean Albany received
mention at the Annual General Meeting of the Union in February
1974, and a motion uas carried endorsing the action of the VigiÂ
lance Officer and deciding that notice should be served on
shipping companies, outlining the work to be done by members and
informing them that 'appropriate action would be taken1 , and
1 compensation1 required if painters and dockers were not used
for this work.
4.6.5 Notification to Shipping Interests
A circular uas issued to shipping companies, ships' agents
and ship repair firms. It outlined the work to which the Union
claimed coverage by 1 award and traditional rights' in the Port of
Sydney. It pointed to problems experienced in the past with
ships' crews doing the work claimed and referred to stoppages by
the Painters and Dockers, Waterside Workers, Firemen and DeckÂ
hands, and Seamen's Unions in support. It also proposed a
conference of the parties involved so that some agreement might
be reached. No such conference uas ever held.
This circular uas used in almost all the demands which
followed, a copy being presented to the ship's agent, Master or
other representative, as an authority under which compensation
and work uas claimed. The reference in the circular to previous
industrial action in support of the claims could, with justifiÂ
cation, have been interpreted by the recipients as implying that
a refusal to comply with the demands made could result in similar
action against them. To this extent, all demands made by the
Painters and Dockers Union in Sydney carry an implied threat of / ' · industrial action.
4.6.6 The Significant Exceptions
While most of the demands follow in general the events of
this first payment, three require special comment; the Glyfada
Summer demand in May 1974, the Port de Franee in April 1975, and
36
the Hyoqo Maru in July 1975. These three demands illustrate
inter alia the extreme lengths to uhich the policy uas pursued on occasions.
4.6.7 Glyfada Summer
The Glyfada Summer, owned by the Yamashito Shinahon S.S.Co.
of Japan, arrived in the Port of Sydney in May 1974, to discharge
a cargo of motor vehicles. The next port of call uas Brisbane,
where a cargo of grain sorghum uas to be taken on for the return
voyage to Japan. The evidence of Galleghan is, that in company
with Mr. Young, Vice President of the Union, he visited the ship
on 21 May 1974, and discovered the crew cleaning away lashings
left after discharge of the vehicles, work uhich he considered to
be the work of his members, or UUF members. On making a comÂ
plaint to the Captain, the work uas stopped. The next day,
Galleghan contacted the ship's agent, Shiptraco Sea Transport
Services Pty. Ltd., to see uhat arrangements had been made for
the work to be completed. He uas informed that waterside workers
had been engaged. Being sceptical, he visited the ship again in
the evening and found the ship cleaned of lashings and the creu
engaged in cleaning holds, in readiness for receipt of the grain
in Brisbane. Galleghan demanded that the Captain stop the creu
doing the work. LJhen the Captain declined, Galleghan arranged
with the Secretary of the Firemen and Deckhands' Union, Mr.
Henderson, for tugs and linesmen to be withheld in order to stop
the vessel sailing as scheduled at 1900 hours that evening.
Deman d News of the proposed ban reached the agent's represenÂ
tative, Mr. Goddard, who contacted Henderson to discuss the ban.
A meeting uas arranged by Henderson between Goddard, Galleghan
and Young, in a hotel in Balmain. In the course of the converÂ
sation, Young and Galleghan demanded that the remaining cleaning
work be done by painters and dockers, and that an amount be paid
to the N.S.U. Branch of the Union as compensation for the hold
cleaning already done by the creu. Goddard acceded to these deÂ
mands and Galleghan supplied the names of contracting firms through uhich labour would be available.
37
Shore Labour Engaged
The next day, the firm of Storey & Keers uas engaged for
the cleaning uork and commenced useing twelve men from their perÂ
manent staff, the number employed being based on an estimate of
the job done by another contracting firm, White & Co., who had
been unable or unwilling to contract for the job and had advised
the ship's agent that labour uas not available. Galleghan, on
inquiring of Storey & Keers why casual painters and dockers had
not been obtained from the roster, uas told by the General
Manager, Mr. Stevenson, that first preference for uork went to
the permanent employees of the firm, and that based on the
assessment he had of the job, no casuals would be needed. He
informed Galleghan that if more labour were required, then it
would be obtained through the pick-up.
The ship uas surveyed by a Brisbane based surveyor, repÂ
resenting the underwriter and the Wheat Board, and extensive
cleaning, requiring the scaling of rust and washing down of the
holds uas necessary.
As a result of this inspection, the job had grown well beÂ
yond the original estimate. A further ten men were obtained from
the casual roster later the same morning to work all night, and
arrangements were made for their replacement by a further twenty-
one men next morning. As the job progressed, the agent's concern
about keeping the berthing appointment in Brisbane increased and
a further twenty-three men were engaged. The agent also arranged
a meeting with Galleghan for 24 May on the ship, to consider the
possibility of leaving four of the seven holds to be cleaned in
Brisbane.
Fatal Accident.
During the meeting, at about 1.45 p.m, a fatal accident
occurred when one of ^the painters and dockers fell down a hold.
As a result of the accident, the other painters and dockers emÂ
ployed on the job stopped work. .
Negotiations then took place between Goddard and Galleghan,
with a view to getting the ship away that day without the
cleaning having been completed. Galleghan agreed to the ship
leaving, provided that the men were paid in full for the shift
38
for uhich they had been engaged when the accident occurred. The
ship sailed that night without experiencing further trouble.
Payment
Shiptraco paid to the Union by cheque, separate amounts
of $200 as compensation for the work done by the creu, and
$1,035.40 for the work uhich the men did not complete as a conÂ
sequence of the fatality, this latter amount being based on
wages calculations provided by the contractors. The cheque for
$200 was deposited to the credit of the Union's General Fund,
the other cheque was casned and the money distributed to the
thirty-tuo men from the casual roster uho were working when the
accident occurred. They were paid different amounts, depending
on the length of their shift remaining at the time of the
accident. No tax was deducted from these payments.
False Names
In the course of the proceedings of the Commission, a
list of names claimed to be those of the men to whom payment was
made, was furnished to the Commission by Galleghan. It was subÂ
sequently conceded that these were false names and the correct
names were then provided. The Federal Secretary, Mr. Gordon,
agreed that false names were used in order to avoid taxation.
Significance
This case is of particular interest because it is the
only one in Sydney where payments were made direct to the men on
the job for work not done. It is also the first occasion in
Sydney that the point was reached where the Firemen and DeckÂ
hands Union actually placed a ban and delayed the departure of a
ship in order to enforce a demand for payment to the Painters and
Dockers Union.
The ship's agent was in an extremely bad bargaining
position. The ship was obviously dirty and the quantum of
cleaning ultimately revealed may have been beyond the capacity
of the crew. The agent was concerned to avoid loss of hire if
the ship was not able to meet its loading commitments in
Brisbane. Though the agent maintains that it was always the
intention that the ship should be cleaned using shore labour, it
39
is obvious that the creu uere to be utilised on the cleaning work
as much as possible, both uithin the Port of Sydney and on the
voyage to Brisbane.
4.6.8 Port de France
The Port de France, a small vessel owned by the Companie de
Charges Caledonia, of Noumea, arrived in Sydney in April 1975, to
discharge and take on cargo. Uhile in the port, arrangements
uere made by the agent for replacement of a broken anchor and a
ship repair firm, Jubilee Engineering Co. Ltd., uere engaged to
do the uork. The job uas to be done by painters and dockers
employed by that firm after the waterside workers loading the
vessel had ceased work at 2.30 p.m. The new anchor uas being
brought by road from Brisbane. It arrived after the completion
of the waterside workers' day shift but before the painters and
dockers employed by Jubilee commenced. To enable the truck to
depart, the crew used the ship's lifting gear to place the anchor
on board, a job which took about ten minutes.
Demand â
When the painters and dockers arrived, somewhere between
3.00 and 3.30 that afternoon, they declared the job 'black',
claiming that the crew's action had deprived members of their
Union of uork. At a meeting on the ship, between Mr. S.H. Deane
for the agent, Young for the Painters and Dockers Union, the
ship's Master, and the foreman for Jubilee Engineering, Young
claimed compensation for his members and threatened that waterÂ
side worker labour would be withdrawn if wages for six men for
one day uere not paid to his Union.
Agent's Resistance
Deane resisted the demand, maintaining that the crew uas
entitled to do this uork and in any case, members uere not being
deprived of uork; painters and dockers having been engaged for
the ta'sk of replacing the anchor, of which lifting the anchor on
board comprised only some ten minutes uork. He made inquiries
with Mr. Healy, the State President of the UUF, who supported
Young. Any withdrawal of labour by the waterside workers would
40
have meant that loading of the ship would be held up at least
until the Monday, with minimum cost to the ouner of $1,500 per day .
Agent 'Chooses' to Pay
The alternatives available were either to agree to the
demand to pay compensation for the work amounting to $181.90 or
to involve the owners in the minimum additional cost of $4,500.
This was conveyed to the Master by Deane who, in the circumÂ
stances, advised 'payment under protest1 . However, because of
the frequency with which the Company's ships visit the port,
about once a fortnight, the Master decided not to register a
protest and authorised Deane to make the payment.
Siqnificance
This demand is distinguished by its triviality in
terms of the amount of work involved, the grossly inflated
amount of the claim for the work lost, and because it illusÂ
trates the willingness of unions, in this case the UUF, to
institute industrial action in support of another union without
regard to the merits of the case.
4.5.9 Hyoqo Maru
The Hyoqo Maru is a Japanese owned, built and crewed conÂ
tainer ship, trading between Japan and the eastern ports of
Australia. In July 1975, she arrived in Sydney, part discharged
a cargo of containers and then sailed for Melbourne to complete
discharge. On the voyage between Sydney and Melbourne, there
was a serious fire in the engine room which immobilized the ship.
The vessel was towed back to Sydney where she berthed at
Uoolloomooloo on 5 July for temporary repairs to her engines, to
enable her to complete the voyage and then return to Japan for
complete repairs.
Demand for Uork On 7 July, painters and dockers were engaged through
Storey & Keers, to put ashore the C02 extinguishers which had
been used to put out the fire and reload them after refilling,
41
and to refuel emergency generators supplying power for a number
of refrigerated containers. On Tuesday, 8 July, the ship's
agent, Burns Philp & Co. received a telephone call from
Galleghan to inform them that he had inspected the ship and that
painters and dockers should be employed in cleaning the engine
room. He left his telephone number in case the company might
wish to contact him. Later that day, the men handling the CC^
bottles walked off the job.
Negotiations
The agent's representative, Mr. Vivers, met with members
of the Union Executive in the Union offices the next morning,
where he was informed that in the view of the Painters and
Dockers and other unions, the ship should be repaired in
Australia. Repair of the ship in Australia was completely imÂ
practical. She had been built in Japan and consequently all
engineering specifications were in Japanese. Wiring needed for
the repair of the third engine, which was damaged beyond any
temporary repair, was not available in Australia and had to be
specially manufactured in Japan; this would take at least one
month. Vivers, under instruction to get the ship away as quickly
as possible, attempted to negotiate a settlement but was inÂ
formed that other unions had to be consulted and that he would
be contacted. Later that day, Vivers telephoned the Union in
an attempt to have the bans lifted. Galleghan agreed to the
request and the men engaged to replace the fire extinguishers
and refuel the generators resumed work.
The Bargain
On the morning of 10 July, an inspection of the fire
damage was made by Galleghan, Vivers and representatives of
Storey & Keers. This was followed by a meeting on the ship at
which Galleghan demanded, under threat that the ship would be
delayed, that all the men on the roster that day be picked up
to commence the cleaning. This was agreed, and fifty-five men
were 1 after picked up for an extended twenty-three hour ' double
header' shift. The contractor's representatives then left the
meeting, and Vivers and Galleghan discussed the question of comÂ
pensation for the cleaning work which was to be done in Japan.
42
An offer of 15,000 by Uivers, in exchange for a guarantee of no
further industrial action by painters and dockers, uas accepted
by Galleghan after a phone consultation uith fellou union
officials. The amount uas paid by Burns Philp on 11 duly and
banked to the credit of the Union's General Fund. The ship
sailed as scheduled on 12 July.
The cost of the 'double-header* shift, including wages,
materials and contractor's on-costs, amounted to $20,630.87. The
total outgoing resulting from the Union's action thus amounted
to approximately $25,600, for work which uas not required to
enable the ship to return to Japan for docking and repairs in
accordance uith normal custom. It uas work which uas of little,
if any, value to the ship for, after the engine room repairs had
been done in Japan, the engine room would have to be cleaned
again.
Significance
This case again illustrates the strength of the Union's
bargaining position, due to the financial pressure on the ship's
connections to accede to the demands. The ship had been delayed
in excess of seven days by the fire. Demurrage costs alone were
approximately $8,000 per day and, in addition, each day the
vessel uas delayed extended the period before the vessel would
again be fully operational. The offer of $5,000 uas judged by
the agent's representative to be the lowest amount likely to be
accepted.
The demand uas not in respect of work already done by the
ship's crew, but for uork which would be done by shore labour in
Japan. On the evidence the Union uas exploiting a situation
purely for monetary gain, despite the evidence of the N.S.U.
Branch Secretary, Uyner, that it uas uork not money which was
being sought. In this case, the Union uas in a position o* being
able to delay the ship by withdrawing its own labour, the ship
then being unable to sail because of insufficient fire fighting
equipment.
43
4.6.10 Summary
Of the thirty-six demands, fourteen were for cleaning of
holds, nine for work associated with ships' cargo gear, seven
for slinging stores, etc., and six for work associated uith
repairs or neu installations. Uhile most of the uork does broadly
fall uithin the uork claimed, on a significant number of
occasions the uork uas of such a trifling amount as to raise
the suspicion that it merely provided an excuse to obtain money
for Union funds. This conclusion is supported by the excessive
payments claimed for the amounts of uork actually involved. It
is clear that on some occasions the demands represent not merely
a claim for compensation for uork lost, but also an often larger
penalty component.
/ â
44
Agent/ Principal
PORT OF SYDNEY
Jan '74 Saf Ocean Albany Creu stripped boiler at anchor
172.76 172.76
May' 74 Glyfada Summer Creu cleaning holds in port
200.00 plus re maining uork
200.00
Jun '74 Astree Creu cleaned holds
and ' tueen decks, in port
157.79 157.79
Jun 1 '74 Union East
Creu stripped, dis charged and replaced cargo gear, in port
1120.00 (Union 1s estimate of uork dis puted and
amount re duced)
674.40
Jun '74 Capitaine Tasman Creu and non-unionists sandblasted in port
268.00 268.00
Jun ' 74 Neptune Amber Creu cleaned holds 157.79 158.00
Jul '74 Neptune Jasper Creu cleaned holds in port
315.58 315.58
Oct '74 Port Caroline Creu lifted insulation in preparation for reÂ
pairs to fire damage and officers lifted hatch slabs, in port
526.75 526.75
Howard Smith In dustries Pty Ltd
Shiptraco Sea Transport Services Pty Ltd
MacArthur Shipping & Agency Co Pty Ltd
H. C. Sleigh Ltd
Sofrana Unilines Aust. Pty. Ltd
MacArthur Shipping & Agency Co Pty Ltd MacArthur Shipping & Agency Co Pty Ltd
Port Line
TABLE 1 (Contd)
Date Ship Work in Dispute Demand Payment
I I
Oct'74 Morvada Crew cleaned water tank
for inspection and assisted in repairs in port
646.37 646.37
Dec'74 Benuorlich Crew cleaned holds, in port 360.00 360.00
Dec 174 Uaglan Island
Crew cleaned 'tween decks in port 198.36 198.36
Dec!74 Ueser Despatcher Crew stripped gear in port
181.09 No
Payment
Jan'75 Hoi Kung Crew stripped condemned cargo gear in Brisbane and Sydney
2139.10 plus re maining
work
2139.10
Oan'75 Stolt Zeus Crew cleaned tanks out side heads and in port 2473.23 2473.23
Jan'75 Vishua Bindu
Crew stripped and took ashore condemned cargo gear and re-erected sub stituted gear in port
216.84 216.84
Feb '75 Northern Star Crew stripped floor cover ings for installation of
fridge in port
429.30 429.30
Feb 175 Ueser Despatcher
Not known 160.00 160.00
Mar ' 75 Voorne Crew cleaned hold in port
during stoppage - compen sation demanded by Union
600.00 600.00
as a condition
Agent/ Principal
P & 0 (Australia) Ltd
Patrick Agencies Pty Ltd Hetherington Kingsbury Pty Ltd
Interocean Swire Pty Ltd John Manners & Co. Australia Pty Ltd
Howard Smith In dustries Pty Ltd George Wills & Co Ltd
Patrick Agencies Pty Ltd
Not known - paid by Master
Interocean Swire Pty Ltd
TftBLE 1 (Contd)
Date Ship Work in Dispute Demand Payment
Apr'75 Dona Amalia
Crew chipped, scraped and painted holds in port
I
691.60
I
691.60
Apr 1 75 Expectation Crew loaded stores by winch at bulk wheat terminal, Glebe Island
214.89 No
Payment
Apr' 75 Port de
France Crew lifted anchor from
shore to ship
180.96 180.96
Apr 175 Michaelis Crew removed and landed, condemned runners and rigged substitutes in port
358.15 358.15
Apr ' 75 Capitaine La Perouse Crew cleaned holds be tween ports
573.04 573.04
May 175 Lama Crew stripped faulty
cargo gear in Brisbane and en route to Sydney; re-rigged in Sydney
938.70 938.70
Oul'75 Stolt Span Crew loaded engineering stores and parts at No. 2 Balmain
129.05 129.05
Bun'75 Komsomolets Nakhodki Crew cleaned holds be tween ports
387.71 387.71
Oul'75 Lone Star Crew cleaned hold in port 400.00 400.00
Oul'75 Nalanda Crew lifted stores at 200.00 200.00
No. 1 Balmain
Agent/ Principal Me Ilwraith McEacharn Ltd
Patrick Agencies Pty Ltd
Hetherington Kingsbury Pty Ltd
McArthur Shipping & Agency Co Pty Ltd
Sofrana Unilines (Aust) Pty Ltd
Interocean Swire Pty Ltd
Howard Smith In dustries Pty Ltd
Opal Maritime Agencies Pty Ltd
Hetherington Kingsbury Pty Ltd
McArthur Shipping & Agency Co. Pty Ltd
TABLE 1 (Contd)
Date Ship LJork in Dispute Demand
$
Jul'75 Hyogo Maru
Compensation for clean- 5000.00 ing of fire damage in plus
engine room to be done uork
in Japan
· >
Jul'75 Dordrecht Creu lifted stores No. 1 Balmain 232.55
Jul'75 Fugo Maru Creu loaded stores No. 1 Balmain Amount claimed
never
speciÂ
fied
Jul'75 Kosei Maru Dismantling car decks, cleaning Demand for
uork
Jul'75 lie de
Lumiere
Cargo runners pur chased from firm
not using Painters
and Dockers for splicing
Amount claimed
never speciÂ
fied
5000.00 plus uork total cost
including uages $20,630.87
232.55
Agent to advise Masters in
future
UUF and Ship-
urights
employed
Agree ment to advise Masters
in
future
Burns Philp Ltd
Agent/ Principal
McArthur Shipping & Agency Co Pty Ltd
Hetherington Kingsbury Pty Ltd
H . C. Sleigh Ltd
Hetherington Kingsbury Pty Ltd
not pressed until ship
sailed
Payment Agent/ Principal
Patrick Agencies Pty Ltd
Patrick Agencies
Pty Ltd
464.18 Omni Traders &
Brokers
Aqsnt/ Principal
McArthur Shipping
& Agency Co Pty Ltd
P & 0 (Australia) Ltd
Karlander (Aust) Pty Ltd
4.7 PORT KEMBLA
Port Kembla Sub-branch is said to be fully autonomous. No
clearer definition of the status of the body uas given to me but
it does appear that the only real contact between it and the
N.S.U. Branch is remittance of membership contributions and other
levies by the Sub-branch. Membership of the sub-branch is reÂ
stricted by a quota to about twenty-five members. Approximately
fourteen are employed on a substantially permanent basis by ship
repair firms. The remainder work through a pick-up roster run
by the Secretary/Treasurer, Mr. Woodbury, operating from a 1 back
flat' in a local hotel. There appears to be no records of the
roster nor any formally adopted rules for its workings.
Non-members obtain work through the roster system. The
actual number is unknown but it would appear to be much greater
than the number of members obtaining work through the roster.
The Sub-branch does not appear to have formulated any
specific claims against work being done by ships' crews or to
have been involved in any continuing campaign for this work.
4.7.1 Work Situation
In the absence of roster records, there is no detailed eviÂ
dence of the work situation in Port Kembla readily available.
Woodbury stated that it had deteriorated since the introduction
of the aggregate wage for seamen in 1970. It does appear that
the availability of work is highly variable, with occasional
peaks demanding the employment of a large proportion of
non-members.
4.7.2 Demands for Payment
Evidence was given of the sub-branch having made two demands
for payment, which resulted in the payment of $3,379.29.
51
4.7.3 Agano Maru
The first demand concerned the Agano Maru. This is a JapanÂ
ese vessel, a bulk carrier of about 16,000 tonnes capacity, which
carries a Japanese creu. It came to Port Kembla in July 1975,
under charter by the British Phosphate Commission, carrying a
cargo of phosphate. The vessel uas handed back to the owners in
Port Kembla 1 shovel cleaned' as provided for in the charter. It
uas then proposed that the vessel would sail to South America in
ballast, the precise nature of the cargo it uas to load there not
being known. The vessel uas said to be on a tight schedule, and
it uas not proposed to wash the holds unless the nature of the
next cargo required it.
Uoodbury Delays Vessel
The vessel uas due to sail at 4.15 p.m. on 8 July 1975.
At about 12 noon that day Uoodbury telephoned the shipping agent
and asked why no call had been made for labour for washing the
ship. He uas told that the ship uas bound for South America and
that no cleaning uas necessary. At about 3.00 p.m. the same day,
fir. Treloar, Assistant Manager of Union Bulkships Pty. Ltd. , the
agent for the vessel, uas on the ship in the Master's cabin
finalising the handing back of the ship to the owners, when
Uoodbury came to the ship and again asked uhat uas being done
about washing out the holds. He uas again advised that the
vessel uas proceeding to an overseas port and it uas not proposed
to have it uashed out in Port Kembla. Uoodbury replied 11 don't
think she will be sailing if ue don't wash out'. Tugs and linesÂ
men had been ordered to allow the vessel to leave, but did not
arrive by the sailing time of 4.15 p.m.
Negotiations
Treloar ther> communicated with his principals and uas
advised that because of the ship's tight schedule, he was to
negotiate with the Union and make the best arrangements he could.
He spoke to Uoodbury later that evening and, after some short
conversation, asked him to suggest an amount he would accept to
allow the ship to sail. After some hesitation by Uoodbury,
Treloar suggested the sum of $3,000 and Uoodbury agreed. The
52
money uas paid the next morning by cheque, which was, at
Uoodbury' s request, made payable to cash.
Cash Payment
Uoodbury's account is that he wanted the payment in this
form so that he could distribute the money among members, withÂ
out having to send it to Sydney with a consequential delay. I
think this reason was false, because Uoodbury operated an account
in Port Kembla in the name of the Sub-branch. My view is that
Uoodbury sought the money in a form where there need be no record made of it. '
Distribution and Records
It appears that the money was subsequently distributed
among fifteen men, four of whom were members of the Union, and
the other eleven of whom were non-members who, it uas said, would
have got a job if fifteen men had been picked up to wash the
vessel. Of the four Union members, one uas Uoodbury0 A receipt
was given to Union Bulkships but no copy of it held by Uoodbury.
The books of account were quite rudimentary, and no record of
this payment appeared in them. l\lo receipts were obtained from
any of the fifteen men involved, their names appearing on a
starting docket only.
4.7.4 Jarl R, Trapp
The second vessel in respect of which a payment uas made uas
the lari R. Trapp. This uas a Norwegian vessel with a Norwegian
crew. In July 1975, it called at Port Kembla and discharged a
bulk cargo. Its schedule provided for it to pick up a cargo of
steel, which necessitated the sweeping out of the holds. This
uas done by waterside worker labour. On a Saturday afternoon
when no painter and docker labour was available, the Master deÂ
cided to clean the bilges using the crew. His estimate uas that
some two to three hours work was involved.
Demand On the Monday, when this came to the notice of Uoodbury,
he demanded payment of $516, being a calculation of the wages
for eight men for eight hours on a Saturday. The ship's agent
24228/ 76â 3
53
received instructions from the charterer of the vessel,
Australian Iron & Steel Pty. Ltd., to make the payment to
Woodbury. There were discussions and, ultimately, Woodbury
agreed to accept $379.29, on the basis of payment for six men
for eight hours on a Saturday. This payment also uas in cash
at Woodbury's request. Woodbury's evidence uas that he paid it
to the nine men uho would have got the job had a call been made
for labour. Three or four out of the nine were members of the
Union, one uas Uoodbury.
4.7.5 Summary
I have set out these tuo cases in some detail because they
seem to me gross abuses of the pouer of unions.
In the case of the Agano flaru, Uoodbury, at page
transcript, agreed uith the following question put by
assisting the Commission:
What it amounts to is that you were able to extract the payment from Treloar's company because of the fact that you had secured the co-operation of the Firemen and Deckhands' Union and deprived the ship of the necessary men, the linesmen and the tugs, and thus pre vented the ship from sailing; that is uhat it amounts to? -- That is correct, yes.
I have no doubt that the same considerations uere present
uhen the payment in respect of the other ship uas made.
The fact that the major part of the money uas distributed
to non-members, makes a mockery of any claim that the demands
uere made for compensation to members for uork which they lost
as a result of ships' crews working.
/-
5062 of
Counsel
54
4.8 VICTORIAN BRANCH
Membership of the Victorian Branch of the Union is approximately
380. The bulk, some 330 members, are in Melbourne uith the reÂ
mainder at Geelong (nineteen), Uesternport Bay (three) and in
Tasmania, Devonport (eleven) and Launceston (three). Demands
have been made only in the Ports of Melbourne and Geelong.
4.9 MELBOURNE
In Melbourne, of the total membership of 330, some 240 are emÂ
ployed as permanents or semi-permanents, leaving some ninety
members as true casuals to obtain work through the casual
roster, which operates only in this port. The roster is held
in conjunction uith the Shipwrights' roster at the Shipowners'
Employment Centre, a building owned, maintained and managed from
finances obtained as levies from contracting firms, based on
hours worked by casual labour picked up through the centre.
4.9.1 Work Situation
Little evidence could be obtained on the work situation in
Melbourne, but it appears that employment opportunities for
painters and dockers have been slowly and steadily declining
for some time. Compared with the Port of Sydney, Melbourne
painters and dockers have a greater dependence on work provided
by shipping using the port.
Membership records show that numbers have remained steady
at around the 400 mark for the Branch as a whole since 1973.
Records prior to 1973 were destroyed by fire when the pick-up
was bombed, in 1972. Detailed records on casual labour allocations, maintained
by the Manager of the Employment Centre, survived the fire and
these have been examined in some detail for the period from
October 1971. They give a picture of a highly irregular and
intermittent demand for a small amount of labour. The total
55
number of jobs allocated in each of the four years (October -
September) to September 1975 are :
71/72 624
7 2/73 579
73/74 908
74/75 998
These demands were satisfied by a workforce of casuals num-
being about 250; in which non-members outnumber members almost
2:1, and in which the majority of workers obtain only one job
per year, further details of labour allocations are shown at
Appendix M i l . On this evidence, there is only a small amount
of work which is beyond the capacity of the permanent or semiÂ
permanent labour force maintained by the ship repair and serÂ
vicing firms.
4.9.2 Demands for Payment
Evidence of payments and/or demands was obtained in respect
of two vessels in 1971, two in 1972, three in 1974 and one in
1975. A list of these demands and payments is presented in
Table 2. It appears that a demand or demands may have been
made prior to the first of these, the Beta in August 1971, by
the Painters and Dockers Union alone or in conjunction with the
Shipwrights Union. However, because of the loss of records in
the bombing and fire at the Union offices in 1972 and the murder
of the past Secretary, Mr. Pat Shannon, in 1973, evidence on all
the demands prior to 1974 is sparse.
Of those listed, all four prior to 1973 involved both the
Shipwrights and the Painters and Dockers Unions and it appears
that the Shipwrights initiated and had the main carriage of
these early demands.; the work claimed being that associated
with securing of cargo. Three of these demands were successÂ
ful and resulted in the payment of $531.05 to the Union. The
round amounts of $300, Beta, and $200, Josef Conrad, were apÂ
parently arrived at in negotiations with the agents over the
amount of work involved, and the amount of $31.05, Mosor, based
on an estimated sixteen hours work at the rates then current.
56
4.9.3 Reneual of Demand's
After a lapse of almost tuo years, demands recommenced in
February 1974. These later demands appear to have taken on a
different character. The amount of the first $150, in respect
of the Straat Singapore, was calculated on the basis of wages
for six men and a foreman for one day. The other three demands
were all for the round sum of $500 representing uhat Branch
Secretary IMicholls described as a 1 fine1 of 'nominal amount' .
4.9.4 Moresby Express
The events surrounding these demands are sufficiently illusÂ
trated by the last of them. The vessel concerned was the
Moresby Express, a small vessel trading between New Guinea,
Sydney and Melbourne, coming to Melbourne about once a month.
On 6 September 1975 the ship was due to sail from Melbourne at
2.30 p.m. IMicholls had been on board on the preceding day,
noticed the creu lashing cargo in the tueen decks and apparently
left without comment. Having ascertained the estimated time of
sailing from harbour control, and having asked the delegate of
the Seamen's Union, whose members handle the lines on the tugs,
not to service the vessel, he went on board the vessel at midÂ
day and again observed the crew at work securing cargo, this
time lashing containers on deck. He spoke first to the bosun
who, at IMicholls' request, had the work stopped, and then to the
Chief Officer and Mr. Jones, the representative of Uestralian
Farmers Transport Pty. Ltd, the ship's agent.
Demand In conversation with Jones, IMicholls claimed that the
crew had done the work of shore-based painters and dockers, and
he demanded compensation for the work done and an agreement that
the work would be done by shore-based labour in future. He
informed Jones of his contact with the tug delegate and stated
that the ship, which was ready to sail within the hour, would
not do so unless his conditions were complied with. Jones reÂ
quested time to contact his superiors in Sydney, and IMicholls
57
left the ship for the Union's office, leaving his telephone
number. Back at the Union's office, Nicholls apparently formuÂ
lated the claim for $500 and typed out the letter of demand,
representing this amount as that lost in wages by his members.
Calculation and Payment
I am satisfied that no attempt was made to calculate the
amount on the basis of hours of work lost. Nicholls probably
thought that this was the highest amount he could obtain. I am
further of the opinion, in view of the delay until the last
moment in representing the matter to the agent, that there was
no real desire to obtain the work for his members. The vessel
had been coming to Melbourne once a month over a considerable
period and the crew had always lashed the cargo, without any .
objection from the Union.
Jones later rang Nicholls and agreed to the terms. The ship
departed apparently without being delayed. The sum of $500 was
paid to the General Fund of the Union and used to purchase
office furniture and a billiard table for the pick-up.
4.9.5 Summary
The four demands since February 1974 yielded a total of
$1400; Straat Singapore $150, Straat Johore $250, reduced by
negotiation from the $500 demanded, Straat Luanda $500, and
Moresby Express $500. Only the Moresby Express payment clearly
appears in the books of account of the Union, and then only in
the banking records. Of the other three payments, Nicholls
stated in evidence that the funds were paid to Mrs. Uilma ShanÂ
non, widow of the deceased Secretary, to assist with provision
of a headstone. /There is no clear evidence of the money being
banked to the Union's account and no corroboration, by way of
receipts or otherwise, of payment to Mrs. Shannon. ·
4.10 GEELONG
The nineteen or so painters and dockers in Geelong work as semiÂ
permanents or permanents for two firms in the port, and are
58
supplemented un occasions uith labour from the Melbourne pickÂ
up. No pick-up operates in Geelong.
Only tuo demands uere made by the Union in respect of ships
in the Port of Geelong. Like the earlier demands in the Port
of Melbourne, both uere made in conjunction uith the Shipurights
Union uhich again appears to have had carriage of the claims for
both Unions. Details of these demands and payments are inÂ
cluded in Table 2.
4.10.1 Maria Rosa
The first demand uas on the Maria Rosa in October 1970. From
the evidence, the exact nature of the uork claimed is not clear
but it appears that the $180 paid to the Union uas for compenÂ
sation for the loss of uork of burlapping of bilges and tueen
decks, uhich had been done by the creu. A second claim, for
hold cleaning by the creu on the voyage betueen Port Kembla
and Geelong, uas rejected. The Shipurights received $340.
4.10.2 Ho Chi Min
The second demand, in May 1972, uas on a Russian vessel, the
Ho Chi Min. The uork claimed uas the erection of fittings for a
cargo of bulk uheat, uhich had been done by the creu en route to
Australia. Uhen it uas found that the creu had erected the
fittings, a joint claim uas made for compensation by the tuo
Unions. The agent for the vessel, Patrick Operations Pty. Ltd,
proposed negotiations through the Geelong Trades & Labour CounÂ
cil. It uas a substantially recognised practice at the time
for such fittings, uhen required, to be erected by shore labour
and it uas agreed that an amount of $500 uas to be paid to both
Unions. The agent described the payment as a negotiated
settlement and I am satisfied that it should be so treated.
59
4.11 CONCLUSIONS
There appears to be a distinct difference in character between
the earlier demands, those between 1970 and 1972, and the four
recent demands, commencing with the Straat Singapore demand.
Uith the earlier demands, the Painters and Dockers Union appeared
to figure almost as an 1 also-ran1 on claims initiated by the
Shipwrights. All the work in dispute was basically shipwrights'
work in which the painters and dockers wodld have assisted as
labourers.
4.11.1 The Early Demands
In view of this, I do not consider that these demands form
part of a definite campaign by the Branch in pursuit of work,
but were accepted as opportunities to demonstrate support for
the campaign in general. There may even have been some element
of compulsory involvement, to demonstrate a willingness to beÂ
come directly involved in the campaign, once the disputes were
advised to the Union by the Shipwrights. Evidence on the disÂ
posal of the moneys obtained is lacking, because of the desÂ
truction of the financial records of the Branch.
I make no further comment on these early demands.
4.11.2 The Later Demands
Of the later demands, I am convinced that the Branch went
out of its way to obtain money under cover of the general camÂ
paign, without any real desire to obtain work for its members.
I draw this conclusion despite evidence by Nicholls, that what
was sought was not the money but the work, to provide employÂ
ment for the casual members working through the pick-up. Nicholls
stated his objective in the following terms, 1 I would like the
organisation to be stable enough and to have enough employment
to give every man ... the opportunity to have a good take home
pay to look after his wife and family1.
60
He also states that members are lucky to get tuo jobs per
week during the course of a year, and this, even with overtime and penalty payments is not sufficient.
Records Refute Nicholls
These statements are ludicrous in the light of a subÂ
sequent examination of the labour allocation records supplied
by the Shipouners1 Employment Centre, and the evidence on the
amount of uork potentially available, if all uork claimed was
granted exclusively.
Looking over the last three years at the number of jobs a
member obtained in a year; if one takes the middle position of
a man in the workforce of casual members totalling about eighty,
then that man had four jobs per year, half of the men had more
and half less. In other words, the median frequency of jobs/
member/year over the last three years is four. The most jobs
any one casual worker got in one year was twenty-nine; slightly
in excess of one a fortnight. That was one man only. Given
the evidence it is extremely difficult to conceive of there
being sufficient work to support even a severely reduced workÂ
force .
No Real Campaign to Secure Uork I could find no evidence of a real campaign by the
Branch against work being done by ships' crews in the port. The
Branch does not appear to have properly formulated its claims
and apparently has made no co-ordinated attempt to inform the
local shipping agents, etc. There is no apparent attempt to
restrain membership at realistic levels in line with the work
available, thirty to forty new members having been accepted in
the twelve months to September 1975, despite the lack of work.
Also, there appears to be no attempt to limit the use of nonÂ
member labour obtaining work through the roster to increase the
amount of work available to members. During the last twelve
months to September, non-members received over 58/ of the uork
offering.
61
4.11.3 Uhat uas done with the Moneys?
Of the true purpose(s) for which the money uas obtained,
evidence is also lacking. Except in the case of the Moresby
Express demand which uas made in September 1975, by which time
these matters had come under close public scrutiny, I have no
evidence other than that of Nicholls on the disposal of the '
moneys received, and he provided no documents in support. Also,
there is no evidence that the receipt of the moneys uas brought
to the attention of the Branch membership, until the matter uas
raised at a general stopuork meeting in December 1974, as a reÂ
sult of a request from the Federal Secretary for information on
demands and payments to put before this Commission.
Mention of the fate of the moneys first appears in a report
by the Branch Secretary to a 'stopuork1 meeting which took place
on 15 October 1975, just seven days prior to the commencement of
the Commission's hearing in Melbourne. The Minutes record that
Secretary Nicholls, in reporting the receipt of $500 in respect
of the Moresby Express, stated that - 'other similar moneys reÂ
ceived had been used to purchase a headstone on the grave of our
past Secretary the late Pat Shannon'.
It has not been established to my satisfaction that the $900
uas in fact given to Mrs. Shannon and used for this purpose.
No explanation uas given by Nicholls of these facts.
4.11.4 A Curious Union Branch
The Victorian Branch presents a curious picture, unique I
think among Australian unions. Uhen one finds men receiving
such infrequent employment in an industry, it is impossible to
regard them as genuinely following that industry. I suspect
that the true position can be deduced from uhat uas said by Mr.
Gordon and Mr. Nicholls in evidence before this Commission :
Mr. Gordon (on being questioned on the failure of the Victorian Branch to file accounts with the Registrar pp.2641-2642 of transcript).
62
They are not included in the 1973 accounts^ -- No that's right. ' â
Uhy uas that? -- Because of the fact that there uas a death and several robberies and some fires.
Mould you tell us about the death - whose death? -- I think it is uell known, Pat Shannon, Secretary, uas shot dead.
And you say some thefts? -- Yes.
Uhat uere they? -- The Union office uas turned over, all the documents and anything of value uas stolen.
When did that happen? -- That happened not once but several times in 1973 during the course of uhat is generally knoun as the struggle for pouer in the Painters and Dockers Union, uhich uas nothing of the sort, of course.
Uhat about the fires, hou many fires uere there? --They burned out the place a couple of times and also smashed all the furniture and took all the documents, and ue have got suspicions uho did it, too.
You say, 'Ue have got suspicions' - you have suspicions, have you? -- No, but the Branch has, I am Federal Secretary, I keep on telling you.
Uhich members of the Branch, the Victorian Branch, have their suspicions?-- The Secretary, Management Committee the people uho uere in office. After all, they are still in office despite everything. You might note that one of the perpetrators of the outrage has just surren dered himself to the police after a period of about tuo years, about twelve months.
HIS HONOUR: You said one of the perpetrators - has he been charged uith any of these offences? â There uas a uarrant out for his arrest.
In respect of the thefts? -- In respect to the murder.
Uhat about the thefts and the fires, have there been any charges made in respect of those offences? No, ue catch and kill our oun.
Mr Nicholls (on being questioned on the adverse publi city received by the Victorian Branch pp. 6097-6010).
First of all, you knou of this public concern; it may be ill-informed and unfair, but you knou of it?
Yes, I do.
63
To be fair to the people you uould say are ill-informed, could you blame them uondering about the control of the Union, when you have, for example, bombs being thrown into your office, uhen you have violence at election t i m e --
I am putting this to you in uhat I hope is a reasonable fashion. You and Mr. Sproule are the only paid members of your Union? -- That is correct.
You are paid, ue do not ask you how much, but you are underpaid for the hours you uork, is that right? -- I agree.
So there is no virtue, no financial reward in being the Secretary/Treasurer of your Union or being the Vigilance Officer, or being the President or the Vice-President, or member of the Committee of Management, is there? You and Mr. Sproule are the only ones paid, and you are just paid a pittance? -- You asked a question, I will tell you. If I only got 50 bucks a week for this job, to me,
I am in the trade union movement to try and do some con structive work to get this union off the mat, and the opinion you have, and quite a lot of the public have, against the members of this organisation, to try and get them off the mat, and say they are decent lau abiding citizens (sic) going to uork to earn a decent take-home pay to look after their wives and families. This is my objective, this is my Vigilance Officer's objective, and ue want to do it and do it religiously. The more work ue can gain for our members that is going to assist them so much more, those that have fallen by the way side, to rehabilitate themselves. This is my object, and it is my Vigilance Officer's object, and I uould say the whole union combined, the whole organisation of the Federal body is to help the people who are trying to re habilitate themselves.
Uhy uould it be that people uould seek office in a union with such a philosophy? There has been violence; is not that right? -- That is right, yes.
And killings? -- Uho knows it more than me.
At election time? -- That is correct, yes.
If there is just yourself as Secretary and Treasurer and the Vigilance Officer, is the man in the street not en titled to a-Sk u h y ? -- I uould suggest that uhen the shots were fired in a particular election time and a man, unfortunately, was killed, that the minds of these people were deranged, and that has been proved by the "fact that three or four of them were out there and an accident ' happened there, where one shot the other. Are they looking for Union positions out there in gaol uhere they are undergoing life imprisonment. Are they still looking for Union positions? Their minds are depraved, and they are out of sight and I hope - I will quote this
64
and I hope the press are making some comments on this one - that those people, in my opinion are in their place, and they stop there and stop there for a long long time, because they are not good to any part of
the community.
A confidential exhibit dealing with some personal histories
of Victorian Branch officials uas tendered. On reflection
houeuer, I decided that it uas unnecessary for me to reach any
firm conclusions regarding the activities and operation of the
Branch.
The particular relevance of this evidence seems ultimately
to be whether any legislative change recommended should exclude
Melbourne and Geelong and I deal with that aspect later in this
report.
65
250
Payment calctd on time actually
taken by creu
Agent
Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd
H . C . Sleigh Ltd
P&0 (Australia) Ltd
Urn.Haughton & Co Ltd
Interocean Aus tralia Services Pty Ltd
Interocean Aus tralia Services Pty Ltd
Interocean Aus tralia Services Pty Ltd
TABLE 2 (Contd)
Date
Sept' 75
Ship
Moresby Express
Uork in Dispute Demand Payment
Crew lashed cargo in port
$
500
$
500
PORT OF GEELONG
Oct' 70 Maria Rosa Crew burlapped
bilges
180 180
Flay '72 Ho Chi Min Crew fitted feeders
and bulkheads
500 500
2611.05
cn -ο
Agent
Uestralian Farmers Trans port Pty Ltd
Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd
Patrick Operations Pty Ltd
4.12 NEWCASTLE BRANCH
The Newcastle Branch of the Union has a membership of approxiÂ
mately 360, of whom 320 are in permanent and semi-permanent
employment, the majority at the State Dockyard and BHP. The
remaining forty members seek casual employment through the pickÂ
up roster operated in the port.
It appears on the evidence of Mr. 3. Ueatherby of G.H.Uarley
Pty. Ltd, the largest private ship repair and servicing firm in
Newcastle, that it has been accepted policy in Newcastle, for
at least seven or eight years, for the cleaning and preparation
of overseas vessels for Australian cargoes to be done by the
appropriate Australian union. Probably as a result, the Branch
does not appear to have been closely involved in the recent
campaign for work being done by ships' crews.
4.12.1 Work Situation
There appears to have been a steady decrease in shipping in
the port, resulting in a 50% reduction over the last ten years,
with a more dramatic decrease in 1975. In addition to the reÂ
duction in total shipping, the change to containerisation has
reduced the amount of work available, especially cleaning work.
However, no quantitative evidence was obtained on the amount of
unemployment being suffered by painters and dockers in the port.
4.12.2 Demand
Only one demand and payment has been made in the Port of
Newcastle.
>
4.12.3 Shirrabank
The demand was in respect of a British vessel, the ShirraÂ
bank , a conventional cargo ship, manned with British officers
and an Indian or Bangladesh crew. She berthed in Newcastle on
23 September 1974 to complete discharge of cargo, three of the
6 8
fiv/B hatches having already been discharged by the time she
left her previous port of call, Melbourne. The ship uas to
proceed to a North Queensland port to load sugar which would
necessitate all five holds being cleaned.
Tip-off to Newcastle Branch
The ship had already been the subject of an approach by
the Union in Melbourne, where the Secretary, Nicholls, requested
the cleaning work to be done by his members. This request had
apparently been denied by the agents in Melbourne who stated
that the whole job was to be done in Newcastle, when discharge
uas complete. The Secretary of the Newcastle Branch, Mr.
Milne, had been contacted by Nicholls prior to the arrival of
the vessel and advised to 1 keep an eye on the vessel' to see
that painters and dockers were picked up for cleaning.
Intention to use Crew
It appears, however, that the Master had no intention of
using shore labour to do any cleaning on the ship. The crew
had already cleaned three empty holds on the voyage from MelÂ
bourne , and undertook further cleaning in Newcastle. The
ship's schedule would not have allowed even the remaining two
holds to be cleaned in Newcastle.
Painters and Dockers Employed
â¡ n 27 September however, painters and dockers were enÂ
gaged through Corrosion Control Pty. Ltd, a subsidiary of G. H.
l/arley to clean one hold on the vessel. It uas later that
morning that Milne reported to the vessel's agent, the claim
that the vessel was to be cleaned in full in Newcastle. After
seeking authority from the shipping line's representative in
Sydney, the agent authorised Milne to arrange through the conÂ
tractor for the necessary labour to be engaged to complete the
job by sailing time on the following day. The agent uas later
advised by Milne that, because the ship would not complete disÂ
charge of the final hold until shortly before sailing time, it
would not be possible to complete the cleaning work.
De ma n d s After some discussion, it uas suggested by Milne that on
payment of $700, as compensation for the work lost by his members
69
in not cleaning the final hold, the ship would be allowed to
sail the next afternoon as scheduled.
Still later that day Milne inspected the job and discovered
that three of the holds had already been cleaned. He arranged
a meeting with the Master an'd agent on board the vessel, at
which the Master admitted that the crew had cleaned these three
holds, on the voyage from Melbourne and while discharging in
Newcastle. Milne demanded compensation for the work lost and
calculated that a further $2438 would be required before the
vessel would be allowed to sail.
Agreement by Agent
After again obtaining authority, the agent, in a letter
addressed to the Branch, agreed to the payment, and the ship
sailed on time.
Disposal of Moneys
The total amount of $3138 obtained was disbursed in two
principal ways. However, the evidence of Milne did not satisÂ
factorily account for the total sum, probably due mainly to
bookkeeping deficiencies. The bulk of the money, in excess of
$1800, was spent on a testimonial dinner for the Federal SecreÂ
tary, in recognition of his thirty years of service to the
Union; members and guests attending this function free of
charge. An amount of $824.30 was paid to the Branch's Children's
Fund. According to Milne, the decision to apply the moneys in
this way was made as a result of separate meetings at the
various yards in Newcastle where painters and dockers were emÂ
ployed. The question of disposal of the moneys is discussed
further in Chapter 11.
4.12.4 Summary A·
The claims of the Painters and Dockers Union in Newcastle in
respect of work being done by ships' crews appear to hav'e been
accepted since about 1968. I see the Shirrabank demand as an
isolated incident, and I am doubtful whether it would have
occurred at all without the intervention of the Victorian Branch
Whether the follow-through on the demand by the Newcastle Branch
70
uas in pursuit of an opportunity to obtain additional Union
funds or just to demonstrate its willingness to participate in
the campaign or both, I am undecided.
In the light of a single demand, largely engineered from
the Victorian Branch, I do not consider any further comment
necessary.
71
4.13 PORT ADELAIDE BRANCH
In 1975 the Port Adelaide Branch had a total membership of about
forty-four, of uhom some four or five members were in permanent
or semi-permanent employment and some eighteen to tuenty casuals
were actively seeking uork through a roster system. Members of
this Branch uork only in Port Adelaide, despite some recent
attempts by officials to extend coverage to the outports. Uork
in the ports uhere the Union lacks coverage, all those in the
State except Port Adelaide and Uhyalla, is done by any availÂ
able casual labour recruited as required by local agents. Port
Adelaide Branch runs a supplementary roster to augment the
membership in periods of peak demand.
The main claim of this Branch is for cleaning uork uhich,
along uith some painting uork, forms the bulk of the uork availÂ
able. The claim that ships' creus should not do this uork exÂ
tends to the performance of the uork in port and in Australian
territorial uaters. Some attempt is being made to obtain the
uork of loading ships' stores uith a small measure of success.
Lashing and securing of cargo is claimed by the Shipurights in
this port and painters and dockers do not share in this uork.
4.13.1 Uork Situation
Membership has suffered from the uithdraual of one company
from shipbuilding, and from changes in the type and amount of
shipping. The introduction of bulkships has reduced cleaning
required, and the introduction of containers has meant the reÂ
routing of cargoes through larger ports, principally Melbourne.
The maximum earnings for 1974/75 of a casual painter and
docker uho regularly attends pick-up, is estimated at belou
$5,000.
4.13.2 Demands for Payment
The only recent demands and payments uhich occurred are in
respect of the Capulet in June 1974 and the Marsha in July 1975.
72
There uas brief evidence obtained of one or tuo other apparent
instances, but on the material before me I am not satisfied that
they are within the Terms of Reference.
Capulet
The Capulet, a British vessel with a British crew,
arrived at Adelaide from Newcastle, in Dune 1974, to load bulk
wheat. When it failed to pass survey, contractors were engaged
to clean the ship to the standard required by the surveyors.
It uas clear to the painters and dockers when they came on
board that the crew had cleaned the vessel between Newcastle
and Port Adelaide. They refused to commence work until they
had been paid for the work done by the crew, and claimed payment
for 280 hours work - $1250. The Master negotiated the claim
and finally agreed to the payment. The ship was delayed one
and a half days by the incident.
â Marsha The Marsha, a Japanese vessel, uas on a voyage bringing
motor vehicles from Japan. She arrived in Adelaide having part
discharged her cargo in Sydney and Melbourne. In Adelaide she
was to complete discharge and load grain. During the course
of the work, Mr. Scales, Secretary of the Branch, discovered
that the crew had done some cleaning while the vessel was proÂ
ceeding from Melbourne to Adelaide. Scales asked for payment in
compensation and the agent, Burns Philp, agreed to pay the sum
of $201.60.
Scales denied having threatened to hold up this vessel and
I accept his denial. At the same time, I think it likely that
Mr. Brenton, the representative from Burns Philp, did fear that
industrial action in some form might have occurred, and this
led him to agree to the payment made.
4.13.3 Summary
The tuo demands made by this Branch are in accordance with
its claims, and the amounts claimed are based on a reasonable
assessment of the hours of work actually lost. I see the
demands as being in genuine pursuit of work, without any fundÂ
73
raising overtones. In both cases, the moneys uere paid to
members of the Union uho uould have obtained the uork if it had
been done by painters and dockers.
t·
74
5 FREMANTLE
5.1 INTRODUCTION
As can be seen from Chapter 3 dealing uith the history of the
disputes, the IMUU in Fremantle has played a prominent role in
the campaign to secure work for members. Whilst the methods
employed in pursuing the claims are similar to those adopted
in the Eastern States, it became apparent during the hearing
of evidence that the situation which has evolved in Fremantle
since 1973 sets that port apart from other ports. It is necesÂ
sary then to use a different approach in examining this port,
and I think it is desirable to take a cursory look at the
position uhich has been reached before examining it in detail.
The port is controlled and administered by the Fremantle
Port Authority (FPA) uhich is constituted under the Fremantle
Port Authority Act No. 35 of 1964, and functions under that
statute and regulations made thereunder. Its wide ranging
responsibilities include the supervision of the employment of
casual painter and docker and shipwright labour in the port.
In this regard, the FPA is charged uith the administration of
the roster, the consolidated pay office and the levies paid by
the employers uhich fund the payment of attendance money, annual
leave, public holidays, sick leave, long service leave and
guaranteed uages .
Since 1970 shipping agents have paid to the MUU or at its
direction moneys exceeding $42,000 uhich have been disbursed in
various uays. In some instances, sums have been deposited in
the Union's funds and, in other cases, the registered casual
workers have been paid, in their uages through the consolidated
pay office, a share of the moneys extorted by the Union. In
addition, the tuo local ship repair firms have submitted false
accounts to the ships' agents. This uas achieved mainly by
charging for work uhich to everyone's knowledge uas not done,
charging levies in respect of their oun permanent employees and
charging levies in respect of uork uhich uas not done, and retainÂ
ing those levies, thereby making financial gains in addition to-
75
|ί|
their normal profit margins.
It transpired that Mr. Uells, the Secretary of the MUU, also
shared in the booty, even though as an official he uas not enÂ
titled to receive any payments other than his wages drawn on
Union funds.
Although feu decisions of meetings uere recorded, it is clear
from the evidence before me that the relevant members were
auare of and actively supported the activities of Uells and
other officials.
The situation is appalling, particularly when one considers
the evidence of Uells that the campaign to secure work had in
fact been a failure. One cannot help but suspect that the
nature of the campaign had degenerated to a campaign for the
purpose of obtaining funds in which all could share.
Because of the procedures associated with its administration
of the guaranteed wage and other funds, the FPA, although at
first it uas denied, uas aware and indeed benefited to a small
extent from the activities of the MUU officials in relation to
demands and payments.
Evidence of ships' agents and masters of vessels concealing
the true facts from the owners or charterers uas also heard.
The picture of Fremantle then is of an industry that is
quite sick. Mr. Carruthers, appearing for the Australian
Chamber of Shipping and the AEUL said of the Uestern Australia
position, at page 6437 of transcript, that -It (i.e the system of payments and demands developed in Fremantle) has permeated right throughout the industry and is causing decent, honourable men to contaminate (that is the only word one can use) them selves with the system because the attitude seems to be, 'whatever you do don't rock the boat'. This is the attitude and therefore if it involved making false entries./·and paying money that should not be paid, deceiving this one and deceiving that one, and even coming along and deceiving royal commissioners, you do it otherwise you are going to rock the boat and nobody knows where we will end up.
So from the industry's point of view, from the com munity's point of view, from the trade union point of view, an end somehow or other has got to be put to it
76
During the address of Mr. Scott for the FPA, at page 6497,
the following discussion took place -
HIS HONOUR: But, Mr. Scott, the impression I am left with of the industry in Fremantle is this: that there were quite immoral demands by the union, that there uas in some cases ready participation in those demands by the tuo ship repair firms, that the agents in a number of cases uere quite willing to
capitulate, that the Port Authority charged with the administration of the port was quite happy to see what was going on continuing to happen - and, frankly, that seems to me an appalling picture.
MR. SCOTT: Well, I would agree with all the pro positions that Your Honour put, except the last one, and my respectful submission is that as the act uas framed the Port Authority carrying out its statutory
function uas really powerless to prevent the situation which had developed between the employers, the union and agent as a conspiracy which, in my submission, the Port Authority was not a party to from its inception
and, once it had been created, it uas virtually power less to stop.
77
6 FREMANTLE PORT AUTHORITY
The work in this port is organised somewhat differently than in
other ports because of the administrative and supervisory role
of the Authority in the employment of casual labour. This role
is seen by examining the roster, outlining the roster scheme
and the conditions of uork available to each registered casual
worker.
6.1 ROSTER
Under the regulations, only registered painters and dockers can
be employed casually to do painter and docker work and only a
registered employer can employ this labour. The regulations
also provide that the number of casual workers on the roster be
restricted by a quota which is agreed to by representatives of
the FPA, the MUU and the employers, having regard to the foreÂ
cast labour needs in the port. At present, this quota is
eighty-five, although the actual number of casuals on the
roster appears to vary between seventy-three and seventy-nine.
Each casual worker seeking to be placed on the roster must be
registered. A prospective employee can apply to the FPA for
registration and, if successful, is allocated a registration
number and becomes eligible to attend the roster to obtain work.
The roster operates under the supervision of the Labour ConÂ
troller, an officer of the FPA. The Authority also has disciÂ
plinary powers which can extend to the cancellation of regisÂ
tration .
6.2 EMPLOYMENT OF LABOUR
Shipping agents arrange for the performance of any work required
through one of two ship repair firms - Petterson & Co. or FreÂ
mantle Shipwrighting Co. These firms notify the Labour ConÂ
troller of their labour requirements and the men are then
obtained from the roster.
78
The Labour Controller sends a list of the names of men
allotted and their registration numbers to the employer and the
mu, and uhen the uork is completed the FPA is advised of the
time and date of completion by the employer and the Union. This
procedure enables the FPA to ensure that names are restored to
the correct position on the roster and to keep a record of manÂ
hours worked in order to calculate the levies payable.
Times arise uhen, due to the amount of uork to be done in
the port, more labour than is available through the roster is
required and, in that circumstance the Union Secretary, upon a
request from an employer, obtains other unregistered labour
which may then be employed until a member on the roster is availÂ
able.
6.3 PAYMENT OF LEVIES
Each casual worker on the roster receives a guaranteed weekly
wage of the amount provided for a permanent painter and docker
under the Award. At the time of the hearing in August 1975 this
wage was $133.80. Each worker is paid an amount which, in
addition to his earnings for the week, including attendance
money, will bring his earnings to at least that sum. These
employees are required to attend at the pick-up centre daily
and offer for employment, but if they do not obtain employment,
each is paid attendance money. They also receive payment for
public holidays, annual leave, sick leave and long service leave. ^
These benefits are Financed by levies imposed on the ship
repair firms and collected by the FPA. These levies total
$2.98 per manhour of employment of each registered casual
worker. In addition, a levy of $1.30 per manhour is imposed
and collected in respect of unregistered labour. This amount
is paid into the benefit funds for registered casual workers.
The levies are not paid at the completion of each job but
are paid monthly, based on the total number of hours worked.
The practice in the port is for each of the two employers of
painters and dockers and shipwrights to make a return of the
hours worked by the casual employees in his employ. Details
79
are given of the vessels on which work was performed. An inÂ
formal arrangement operates where the employer telephones an
officer in the FPA to check that they agree on the total number
of hours worked and the employer then pays the appropriate
amount to the FPA. Although the employer pays the levies to
the FPA, the cost is passed onto the agent and then the prinÂ
cipal .
6.4 PAYMENT OF WAGES
In addition to administering the schemes, the Authority also
operates a consolidated pay office. Moneys due to registered
casual workers are calculated and paid by the employer to the
Authority, which then pays the worker. Unregistered casual
employees receive their wages in the office of the MUU.
6.5 CHARGE BY FPA
The Authority imposes a 1% levy, payable quarterly, to cover
the costs of the operation of the consolidated pay office. One
ship repair firm, Petterson & Co., covered this additional cost
by adding 5p to the cost of levies, thereby charging $3.03 per
manhour in addition to its own charge for labor.
6.6 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
The men working off the roster are described as ' casual1 emÂ
ployees but they are casual in name only, because they receive
wages and conditions appropriate to permanent employees. MoreÂ
over, the average ordinary hours worked at the time of the
hearings were only twenty hours per week on one calculation,
and twenty-five hours per week on the Union's calculation.
The nature of their employment involves work outside orÂ
dinary hours and at weekends, which carry penalty rates, and
the actual earnings for these workers for the year ending June
1975, were estimated by the Union to be in the vicinity of
$8/ 10,000.
80
As uell as the fauourable wages and conditions, the work of'
painters and dockers within the port is reserved to registered
casual workers except when a registered casual worker is not
available for engagement. This then places the rostered casual
painter and docker in a position not unlike that of the waterÂ
side worker or a member of seagoing unions, all of whom have
areas of work reserved to them.
It should be added that the number of casual shipwrights in
Fremantle was about seven and that these men are included in the
roster for painter and docker work.
It is apparent then, that in the Port of Fremantle, painters
and dockers, including shipwrights, receive somewhat favoured
treatment. They are, in fact, in a better position than any
other group of painters and dockers in the Commonwealth.
81
7 MARITIME WORKERS UNION
The MUU is a State registered union which covers painters and
dockers, shipwrights and some watchmen. It also functions as
the de facto Western Australian branch of the Federal bodies of
the Painters and Dockers Union and Shipwrights. The Union has
some 300 members, of whom a number, varying from seventy-three
to seventy-nine obtain work through the casual roster. The
balance of the membership are employed in other areas, e.g. the
construction of the oil rig, Ocean Endeavour, and on work other
than that now being considered in other Western Australian
ports. However, in relation to demands and payments, the ComÂ
mission was concerned only with what is locally known as the
casual yard.
The Secretary of the MWU is Mr. 3.C . Wells and the President
is Mr. T . Henderson.
7.1 WORK PERFORMED
The work comprises principally the cleaning and preparing of
ships' holds, dunnaging of holds, the securing and unsecuring
of cargo and the lashing of deck cargo.
7.2 WORK SITUATION
As described in the preceding chapter, the work situation is
organised differently in Fremantle than in other ports. The
guaranteed wage and various leave schemes which operate in this
port in effect act as a buffer against any violent fluctuations
in the demand for labour having a direct effect on the wages
earned by registered casual workers. The guaranteed wage
scheme ensures that each casual worker receives a minimdm weekly
wage. There are various inbuilt controls in the scheme which
to a certain extent protect the employment opportunities of
registered casual workers. The continued operation of the
scheme depends on a certain level of employment being maintained
to finance the guaranteed wage and various leave schemes.
82
Therefore, if the shipping agents wish to have labour available
on request, it is in their interests to ensure that the amount
of work given to registered casual workers is sufficient to
finance these schemes and so retain the pool of labour. The
quota of casual workers who can be placed on the roster at any
one time is fixed under the Act and Regulations. Furthermore,
the FPA can regulate the number of casual workers on the roster
having regard to work available by exercising their registration powers.
The annual report issued by the FPA on the employment of
casual labour and associated benefit schemes for the year 1
October 1974 to 30 September 1975 indicates that the current
work situation is good. The average number of casual workers
on the roster each month increased slightly from 73.08 men to
74.12 men. Similarly, there was an increase in the average
daily employment from 28.94 men to 35.38 men and the total
number of manhours worked for the year was 78,045-g· hours, comÂ
pared with 62,567 hours in 1973/74. During the hearings in
Perth, evidence was given that six new registrations were conÂ
templated in view of the labour shortages experienced in peak
periods during the year under review and estimated future reÂ
quirements . In the light of this employment situation then,
the Union's actions in making demands for payment as a method
of securing more work for its members cannot be justified on
the grounds of fear of unemployment.
Another means of assessing the employment situation in
Fremantle is by the amount of attendance money paid to members
who attend the pickup centre but are not called from the roster
for a job. The amount of attendance money paid out in 1973/74
was $27,916.26 which decreased to $23,004.98 in 1974/75. ThereÂ
fore, a larger number of casual workers offering for work reÂ
ceived work even though the average number on the roster had
increased.
During evidence, the reason put forward for requiring
levies to be paid to the FPA for work not done was the fear
that the funds for the various benefit schemes would be deÂ
pleted in the near future. This claim is also not justified.
83
The attendance money paid to the casual workers uas $23,004.90,
whereas the amount contributed by the employers to cover these
payments uas $56,192.77 from which the Authority received
$11,865.28 for administrative expenses. It is stated in the
report that the employers were charged 72/ per manhour of emÂ
ployment and that the ideal rate to discharge the total
expenses for the year would have been only 44.68/ per manhour.
It would appear then that there uas no reason for concern that
this fund would be exhausted in the near future.
Similar considerations apply to the other funds.
7.3 THE TERM 'JOB AND FINISH'
At the commencement of the resumed hearings in Perth, Uells proÂ
duced a list of what can be described as claims made for work
on various vessels. In some cases the list showed the result
as being payment; in others the result uas shown as 'job and
finish'.
The list omitted some ships, but the more important critiÂ
cism of it and Uells is that the description of the result 'job
and finish' with an implication of an honest agreement reached,
is quite false. To make this plain, it is necessary to explain
the term.
There is on the waterfront, a system of payment
known as 'job and finish'.
This arises when a ship's agent is faced with a position
when it is desired to get a ship away from a port as quickly as
possible, due perhaps to catching a tide, or meeting an engageÂ
ment in some other port. Agreement is reached with the
workers concerned, fc^r them to make a special effort, perhaps
by taking reduced mealbreaks or the like to complete the job
ahead of schedule. In return for this, they are paid wages for
a period estimated to be the time work would have finished, had
the work proceeded in the ordinary manner, although it may in
fact be concluded some hours before.
When this sytem is operated honestly, it is obviously
desirable and is in everybody's interest. In Fremantle, a
84
system which was christened during the hearing 'bogus job and
finish1 greu up. Under this bogus system, either no work at
all uas done by painters and dockers on the vessel but moneys
uere paid to them as if they had worked or, alternatively, there
were cases when uork might have been performed on one or tuo
days but payment uas made for other days on which no uork uas performed.
The purpose of these payments in these circumstances seems
to have been to allou casual painters and dockers, members of
the Union, to share directly in payments made by ships' agents
and a number of instances arose in evidence, uhere this method
had been used.
'Job and finish' in these circumstances uas not an agreement
honestly reached but a system whereby moneys uere obtained under
express or implied threat and paid directly to certain painters
and dockers.
7.4 DEMANDS FOR PAYMENT .
Uells uas elected Secretary of the MUU in mid 1973 and since
that time has conducted the campaign to secure more uork for
members of the Union in uhat on the surface appears to be a very
zealous manner. During his period of office, tuenty-five
demands for payment have been made and the resulting payments
by ships' agents have exceeded $40,000. Prior to him taking
office, and since 1970, three demands for payment had been made,
totalling $1,106.72 and a further tuo demands had resulted in
payment totalling $692.80 to the creus of the vessels concerned.
In addition, since 1973, six demands have been made uhich for
some reason Uells did not follow up and therefore resulted in
no payment being made.
Unlike the practice in the Eastern States, where with a feu
exceptions, the funds derived from demands uere deposited in the
General Funds of the union concerned, a general pattern has
emerged in Fremantle, whereby receipts from demands have been
disposed of in three ways :
24228/ 76â 4
85
a) deposited in the General Fund;
b) paid to rostered, registered casual uorkers; and
c) deposited in a Special Account.
7.5 METHODS EMPLOYED
Demands have been made on vessels in various circumstances. In
all cases, Uells would board the vessel and ascertain that work
claimed by his Union had been done by the creu either on the
high seas, between ports or in port, or, that it was intended
to use the creu to do the work after departure. Uells would
demand that shore labour be engaged to do the work prior to
departure and, in some cases the work was actually done by
painters and dockers. In the other cases, payment of a sum
was either demanded or in a feu cases offered by a ship's agent
or master. This sum was paid either to the Union's General
Fund or a Special Account or by way of bogus 1 job and finish1
payments to casual painters and dockers. The procedures for
engaging labour from the roster would be followed and although
the casual workers did not do the work, payment was made for it.
through the pay office, either on the basis of false labour
records or no records at all. On one occasion payment was deliÂ
vered in cash to the Union's Office.
Before I examine the circumstances of a selected number of
vessels to illustrate the situation which has been reached in
Fremantle, it is useful to understand the extent and nature of
the involvement of the ship repair firms.
7.6 INVOLVEMENT OF SHIP REPAIR FIRMS
Î
The practice whereby the ship repair firms, acting on the
agent's instructions, made payment to either the casual workers
or the Union, and charged the agent accordingly, afforded an
opportunity to make financial gains over and above normal
profits. This was achieved by submitting false accounts to
the agents. Although accounts were falsified in many ways,
the principal means revealed before the Commission were :
86
a) charging for periods uhen work uas not performed;
b) in some cases charging rates uhich included amounts for overheads, use of equipment and a profit margin for work not done;
c) charging levies shoun as payable to the FPA for uork not done and retaining the amount; and
d) the practice of charging levies for the firm's own per manent employees for whom levies are not payable.
In some cases, these false accounts assisted agents and
masters to conceal from the shipowners that a payment had been
made to the Union or to individual painters and dockers for
uork not done. In cases where the account uas for both work
done and not done, and where the amounts were small, they could
be easily hidden in the genuine labour costs.
Evidence of false accounts being made up was given by Mr. R.
Johansen at page 4679 of transcript as follows :
HIS HONOUR: It is difficult to call these accounts honest accounts, isn't it?-- 1 don't think so. I think if we are ordered to do something ue have got no choice. That is our position.
A false account --?-- Ue are actually ordered to make a false account. In lots of cases they uant something done that is an extra, and they just tell us to book it as something else. Ue have no choice. That is our
job.
You willingly go along with that?-- Uhy not? Ue have to.
Your accounts were false. Your returns to the Port Authority were false?-- Obviously. It uas as instructed, as told. As long as ue arrive at a total that is
acceptable - that is what they look for.
Uhat do you do then in your business? Do you keep tuo sets of books? Everything is booked. Ue have a very good system.
No. You see, this account which went to Uesfarmers over the Oranqefield would appear in your books, wouldn't it?-- Yes.
Uhatever one may say about the total, you agree that it is a completely inaccurate series of items uhich go to make up that total? --It very often happens that ue have to do it like that. Ue have no choice.
Do you then keep a correct record of what happened on the job?__ Yes. Uhat ue do is ue uork out uhat the job
should actually cost so that ue get our ten per cent, and then we have to put a little bit there and a little bit there as they instruct us. They knou uhen they sign
87
exactly what it is, and there ue explain to them, "You will find the cost of the job ue did there uill be in that part" and so on. This is done in, I should say, a hundred out of a hundred and fifty jobs. This has been done in shipping for a uery minimum of 200 years to my knowledge.
All accounts related to the husbandry of a vessel whilst in
port must be certified by both the master and the agent prior
to the vessel's departure from port.
I now examine certain demands which are representative of
the practices which have become customary in Fremantle. A
list of demands and payments is in Table 3.
7.6.1 James Stove
The demand on this vessel is the first instance where Wells
insisted that the agent pay a separate amount for levies to the
FPA, in addition to an amount to Union funds. The FPA were
fully aware that no work had been done on this vessel, as the
transaction was the subject of a special report to the Secretary,
fir. LJillis, who authorised acceptance of the levy, even though
there were no records of employment of labour. This aspect is
further dealt with in Chapter 8.1.
Demand
After discharging cargo in Albany, the James Stove was
shovel-cleaned by members of the UWF. It was scheduled to sail
to Fremantle on 22 March 1974 to load a cargo of wheat for
Korea, but the mooring gangs refused to unmoor the vessel unless
a guarantee was given that fine cleaning would be done by shore
labour in either Albany or Fremantle.
A representative of Minerals & General Chartering, who were
the sub-agents acting on behalf of Patrick Agencies, agreed with
the Unions in Albany that cleaning would be done in that port
with shore labour, on the conditions that labour was supplied
on the Saturday morning and that if cleaning were not completed
that day, the vessel could sail to Fremantle with the crew
completing the cleaning en route. This proposal was agreed to
and as the cleaning was not completed, the ship's crew cleaned
on the way to Fremantle. After passing survey, the vessel was
88
due to move to the grain berth. Houeuer, a representative of
the mooring gang informed Patricks that the vessel would not
move until compensation had been paid for work done by the creu.
At a meeting with the representative from the mooring gang and
the agent , LJells maintained that the Union in Albany denied
making any arrangement whereby the creu could complete the
cleaning and stated that the vessel uould not move until the
equivalent of uages lost and FPA levies uere paid.
The total payment amounted to $1,216.60, of uhich $935.20,
the equivalent of the uages for tuenty men for seven hours at
the Sunday rate, uas paid into the General Fund of the MUD, and
$281.40 uas paid to the FPA for levies calculated on the basis
of 140 manhours. Of course the uork uas not done.
7.6.2 Octavia
Payments made on vessels uere deposited in Union funds or,
in a feu earlier cases, payments uere made to the creu uho had
done the uork. A change of policy occurred uhen the demand on
the Octavia uas made by Mr. Uells on 25 October 1974, the day
after the Commission completed its first hearings in Perth in
relation to permit vessels. On 28 October 1974, a meeting of
the Committee of Management resolved that on this occasion, the
payment uould be distributed amongst the men rostered on the
job, because there uas a general understanding that the men uould
receive payment. It uas further resolved that in future, all
payments uould be deposited in the General Fund of the Union.
In spite of this resolution, the method of payment to the men,
used on this occasion, continued uith tuo exceptions until
April, 1975. This example also highlights other malpractices uhich are
common in Fremantle, such as the role and involvement of the
FPA and the ship repair firms' attempts to falsify accounts and
retain levies uhich agents assumed had been remitted to the
FPA.
89
Demand
Uigmores Ltd. were the agent for this vessel which
arrived in ballast on 24 October 1974 from Adelaide to load
grain. Upon failing survey on 25 October, the agent requested
a ship repair firm, Petterson & Co., to engage labour to remove
residual grain in the pipe casings, ledges and box beams. Uork
commenced at 8.00 a.m and was expected to be completed by
4.00 p.m. However, Uells having ascertained that the crew had
washed down the vessel en route from Adelaide, sought comÂ
pensation. Uells and a representative from Petterson & Co.
estimated that if the work had been done by shore labour, the
vessel could not have loaded until 3.00 p.m on Sunday, 27
October, and Uells suggested that the labour already engaged
should be paid until that time, as though they had done the
work. Further, he implied that if the Union's demands were
not acceded to, tug services and mooring gangs would be withheld
and the cleaning work then in operation would not finish until
the next day or even the day after. Uigmores Ltd. were inÂ
structed by the managing agent in Sydney to meet the demands of
the Union and payment was made to the men engaged on the vessel,
including the permanent shipwrights employed by Petterson & Co.
The wages payable were calculated by Petterson & Co. and were
paid through the consolidated pay office administered by the FPA.
Account Rendered
. Petterson & Co. sent the agent a statement of labour and
invoice for work done on the vessel and a statement of labour
only, in respect of the work which was not done. The cost of
labour, including levies for the work performed was $2,851.51.
The cost of work not done was $3,281.73, which included a charge
of $676.83 for FPA/' levies.
Fir. Heddle, the Operations Superintendent of Uigmores Ltd,
questioned the need to pay these levies and, after being reÂ
ferred to the FPA by Fir. Flarshall, the Flanager/Secretary and
Accountant of Petterson & Co., was advised by an officer of the
FPA that they had to be paid. To settle the account, Uigmores
Ltd. followed the customary procedures and sent a cheque to
90
Patterson & uo. for the total amount charged, on the assumption
that the amount for the levies would be remitted to the FPA.
Levies Not Paid
In fact, the levies were not paid to the FPA until 8
September 1975 uhen Marshall 'discovered1 as a result of crossÂ
examination by Counsel assisting the Commissioner that he had
never forwarded these levies to the FPA. Initially, in
evidence he had maintained that a sum of $27.30 of the total
payable had been included in the return to the FPA for November
1974, but Mr. Micale, the Labour Controller, stated, and I
accept his evidence, that this amount represented a separate
levy in respect of unregistered labour who were engaged to
remove the residue of grain.
The procedure whereby the FPA relies on the Union and the
ship repair firm to advise the time and date work is completed
affords an opportunity to deceive the FPA in this regard.
Marshall denied that he submitted a false return to the FPA
about the time work was completed on the Dctavia, and claimed
that until January 1975, the FPA would only accept the actual
finishing times to ensure that the name of each registered
casual worker is restored to the correct position on the roster.
Nevertheless, he later agreed with Counsel that the FPA had been
'misled', a term which he preferred to ' deliberately deceived' .
Notwithstanding, it is odd that the FPA insisted that the ship's
agent pay the levies but did nothing to obtain them from the
ship repair firm.
This amount of $676.83 which was charged for the levies reÂ
mained in Petterson & Co's account for some ten months, thereby
reducing the overdraft and effecting a saving in the interest
payable. Uhen asked what he wished to say about the comÂ
mercial morality of these actions, Marshall said, "It is unÂ
ethical". This I think is a gross understatement.
Attempt to Pay Levies to FPA Mr. Marshall discovered this oversight uhen checking
through his books prior to giving evidence on 9 September 1975, and, in anticipation of cross-examination by Counsel, sent a
cheque to the FPA for $615.30. He was unable to explain why
91
the full amount of $676.83 uas not sent. Enclosed with this
cheque uas an amended 1 Notification of Hours of Duty' form,
bearing the date 25 October 1974, uhich shoued as a total the
hours uorked on 25 October and hours claimed shoun as uork uhen
no work uas done. This form had been completed on 8 September
1975 by a member of Petterson & Co's staff from stocks held in
the office. The FPA refused to accept this cheque and returned
it to that firm. Marshall agreed that the amount should be
refunded to Uigmores Ltd. and undertook to do so.
Levies Wrongly Charged for Permanent Employees
It also appeared that the amount of the levy payable uas
based not only on the manhours not uorked by the labour engaged
off the roster but, also, on the manhours not uorked by the perÂ
manent shipurights employed by Petterson & Co. uho do not
qualify for any benefits of the scheme administered by the FPA
and in respect of uhom no levies are payable. Marshall claimed
that because permanent employees uere paid during periods uhen
no uork is available, the cost to the firm uas greater. He did
not uant the higher cost of the permanent labour knoun and thereÂ
fore charged the same hourly rates applicable to casual labour.
To make up the difference, Marshall charged, and retained,
levies for the manhours both for uork done and not done by the
permanent employees.
This concealed the true facts from the firm's customers.
Moreover, there is no reason uhy the ship's agent having been
coerced by the Union into paying for uork not done should then
be charged a further amount by Petterson & Co. The pretence
that Marshall disguised the account to prevent the cost of his
permanent employees becoming knoun is laughable. They did no
uork and no charge should have been made for them. Had no /â
charge been made, then their rates or cost uould not have
appeared on the account.
7.6.3 Sea Crest
On this occasion, the amount demanded and paid uas donated
to the Daruin Relief Fund. An examination of the evidence
92
relating to the payment on this vessel reveals that again the
levies uere retained by the ship repair firm.
Demand
The Sea Crest arrived in Fremantle from Japan on SunÂ
day, 29 December 1974, and berthed on Tuesday, 31 December, to
load grain. At 10.15 a.m on 31 December, the vessel failed
survey and the Marine Surveyor advised the Master that the
bilges had to be cleaned and resealed. The agents, Howard
Smith Ltd., uere advised by Petterson & Co. that there uas
little or no chance of obtaining labour on Neu Year's Eve and,
consequently, the Master directed the creu to clean and reseal
the bilges. Wells then boarded the vessel and informed the
Master that this uork uas the prerogative of shore-based unions
and that he could have arranged for eight men to be engaged
from 3.00 p.m to 7.00 p.m, a total of thirty-tuo manhours. In
the circumstances, he demanded payment of uages for eight men
for the period. The time taken for the creu to do the uork
uas twelve manhours.
LJells further informed the Master that if the demand uas
not met, the Sea Crest would not shift out to anchorage to auait
a grain berth, although he knew that the FPA had requested that
the vessel vacate the first berth as soon as possible because of
other ship movements. To avoid delay, the agents agreed to
make the payment as demanded by Wells.
The agent's representative, Mr. Crossland, requested PetterÂ
son & Co. to make the necessary calculations and subsequently
received an invoice for $401.44 uhich the agent paid. The MUU
received $294.44, uhich uas donated to the Daruin Relief Fund,
the sum of $95.36 uas charged in respect of levies uhich uere
not remitted to the FPA and Petterson & Co. retained this sum
and $10.64 'to cover overheads'.
Non-payment of Levies to FPA As the Labour Controller uas not notified of the reÂ
quirement for labour and no uork uas done, the FPA obviously
had no record of the number of manhours for the calculation of
levies. Marshall maintains that he had a conversation with the Labour Controller about whether it uas intended to issue a
93
labour allocation sheet and that the FPA advised that one would
not be issued without a request for labour. Realising that the
FPA did not have any records and as the agent had settled the
full account, Marshall then retained the amount of $95.36
charged for the levies. He claimed that this amount was shown
in the ledgers as a credit to the Sea Crest, but this was not
established. Towards the end of the hearing, Marshall anÂ
nounced that this money had been refunded to Howard Smith InÂ
dustries Ltd.
7.6.4 Cape York
The importance of the payment on this vessel is that Uells,
a full-time paid official of the Union received from the ship
repair firm an amount of money equal to the amount paid to each
man engaged on the vessel, as 1 compensation for his efforts in
securing labour out of hours'.
Demand for Uork
The Cape York arrived in Fremantle on 10 February 1975,
discharged phosphate and then proposed to proceed to Port Pirie .
at 7.00 a.m on 15 February 1975 to load a cargo of zinc concenÂ
trates for Belgium. However, at 11.00 p.m on 14 February, Uells
telephoned a representative of the agents who were Union Bulk-
ships Pty. Ltd, inquiring whether arrangements had been made for
shore labour to clean the holds prior to departure. Mr. Eadie,
the agent's representative, advised Uells that cleaning would
not be necessary. Uells replied that he would be discussing
the matter with the Master at 8.30 a.m the next morning. AlÂ
though the pilot, tugs and mooring gangs had been booked for
6.45 am. a messagjg was received from the FPA that these serÂ
vices would not be available until the dispute between the
Unions and the Master had been settled.
Uells did board the Cape York at 8.30 a.m and the agent,
having received instructions from the principals, arranged with
the Unions for a ship repair firm using shore labour to do the
work. It had been intended to clean with the crew between
ports. Subsequently, with the co-operation of Uells, shore
94
\\\
labour was engaged out of hours the following day, Sunday, which
delayed the vessel two days at a cost of £Stg.6,UUO. The prin-mpals agreed to engage labour because of the cost of prolonged delays and because any delay might have resulted in missing the Udes in Port Pirie, which is a tidal port.
The cost of engaging shore labour'uas $1,656.00, 0? which
wells received $66.25. This aspect of the matter is discussed
at length in Chapter 8.2.
7.6.5 Breim
This example illustrates the extremes to which Hells went in
carrying out the campaign ta secure mark. Some Union members received payment for 252 manhours for work not done. The work.
done by tfie crew took %hem sixteen manhours which suggests that He campaign had become a convenient vehicle For exfiortion. It is, also, a further example of a ship repair firm rendering a false account to the agent.
Demand . ,
The agents For this vessel were Burns Philp & Co. Ltd. Mia: discharging Cars in the Eastern States, the vessel arrived HIFremantle on 5 March 1975 to load alumina. The vessel
failed survey because of the presence of scale in same of the
lmlds and shore labour was ehgaged by Patterson & Co. to removeâ m. Upon boarding the véssel, wells noticed pools of water in
He holds and, on being questioned by wells? the Captain inno-
wntly said that the crew had washed the holds out en route.
hmlls then demanded payment for two thirteen hour days For the
mrty-tuo men already engaged in remqving scale, although it
mdy took Four crew members Four hours to wash down the holds.
The agent agreed to meet the demand after conveying to the
principals Uells' attitude illustrated by his remark, âiF you don't pay up, the ship can stop here until the bottom rusts out fiâitâ, As the charter :ate was $7,000 a day, it was cheaper
to accede to the demand than have the vessel delayed.â However,
the origiflal demand was modified and, ultimately, the forty-tua men received payment of double time from 6280 pam to
L0 U")
â\
midnight for uork not done and meal moneys in respect of meals
never taken nor intended to be taken. The total payment, inÂ
cluding levies, for work not done uas $2,930.00.
Levies Overcharged
The account prepared by Petterson & Co. uas for both the
genuine uork and the uork not done, and a close examination of
the disbursements reveals that Petterson & Co. overcharged in
respect of the levies payable for both the uork done and not
done. According to evidence given by the Labour Controller,
the sum of $1,710.52 uas remitted to the FPA, uhich uas calÂ
culated on the basis of 574 manhours at $2.98 (includes genuine
and fictitious manhours). The amount charged the agent uas
$1,818.00, calculated on 600 manhours at $3.03 - the difference
of five cents in the rates covers a 1% administrative charge
levied on the ship repair firms by the FPA. The amount the
agent uas overcharged uas $78.78 for tuenty-six manhours. In
addition to the amount paid to the FPA, a further amount of
$22.96 being 574 manhours at four cents per hour uas payable
by Petterson & Co. at the end of the quarter to meet the costs
of administering the consolidated pay office.
7.6.6 Seizan Maru
The circumstances and nature of this demand further strengÂ
thens the vieu that receipt of money had assumed greater imÂ
portance than the genuine pursuit of claims and shous a misuse
of industrial strength in the imposition of a ban even after an
outrageous demand had been met.
Demand for Uork
This vessel berthed in Fremantle on 15 March 1975, uhere-
upon the creu cleaftâ ed the bilges in readiness for survey inÂ
spection the next day, Sunday 16 March. The vessel passed
survey on that day. Wells then boarded the vessel arid demanded
that the agent, Patrick Agencies, through Petterson & Co., pick
up fifteen men on Monday morning to seal the bilges as compenÂ
sation for uork done by the creu, and that these fifteen men be
96
paid from 7.30 a.m. to midnight (246 manhours) for work which had
taken the crew only four manhours. The account from Petterson & Co. totalled $1,637.73.
Hr. Marshall from Petterson & Co. agreed uith Counsel assistÂ
ing the Commissioner, that the charge was grossly excessive.
The cost of a similar job on a larger ship, the Fu Hai, was $273.
Ban Imposed
It was intended to move the vessel to the grain berth
that afternoon, however, when this was attempted it was found
that a black ban had been placed on the vessel for two days to
'teach Patricks a lesson1. In fact, the vessel was unable to
move until Friday, 21 March, because in the interim, another
vessel took the berth. The delay cost $5/6,000 per day and,
in addition,it was necessary to load the grain over the weekÂ
end, which involved payment of overtime and penalty rates to
members of the UUF employed for this task.
7.6.7 Oranqefield
Uells again personally received an amount equivalent to the
amount received by each casual worker. The ship repair firm
charged and retained the FPA levies. Registered casual worÂ
kers were paid for work not done but, in this instance, the
wages were not paid through the consolidated pay office. They
were delivered in cash to the Union's premises and, allegedly,
distributed to the men engaged on the job.
Demand The agents for this vessel were Wesfarmers Co-operative.
The Oranqefield arrived in Fremantle on 9 April 1975 to load
a cargo of grain. After failing survey, shore labour was enÂ
gaged through the Fremantle Shipwrighting Co. to wash, scale
and spray Nos. 1 and 2 holds and scale, sweep and remove reÂ
sidues of grain in No. 3 hold. After work commenced, Uells ascertained that the crew had
washed Nos. 2 and 3 holds on the voyage from Melbourne, and
demanded payment of an additional six hours wages from 6.00 p.m
97
to midhight For each man working on the vessel. After con-sultations with the principals, the agent agreed to the Union's
request. The possibility of a Forty-eight hour black ban was
also indicated. This threat was not carried out, but wells
later stated that, in Future, vessels of the Kansoi Line would
be black banned if it were Found that the crew had engaged in
Cleaning.
Ascertainin Amount Paid
The cost of the work not done was incorporated in the
account For the genuine work, and is quite difficult to isolate.
Mr. Jarrett, a representative of the agent , estimated that the
cost of the work not done was $1,408.93. In Fact, the cost was
in excess of $2,200.00. The sum of $1,330.43 was paid in cash
direct to the Union office and, according to the evidence of
wells, was distributed to the men rostered on the jobâ
Included in this amount was the payment of $5.00 to each worker
For attendance money, which is payable only when a casual worker
offers For employment, and is not Called From the roster. None
of these amounts are immediately discernible in the account and
when this Fact was raised with Mr. Johansen OF Fremantle Shipâ
wrighting Coo, the Following discussion took place at page 4678
of transcript
Are you saying that they were told at Uesfarmers that
although $27400 Odd was being Charged For levies and attendance money, guaranteed earnings, that in Fact
that was not all going to be paid to the Port Authority?
ââ OF course, yes.
HIS HONOUR: Uho was told that at Uesfarmers?ââ The
shipâs supervigor â. '
Uhat is his name?ââ Mr. Camarda â he would discuss
with the agent and with the Master how they wanted it â
not how we wanted it. It means that we have to do
exactly what they tell us.
The shipâs agent with whom it was discussed was the
gentlemen :epreseflting Uesfarmers, Mr. Jarrett?ââ-The repregefltative OF Uesfarmers was the one who asked us to work it in the account so that it wasn't seen5 an d
she: apDraved of the â¬19ur98 given beFOre they we-e
V'ede This is always the procedure.
(U 1
It was Mr. Jarrett who aQProved 1t?ââ He would have
333â: EU it also. He must have done. He was well aware
0â H sirim and he was well aware OF the amount of tng
â13 F1!
claim. He must have discussed it with the Master because he uas the one uho told us hou he wanted it.
Mr. Jarrett told you? -- The Master uas, and there uas nothing else ue could do.
Did the master tell you that he wanted it hidden?â Yes. When a case like that arises, it obviously is a load on our work and we are trying to build up a
good business, an honest business, because being a private business we are on our own. It is most im portant that all our accounts are being thoroughly checked by the chief officer, the Master and the agents. There is nothing in any of these accounts that they don't know of .
Mr. Denny of Wesfarmers Co-operative uho represented the
agent on the vessel strongly denied that any such discussion
took place. I accept his evidence.
Levies Overcharged
According to the documents produced by the FPA which had
a record of the genuine work only the levies payable for that
work were 499 manhours at $2.98, a total of $1,487.02. The
levies charged by Fremantle Shipurighting Co. were 81 Oj- hours
at $2.98, a total of $2,415.30. In so far as the charges for
levies are concerned, the agent uas overcharged $928.28. This
Johansen freely admitted uas correct, but maintained that, beÂ
cause other items had been undercharged, his action uas justiÂ
fiable in order to spread out the costs and make the account
more acceptable.
Payment to Wells It further transpired that Wells' name appeared on a
list as having received $45.67, which uas equivalent to the rates
payable to a labourer for this period. This issue is disÂ
cussed in detail in Chapter 8.2.
7.6.8 Amstellaan
The actions of Mr. Willis, the Secretary of the FPA, in
relation to this demand, clearly indicate that the FPA uas rully
aware that it was accepting levies in respect of work not done
and that it had no intention of refusing to accept these levies.
99
Demand
This vessel arrived in Fremantle in ballast on Sunday,
20 April 1975, from the Persian Gulf, where a cargo of AusÂ
tralian wheat had been discharged, for the purpose of taking on
another cargo of grain. The vessel passed survey and while Mr.
Smith, a representative of the agent , Lynn-Elders Pty. Ltd,
and the Master were waiting for the survey inspectors to come
out of the holds, Uells boarded the vessel and said that, from
his observations, the ship had been cleaned at sea. It had
been the intention to move the vessel to the grain berth but
Uells said that he would be back later and that ' the Master or
ship would not be going very far'.
During a further discussion on 21 April, Uells said that
twenty-one men were available from the roster that day and
demanded that each man be paid for an extended shift (although
no work was done), as compensation for the work done by the
crew. He again threatened that the ship would not be going far
if the demand was not met.
After consultation with the principals, the agent agreed
to the demand, in order to avoid costly delays.
Payment to Registered Casual Uorkers
In similar cases, payments have been made through a ship
repair firm. However, because Lynn-Elders Pty. Ltd are regisÂ
tered as employers, although not now using their registration,
it was not necessary in this instance to use a ship repair firm
as an intermediary. '
Uells advised the agent that they would be informed of the
names and registration numbers of the registered uorkers on the
roster for that day through the pick-up office, and that this
information, entered on the appropriate form, would need to be
lodged with the Ft1 A, together with a cheque for the wages and
levies. The form, 1 Notification of Hours of Duty' was deliÂ
vered to the agent by hand by a clerk of the FPA, complete with
names and registration numbers of the men, even though a requiÂ
sition for labour had not been submitted to the Labour ConÂ
troller .
1 0 0
The total amount paid for work not done was $3,202.83, which comprised :
Wages 1,960.14
FPA Levies 1,001.28
Payroll Tax 98.00
Insurance 107.81
FPA Administration 19.60
Charge
At a later date, a further account uas received from the
FPA for industrial clothing, totalling $16.00, all in respect of work which uas not done.
Knowledge of FPA
In accordance with the instructions from Uells, Nr.
Smith sent a cheque for the levies and wages to the FPA but
accompanied the cheque with a letter which, inter alia, stated
that the payment uas made 'under protest'. It uas returned
with a note from the Secretary, M r . Uillis, in the following
terms :
Mr. Smith: as discussed by telephone, payment couched in these terms 'under protest' is unacceptable to the Port Authority. As agreed this letter, so endorsed, is returned for your records.
This letter and remarks were returned to the agent , followÂ
ing a telephone call from Mr. Uillis to the agent to the effect
that the FPA had no wish to be auare of the agent's situation
and that they would just accept the cheque and the list of men
who were supposed to be employed. This aspect is further disÂ
cussed in Chapter 8.1.
7.6.9 Chennai Perumai
The demand on this vessel marks a change in the policy of
payment to registered casual workers of moneys demanded and reÂ
ceived from ships' agents. According to Uells an 'ad hoc-
decision uas made by those members uho happened to be in the
pick-up one day in May 1975, to deposit future payments in a
Special Account. This account uas opened after cross examiÂ
nation of Uells by Counsel assisting the Commissioner during
the first part of the Inquiry. The reason Uells offered for
1 0 1
this change in policy uas that the registered casual workers in
the pick-up centre were unhappy about the method of payment to
men fortunate enough to be rostered when a demand uas made, beÂ
cause it uas inequitable. It uas then decided that future payÂ
ments should be deposited in the Special Account, the balance of
uhich would be distributed at the end of the year amongst all
the registered casual workers.
Imposition of the Ban
This vessel arrived in Fremantle from Madras on 22 June
1975 in ballast to load a cargo of wheat for India. The agent
uas P & 0 (Australia) Pty Ltd (P & 0). On 23 June, Uells
boarded the vessel and said that he had evidence that the ship
had been cleaned at sea, a fact which the Master eventually conÂ
firmed. Uells informed the Master and agent that a meeting of
the Committee of Management would be held that day to determine
the penalty to be imposed. He later advised the agent of the
Committee's decision, that the vessel would be ' delayed seventy-
two hours after completion of loading 1. The agent regarded
this penalty as excessive, particularly as cleaning would have
only taken one and a half to two days, if done by shore labour.
Payment Offered by Agent
On instructions from the principals, the agent teleÂ
phoned Uells and asked whether payment of one days pay by the
agent would reduce the seventy-two hours delay penalty.
After consulting the Committee of Management, Uells advised
that the proposal was acceptable, that the vessel would be deÂ
layed only twenty-four hours and that the equivalent of wages
for thirty-three men for one day had to be paid to a special
fund of the Union, the balance of uhich would be distributed to
the members at the end of the year. A It uas further agreed that Petterson & Co. would make the
payment to the Union and charge P & 0 accordingly.
'Uhen asked why he had agreed to include Petterson & Co. in
the negotiations, Mr. Dedman, a representative of the agent,
replied that at the time he uas under great pressure to get the
ship in and out of port quickly, and this method was the most
expeditious as he had no knowledge of the wage rates payable.
1 0 2
A Further meeting took place on board the vessel between the
Master, agent and Union representatives, at which the Union inâ
formed the Master that a more serious attitude would be taken
the next time the crew cleaned at sea. wells also stated thatr
the twentyâfour hour ban had been lifted.
Had the ban been enforced, it would haVB cost the company
$25,000 in respect of demurrage and Fees for tugs, pilotage and
berthing gangs, as the Harbour Master would almost certainly
have ordered the vessel away From the loading berth to avoid
serious congestion.
' A Cheque was drawn by Patterson & Co. For $2,396.28, dated
30 June 1975, in Favour of the MUU, and was deposited in the
Union's Special Account. This amount was the equivalent of
wages payable to thirtyâthree men From 3.00 p.m to 10.00 p.m.
However, the amount which Patterson & CO. Charged D & U was
$2,550.24.
Account Rendered
According to Mr. Dedman's evidence, when he questioned
the difference of $153.96 in the amount charged by Patterson &
CO. and the amount remitted to the MUU, Marshall said that, al-
though the account had been made up in this may, the cost of
hire of equipment and cartage in respect of the genuine work
had been âuaivedâ. In Fact, the account clearly shows a total
charge of $576.79 For equipment and cartage.
when Marshall was crossâexamined about the sum of $153.96
he maintained that it covered the cost of charges For Foreman
and leading hands margins, tea moneys, overall and glove alâ
lawances for the hours not worked which had not been included
in similar Charges For the genuine hours worked. An exami=
nation of the Statement of Labour reveals that Charges For
margins and allowances were made only for the genuine work.
Nev H
[D
:theless, I Find it extraordinary that sue! Charges ueuld
be even contemplated For work not done.
Marshall denied that he made any proFLt; or the trans»
éCCLQWS amd maintained that the only adc1:_0âab ChaQQ wade,
u9:e 1â :gsoect OF SUPH items as Edmlnletrat we PJELhEau& afl4
Levies Overcharged
The account indicated that a total of $3,763.26 had been
paid to the FPA for levies calculated on hours actually worked
and hours not worked. However, the Labour Controller gave
evidence that only $3,574.51 was paid to the FPA. It would
appear that the hours worked by Petterson & Co's own permanent
employees were included in the hours upon which the levies were
calculated.
Of the difference of $188.75, $60.00 was payable to the FPA
for administrative costs, and Marshall agreed that the final
balance of $128.75 should be refunded to P & 0.
/ ·
104
MARITIME WORKERS UNION - DEMANDS AND PAYMENTS
Work in Dispute Payment
by Aqent i t
Aqent
Can '71 Tersey Bridge Crew cleaned in port 784.56
Oct' 71 Kythnos Crew erected centre line
shifting boards
400.00
Nov 171 Appollonian Crew prepared holds 292.80
Mar 172 La Estancia Crew cleaned in port 124.40
Tan 1 '73 Emma Bakke Crew cleaned between ports 197.76
Tan '74 Carl Trautuien Crew cleaned at sea 198.00
Mar ' 74 Tames Stove Crew completed cleaning
between ports
1216.60
Apr '74 Castledore Crew cleaned at sea 1104.60
Sep ' 74 APT Priya Crew erected fittings at
sea
1000.00
Oct '74 Oc tavia Crew washed down between
ports
3281.73
Nov ' 74 Aegis Eland Crew cleaned at sea 4667.00
Nov '74 Eastern Merit Crew cleaned in port 1089.12
Nov '74 Geiko Maru Crew cleaned at sea 1642.25
Dec '74 Malaysia Agreement for crew to lash 90.96
containers to avoid delay
Union Bulkships Pty Ltd
Patrick Agencies
Patrick Agencies
Howard Smith In dustries Pty Ltd
APT Shipping
Wesfarmers Co operative
Patrick Agencies
Patrick Agencies
Patrick Agencies
Wigmores Ltd
Patrick Agencies
Wesfarmers
Howard Smith In dustries Ltd
APT Shipping
QDT
Date
Dec'74
Jan'75
Feb'75
Feb'75
Feb'75
Febâ75
Mar'75
Mar'75
Mar'75
Marâ75
Apr'75
Apr'75
Aprâ75
ShiP
Sea Crest
Nella Dan
Cape York
Lek Prabha
Novolvovsk
Koryu Maru
Breim
Asia Morality
Seizan Maru
Havtor
Quing Hai
Drangefield
Amstellaan
TABLE 3 (Contd) work in Dis ute
Crew cleaned in port â
advised shore labour not
available
Lashing of cargo demanded
- intention to use shore
labour
Crew to clean between
parts
water mapped by crew
Crew to secure deck cargo
Crew commenced cleaning in port
Crew washed down at sea
Crew cleaned at sea
Crew cleaned bilges in port
Agreement For crew to clean
two Frames at anchorage
Shore labour engaged - no
dispute
Crew Cleaned between
ports
Crew cleaned at sea
P311922 by Agent
$
401.44
No
payment
1656.00
410.63
1838.20
l430.60
2930.50
965.84
1637.73
No
payment
No
payment
2258.71
3202.83
Agent
Howard Smith Inâ
dustries Ltd
Union Bulkships Pty Ltd
Union Bulkships Pty Ltd
George wills & C0.
Patrick Agencies
Patrick Agencies
Burns Philp & C0
Howard Smith In-dustries Ltd
Patrick Agencies
Patrick Agencies
Datrick Agencies
Uesfarmers C0â operative
Lynn Elder Pty
Ltd
Date Ship
TABLE 3 (Contd) Work in Dispute Payment
by Agent $
May 175 Malaysia Creu cleaned at sea 508.00
Oun175 Nagara No dispute No
Payment
Jun 1 75 Anna Bakke Creu to secure containers 992.10
Sun 175 Chennai Perumai Creu cleaned at sea 2550.24
Sul'75 Cape Urath Creu cleaned at sea 1474.98
Sul1 75 Parnassos Creu to secure containers 493.60
Sul175 Gulf King No dispute No
payment
Sul' 75 Graceous Creu cleaned at sea 3603.60
Sul '75 Fuhai Creu sprayed holds 273.90
Sul'75 Baknes Creu to clean because of
MUU strike
No
payment
Agent
APT Shipping
Patrick Agencies
APT Shipping
P & 0 (Australia) Pty Ltd
Union Bulkships Pty Ltd
No agent
Patrick Agencies
Uigmores Ltd
Patrick Agencies
Patrick Agencies
T O T A L 42718.68
8 THREE SPECIFIC MATTERS AT FREMANTLE
There are some features peculiar to Fremantle uhich I think
should be dealt uith. Mention has been made of them in
dealing uith specific vessels but they seem to me of sufficient
importance to be considered separately.
They are :
a) the involvement of the Fremantle Port Authority;
b) Uells' receipt of and dealings uith cash payments; and
c) the participation of the members of the MUU in decisions made concerning payments and demands.
108
8.1 FREMANTLE PORT AUTHORITY
In Chapter 6, I outlineil the functions and responsibilities of
the FPA in relation to the roster system, the payment of wages
and the guaranteed minimum wage and leave schemes. It is clear
from the evidence that the machinery of the FPA has been used
as a means of bolstering the guaranteed wage and leave funds
financed by a levy on employers, and to have payments made by
agents paid as wages to registered casual workers although in
some cases no work was done. It is also clear that the FPA was
auare of these activities.
8.1.1 Involvement of FPA
James Stove
The case of the James Stove illustrates this point. As
set out in Chapter.7.6.1, a demand was made by the Union and
ultimately the sum of $935.20 was paid by the agent, Patrick
Agencies, to the Union on 22 March 1974. The Union insisted that
the agent also pay the FPA the sum of $281.40, being 140 manhours
at the then rate of the levy. The agent offered this sum to the
FPA which refused it in the first instance. Ultimately, Patrick
Agencies were advised by the FPA that the cheque for the levies
would be accepted only if paid by a registered employer. This
amount was then paid to Petterson & Co. who in turn paid it to
the FPA. A report, signed by Mr. Micale, the Labour Controller,
indicates that the FPA was auare that no work was done on the
vessel and that a payment had been made direct to the Union. It
is also clear that Micale discussed the matter with the Secretary
of the Authority, Mr. Uillis, and it was on Mr. Uillis' instrucÂ
tions that the amount for the levies was accepted.
Amstellaan A second instance arose in respect of the vessel,
Amstellaan. In this case, which is discussed in Chapter 7.6.8,
payment to registered casual workers and of the appropriate levies
to the FPA was demanded. Uells informed the agents, Lynn-Elder
Pty. Ltd., that he would advise them of the names of the men and
their registration numbers and that this information entered on
109
on the appropriate form, together with their cheque for the
wages and levies, had to be lodged with the FPA.
An officer of the FPA brought the form, complete with names
and registration numbers, to the agent's office and a cheque for
Si,960.14 and a letter were then sent by the agent to the FPA,
the intention being that the wages would be paid to the men
through the consolidated pay office. The letter stated that the
payment was being made under protest and that the payment had
been demanded by the MUD to compensate its members for cleaning
work done by the crew. The letter further stated that the Union
claimed that the work was work of its members and if payment was
not forthcoming, threatened to delay the vessel.
This letter was dealt with by Mr. Uillis, the Secretary of
the FPA. He telephoned Mr. Smith from Lynn-Elders Pty. Ltd and
stated that a payment expressed to be 'under protest' was unÂ
acceptable to the Port Authority, and returned the letter and
cheque for the wages to the agent. Subsequently, another cheque
for the wages was forwarded to the FPA for the same amount and
accepted by them. Later, on 8 May 1975, a further cheque was
forwarded to the FPA for the sum of 11,001.28, being the amount
of the levies and was accepted by the FPA.
As a further refinement, the agent later received an account
from the FPA for what was termed 'industrial clothing' for the
sum of $16 and this further amount was also paid. In addition,
the agent paid the sum of $19.60 being the FPA's charge of 1%
for operating the consolidated pay office. All in respect of
work which was never done and which the Authority well knew was
never done.
8.1.2 Machinery of yFPA 'Used' in Campaign
I am quite satisfied that the FPA lent itself and its
machinery to the furtherance of the campaign of the Union. As a
result, the funds which it was administering for the wages and
leave schemes were built up. Moreover, since the FPA made
charges against these funds for its expenses in conducting them,
some of the moneys clearly went to the FPA and oddly enough,
1 1 0
since Western Australian legislation requires the payment of a
proportion of the funds received by authorities into consolidated
revenue, the State of Western Australia also benefited from the
payments. It is, I think, quite clear that the benefit to the
FPA or to the State Government uas not in any sense the motive for accepting the payments.
Powers not Exercised by FPA
I think the role played by the FPA uas quite wrong.
Under its statute, the FPA is charged with the supervision
and control of the port, including all matters associated with
the labour force. Many powers vested in the FPA have not in reÂ
cent years been exercised so far as painters and dockers are
concerned.
The history which has been set out earlier shows actions
taken by the FPA in earlier years. But more recently it has
allowed its machinery to be used by the Union in its campaign; it
has otherwise remained inactive although it knew of these demands
and payments.
I think more could fairly be expected of a State Statutory
Authority charged with the duties this Authority has.
During the hearing in Perth, it was put, both to the witÂ
nesses who were senior officers of the FPA and to the solicitor
appearing for the FPA,that it was entirely wrong for a statutory
authority to receive these payments and to deal with them in the
way in which it had,and the FPA was invited to comment on this.
However it declined to do so.
Subsequently submissions were made on its behalf. These
are summarised in the following passage:
HIS HONOUR: The impression I am left with of the industry in Fremantle is this: that there were quite immoral demands by the Union, that there uas
in some cases ready participation in those demands by the two ship repair firms, that the agents in a number of cases were quite willing to capitulate, that the Port Authority charged with the administration of the port uas quite happy to see what was going on
continuing to happen - and, frankly, thau seems to me an appalling picture.
Ill
MR. SCOTT: Uell, I uould agree uith all the pro positions that Your Honour put, except the last one, and my respectful submission is that as the act uas framed the Port Authority carrying out its statutory function uas really pouerless to prevent the situation which had developed between the employers, the union and agent as a conspiracy which, in my submission, the Port Authority uas not a party to from its inception
and, once it had been created,it uas virtually powerless to stop.
8.1.3 Need for FPA to Exercise Power
At a later stage I uas invited to make suggestions to the
FPA for amendments to its Act and Regulations. I then expressed
doubts whether sitting as a Royal Commissioner appointed by the
Australian Government, it uould be either within my power or
appropriate to recommend amendments. This was concurred in by
Mr. Scott.
I am still of that view, but it seems to me that at least
the FPA uould dispel much of the odium which attaches to such a
body taking part in transactions of this nature if it firstly
makes it quite clear that it will not assist in future schemes
to secure payment in satisfaction of a demand either direct to
a union or to men for work which is not done and never intended
to be done, as uas the case here. There should be no diffiÂ
culty whatever in requiring the ship repair firms to verify
their returns by statutory declaration and to make at least spot
checks to ascertain the truth of the returns.
In any event, it is not the case that the FPA uas deceived
into receiving these payments. It did so with its eyes open
and uas moved to remonstrate only when a ship's agent had the
temerity to say td' it that the payment forced from his firm uas
one made under protest.
The FPA also has disciplinary powers over registered casual
workers and employees. They permit of suspension and deregisÂ
tration in appropriate cases. I am firmly of the view that a
proper and temperate use of them could be helpful in the
present situation.
1 1 2
8.2 CASH PAYMENTS TO UELLS BY SHIP REPAIR FIRMS
Wells, as Secretary of the MUU, and a full-time paid official of
the Union is on special leave from the roster and therefore not
entitled to be rostered for uork nor receive payments other than
uages payable to him from Union funds as an official.
8.2.1 Uells 1 Ghosted '
During evidence Uells1 attention uas drawn to a receipt
issued on 17 April 1975 in favour of 'casuals" for $112.67. He
had stated earlier in evidence that unregistered casual workers
when employed were levied one and a half cents in the dollar on
gross earnings and that the maximum amount for which a receipt
for casuals' payments would be issued at any one time under any
circumstances would be approximately $30.
In cross-examination Uells uas evasive regarding the nature
of this receipt. Finally Mr. Troy requested a short adjournment
to enable him to advise Uells. This uas granted and Uells then
said that he had been 'ghosted1 on two jobs. The term
' ghosting' is used to describe the situation where a man's name
appears on the pay records and he is paid for work but, in fact,
does not attend the job or work on it. He further said that the
sum of $112.67 in fact represented two cash payments - one from
Petterson & Co. and one from Fremantle Shipurighting Co. The
money had subsequently been paid in to Union funds because he
considered it the proper course of action as the Union paid his
wages. He said he had reported the payments to the Committee of
Management meeting in May 1975.
The first payment of $66.25 from Petterson & Co. was handed
to Uells by Mr. T. Henderson, the President of the MUU, and uas
calculated on the basis of the uages earned by a worker on the
Cape York on Sunday, 15 February 1975.
The second payment of $46.67 from Fremantle Shipurighting
Co. was given to Uells by Mr. Doherty, a trustee and a member of
the Committee of Management, and uas calculated on the basis of
the wages paid to each worker on the Orangefiel d in respect of
Uednesday, 9 April 1975.
113
Uells maintained that he uas not a party to the arrangements
for the payment for the Cape York and that he had been faced uith
fait accompli. Uells did agree, houever, uith the proposition
that he had done the ship repair firms a favour and that 'one
good turn deserved another' . He further agreed it uas unethical
to be booked in as a registered uorker in vieu of his position
as Secretary.
8.2.2 Henderson's Evidence
Mr. Henderson also agreed it uould be unethical for Uells
as Secretary to uork as a registered uorker.
He also stated that he regarded the booking in of Uells on
a job as in this case, as 'illegitimate' but expressed the vieu
that donations to a Union officer from a ship repair firm uere
1 quite all right' .
Henderson said that he approached Mr. Herron, the Supervisor
employed by Petterson & Co., and suggested that Uells be reimÂ
bursed for his efforts, in his oun time,to secure labour for the
Cape York on the ueekend. Uhen advised of the proposal to
approach Herron, Uells maintained that he (Uells) said it uould
be 'unethical to suggest that such a payment should be made'.
Nevertheless, Henderson uas given an envelope by Herron uhich he
passed to Uells and uhich, co-incidentally, contained the equivÂ
alent of uages for one day. Henderson denied that Uells had been
booked in on either jobs and maintained that Uells, in giving
that evidence, had been trying to cover for himself and Doherty.
He agreed that Uells had made 'a foolish mistake' in recjrding
the transaction in the book under 'casuals' and added that the
situation uould hav§,, been simpler if he had entered it as a
donation and identified himself as the donor.
8.2.3 Marshall's Evidence
In his evidence dealing uith the Cape York payment, Marshall,
from Petterson & Co., said that Henderson had put a request to
Herron for payment to Uells and that to the best of his knouledge
114
Uells uas not auare of the arrangement. Although Herron was not
summoned by the Commission, Marshall and his solicitor uere given the opportunity to call him but did not do so.
The amount of $66.25 uas paid in cash in a plain envelope
uhich uas given to Henderson. The men employed on the vessel reÂ
ceived their uages through the consolidated pay office.
The reasons given by Marshall for making this payment uere three-fold:
a) Uells had done the Company a favour by obtaining
the labour out of roster hours;
b ) fear that the job uould be given to the comÂ
petitor , Fremantle SHipurighting Co; and
c) the need to retain Henderson's co-operation.
In reference to Marshallâs concern about refusing the reÂ
quest of the President of the Union, Uells said 1 he uould not
have got Union support if he had not paid the money, that's for
sure'.
8.2.4 Johansen's Evidence
Uith regard to the payment for the registered casual workers
rostered for duty on the Oranqsfield, Mr. Johansen from Fremantle
Shipurighting Co. stated that $1,330.43, representing uages for
27 men for uork uhich uas not done, uas paid in cash to Uells in
the Union office. This money apparently uas delivered by
Johansen's Secretary, together uith a list of recipients uhich
included Uells' name. Uith the exception of the shipurights
uho received $52.39, the amount payable (excluding attendance
money) to each man on the list uas $46.67. The list of names uas
provided by the Supervisor, Mr. Camarda. Johansen said that a
claim for payment to Uells uas made to Camarda and had been agreed
to by Camarda, under protest. He suggested nc reason uhy any
payment should have been made.
In giving evidence on this matter, Uells stated he uas unÂ
aware of the details of the payment from Fremantle Shipurighting
Co. He said he uas handed an envelope containing 646.67 by
Doherty uho said, 'this is for you! ' Uells agreed that, unlike
115
the payment from Petterson & Co., he had not rendered any service
to Fremantle Shipurighting Co. as the job on the Oranqefield was
called mid-ueek and labour uas obtained from the normal roster.
Henderson also agreed there appeared to be no reason uhy Uells
ought to have received this handout.
8.2.5 Uells1 1 Virtue ' Rewarded
It uill be recalled that the first payment uas made on 17
February 1975. According to Uells, upon receipt of the envelope,
he put it in his uallet and when he arrived home, counted the
money and thereupon left it in his uallet, untouched, for two
months. The reason he offered for the delay, uas that he uas conÂ
cerned about hou to resolve the problem of uhat to do with the
money and that it uas only when he received the second payment
that he decided to pay both amounts into the Union's funds.
A Committee of Management meeting of 12 May 1975, noted that
this sum of $112.67 had been donated to Union funds. Uells thus,
no doubt cleared his conscience, but lest it be thought that virÂ
tue, even belated, uent unrewarded I hasten to add that at the
same meeting it uas resolved that the sum of $110 be paid to the
Secretary as a clothing allowance. A cheque for this amount uas
drawn in Uells1 favour on 13 May 1975.
8.2.6 Receipts for Casual Donations
Uells uas unable"to explain another receipt, dated September
1975, for $104.00 also from casuals which in fact uas entered in
the cash book for the week ending August 1975. The only explanÂ
ation which he gave uas that a number of casuals had been
employed at that time? However, several other receipts were also
issued at that time in respect of casual donations.
Another receipt which uas examined uas one dated duly 1975,
also issued for casual donations, for an amount which appeared to
be $400.00 and which, however, uas entered in the cash book as
$4.00. Uells maintained that the amount of the receipt read $4.00. Unfortunately, there uas no evidence to support this claim, other than the entry in the cash book.
116
8.2.7 Conclusion
Just as the demands in this port changed from demands for
payments to the creu to payment to the Union then to payments to
registered casual workers and then to payments to a fund for
distribution to registered casual workers, so too has Wells'
role changed.
I believe that he came to feel that he was entitled to
share in the moneys being received. .
I do not believe that the initiative for the payments came
from others. Nor do I accept that Wells held the money for two
months uncertain what to do with it.
I think he accepted the money intending to keep it and
changed his mind later. The fact that he then accepted from
the Union virtually the same amount as a 'clothing allowance1
shows a desire to hide the payments rather than any view that
they were wrong.
The acceptance of moneys by a Union officer from an
employer i.n this manner is an abuse of office and totally
unjustifiable.
24228/ 76â 5
117
8.3 PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS IN THE DECISIONS
8.3.1 Minutes
Having regard to the alleged importance of the campaign to
secure maximum uork for members, relatively feu references can be
found in the minutes of Annual General Meetings, the Quarterly
Stopuork Meetings and the meetings of the Committee of Management.
8.3.2 Ad Hoc Basis
Uells maintained that, because the matters under reference
concerned the members of the casual yard and not the full memberÂ
ship of the MUU, decisions of the Committee of Management were
often made on an 'ad hoc basis' by those uho happened to be in
attendance at the pick-up centre, and announced to the members
before jobs were called off the roster. These decisions and
announcements uere not recorded.
It uas in this fashion that major decisions uere made, such
as:
a) to cease the practice of depositing payments in
the general fund of the Union;
b) to pay through the consolidated pay office, the
registered casual workers engaged on the vessel
at the time of the demand;
c) to revert to the deposit of payments in a special
account in May 1975 (houever there is a resolution
of the Committee of Management meeting of 21 January
1975 to open this account); and
d) to distribute the balance of the special account
between the members of the casual yard at the end /â
of the year.
Uith regard to (d), Uells stated that this decision had not
been reported to the Quarterly Stopuork Meeting nor had it been
discussed at the Annual General Meeting. Houever, members'
opinions had been canvassed at the pick-up and there uas an
understanding among members that this money would be distributed
to them. On the other hand, Henderson maintained that this
118
matter uas discussed at the Quarterly Stopuork Meeting and, in
fact, Uells had neglected to record the decision in the minutes.
Uhateuer the true facts of the situation, it is appalling that a
decision of this nature uas not recorded.
8.3.3 Reports Recorded in Minutes
Assuming that the minutes of the Committee of Management as
produced uere complete, action taken has only been reported in
respect of five vessels of the thirty-seven vessels which are
dealt uith in evidence since 1970.
The only record of the decision that the rostered casuals
receive payment for work not done uas in relation to the
Qctavia. and even this resolution uas to the effect that this
method be adopted only on this occasion and that ' all moneys in
future go into Union funds'. However, only tuo subsequent payÂ
ments uere deposited in Union funds, the balance being paid to
registered casual workers or to the special account for distriÂ
bution to them, apparently on the basis of ad hoc decisions.
In the minutes of the Quarterly Stopuork Meetings and the
Annual General Meetings since 1971, the actions taken on only
three vessels have been reported and recorded in the minutes.
There is very little discussion centred around the use of creu
labour. In particular, there are no records of discussions in
1975 when action uas taken on a total of tuenty-tuo vessels.
Although these matters uere said to affect directly only the
registered casual workers, the campaign uas conducted on the
basis that it uas the policy of the Union. Unless it is known
to and adopted by members, it cannot honestly be said to be
Union policy. The minutes clearly show that members were not given any opportunity to consider and discuss the policy and the
methods used. Casual workers present at the pick-up centre for
an ad hoc meeting would never be more than a small percentage
of the members of the Union.
8.3.4 Union's Bulletin
Copies of the Bulletin are produced and circulated to all
members at approximately monthly intervals. Some copies only
119
were produced and examined. These shou that when reports uere
made they uere incomplete to the extent of being misleading: for
example, reports of action taken in relation to the Qctavia,
Eastern fieri.t and Geiko Plaru gave a brief outline of the nature
of the duties which had been done by the crew, but the outcome of
negotiations was recorded only as 1 settlement reached1. In fact
this 'settlement1 was payment of a total of $6,013.10 by the ships'
agents for the registered casual workers on the job for work not
done. It would appear that the Union officials were not keen for
this information to be spread to other members of the Union who
did not work from the casual yard and therefore were not fortunate
enough to share in the extortion of moneys under the guise of
'job and finish ' .
8.3.5 Conclusion
Although actions against vessels and decisions made about
payments have not been recorded in a proper manner, it is obvious
that the members of the casual yard at least were fully aware of
the situation by virtue of the additional wages paid to them
through the consolidated pay office. Uells stated in evidence
that the registered casual workers considered this method unfair
and unjust, because some members received a greater share than
others and consequently, the ad hoc decision was taken to deposit
future payments in the special account,which would be distributed
equally among the registered casuals at the end of the year.
It is obvious then that Uells had taken advantage of the
campaign to obtain funds for the Union and also to obtain money
for the members working as registered casuals and that this action
had the knowledge anc] support of those members but not necessarily
of the members generally.
120
9 THE FEDERATED SHIPWRIGHTS AND SHIP CONSTRUCTORS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA
9.1 THE UNION
The Federated Shipwrights and Ship Constructors Association of
Australia like the Federated Ship Painters & Dockers Union, is
a federation of largely autonomous branches. It comprises six
state branches with a total membership of approximately 1,200, viz:
Membership numbers appear to be strictly controlled in all
branches. In contrast with the Painters and Dockers Union, this
is a tradesmen's union, members requiring trade qualifications
for admittance. A very small number of 'added tradesmen', men
qualified by experience is admitted.
As with the Painters and Dockers Union, the Western
Australian members are represented by the MUU, and uere disÂ
cussed in Chapter 6.6.
9.2 CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
Between 100-200 of the members are permanent seagoing shipÂ
wrights and some 200-250 are involved in seagoing work overall.
This portion of the membership is not the concern of this
Inquiry.
The shore-based shipwrights are employed as casuals, perÂ
manents and 'semi-permanents', the relative proportions in each
branch reflecting primarily the type of employment available,
but also the individual preferences of the members.
The casual members work through pick-up rosters run by the
branches. These are operated more rigidly than those of the
Painters and Dockers Union and, in some branches, attempts are
New South Wales Victorian South Australian Queensland West Australian
T asmanian
200 130 106 71
40
655 members
121
made in the allocation of uork, to equalise the earnings of
those obtaining uork through the pick-up.
9.3 UORK SITUATION
Membership has more than halved since the mid 60' s due mainly ten;
the decrease in uork; resulting from such things as changes in
the pattern of trade, changes in shipping technology, especially
the introduction of bulk ships and container ships, and a deÂ
crease in the amount and changes in the methods of ship conÂ
struction .
As uith the Painters and Dockers Union, the casual section
of the uork force is a barometer of unemployment in the trade.
The demand for labour through the casual rosters is irregular
in occurrence and duration but, because of the less labour inÂ
tensive nature of the uork, not perhaps to the same extent as
for painters and dockers.
Because of the requirement that shipurights be qualified
tradesmen, no supplementary roster system operates to cover
peak demand situations.
9.4 UORK CLAIMED
The uork claimed by the Union to the exclusion of ships' creus
is that uork of the trade uhich ' can and should be done in port',
the uork of the trade being defined as that uork requiring the
use of their tools of trade. The uork at issue is really that
associated uith the preparation of holds for cargo, including
dunnaging, sealing and burlapping bilges, attention to gratings
and limbers, etc. ,and that associated uith securing and reÂ
leasing cargo, such as tomming and shoring, lashing and unlashÂ
ing , etc. ·
The Union's claim for cargo related uork, effectively exÂ
tends to prevent creus doing this uork betueen ports, it being
maintained that, for safety reasons, holds should not be preÂ
pared, and cargo should be secure, uhen the ship is moving.
122
Securing, releasing and preparation for cargo is thus, according
to the claim, to be confined to port and is the work of shore- based shipwrights.
9.5 DEMANDS FOR PAYMENT
Only two branches of the Union, the New South Uales and Victorian,
made demands and/or received payments for work done by ships'
creus. The total amount obtained was approximately $3,700. As
with the Painters and Dockers Union, demands were made by
branches in their own right and must be considered at that level.
9.6 NEU SOUTH MALES BRANCH
The N.S.U Branch of the Union is the largest, with an active
membership of between 650 and 700 out of the total 1200 for the
Federation as a whole. The bulk of the members are employed in
and around the Ports of Sydney and Newcastle, Newcastle members
numbering some 200. Demands have occurred only in the Port of
Sydney.
In Sydney the members mainly work for dockyards, boat
builders and ship repair and servicing firms. Almost 90/ are
in full time employment but the majority of these work as semiÂ
permanents. There seems to be a preference among a majority
of these members for the conditions of casual employment which
are associated with being semi-permanently employed. In theory,
all non-permanents obtain work through the roster. However,
because of the large number of semi â permanents, the actual numÂ
ber appearing at the roster is relatively small. Any unemployÂ
ment problem is focused on the roster.
9.6.1 Uork Situation
The evidence points to a reasonable level of employment with,
in the words of ex-Secretary Mr. James, 'some rough patches'.
The movement of members into the building industry, when this
is possible, and restriction imposed by the Committee of
123
Management on the amount of overtime worked by individual memÂ
bers, act as a buffer to unemployment in the trade uhen uork is
in short supply.
9.6.2 Demands
Demands and/ or payments were made in respect of twelve
ships, commencing uith the Good Mariner in July 1972. This first®
demand folloued the distribution in June 1972 of a Branch CirÂ
cular to all delegates outlining the ACTU's 1971 policy decision
on creus doing cargo uork. In all cases, except the first, the
amount claimed as compensation is clearly based on an assessment
of the manhours lost, and the rates applicable at the time. The
total of payments made is slightly in excess of $1800 uith the
largest payment being for an amount of $439 in respect of the
Tai Sun in August 1973, uhen the creu lashed containers uhile
the vessel uas berthed at Uoolloomooloo. A list of the demands
giving some further detail is in Table 4.
9.6.3 Summary
All the demands are for uork done in the port and for cargo
related uork, and all are uithin the ambit of the claim of the
Shipwrights to work requiring the use of their tools of trade.
Industrial action uas implemented in support of claims only
on the occasion of the first demand, and an explicit threat of
industrial action uas made only in respect of the Movovlynsk.
No resort uas made to other unions for assistance in forcing the
demands. The ease uith uhich payment uas obtained, the content
of correspondence from agents, and the fact that at least one
agent has incorporated in a handbook for ships' masters the
advice that this uork belongs to shipwrights, indicate that the
claims of the Shipwrights have been recognised and, in a large
measure, agreed to, at least in practice. In this port, the
occasions of the demands seem to represent lapses by agents in
informing ships' Masters uho are unauare of the situation.
124
There appears to be no meaningful correlation between the
timing of demands and the employment situation. The demands
appear to be part of the general campaign to reserve an area of work for shore shipwrights.
9.7 VICTORIAN BRANCH
The Victorian Branch has a membership of some 180-200. The
bulk of about 120 work around the Port of Melbourne, the reÂ
mainder includes small numbers at Geelong, Lakes Entrance and
Queenscliff, and the seagoing members.
Of the 120 shipwrights in Melbourne, approximately eighty
are in permanent or semi-permanent employment, fifty of these
with the Uilliamstown Naval Dockyard. The remaining forty or
so are true casuals, dependent on obtaining work through the
Melbourne pick-up. The roster at the pick-up is strictly conÂ
trolled to equalise the earnings of those members using the
system. The pick-up operates only in the Port of Melbourne.
9.7.1 Uork Situation
The number of members obtaining work through the pick-up
has fallen, from approximately 120 in 1965/66, to the present
figure of forty, as a result of the decreasing demand. Even
with the reduced amount of labour offering for work, jobs are
irregular and labour allocation figures for the twelve months
to September 1975 show an average daily surplus of 40/ of the
members in the casual work force; the figure for an indiviÂ
dual month being as high as 64/.
On the limited evidence obtained by the Commission on the
earnings of individual members employed through the roster
system, it appears that 1973/74 earnings were approximately
$6,000 and 1974/75 earnings about $8,000. In comparing these
with earnings at award rates, it should be borne in mind that
the basic casual rate contains a 22/â¡ loading as compensation for
annual leave, sick leave, non payment for public holidays and
lost time, and the other conditions of permanent employment.
125
The concern of the members working through the pick-up led
in 1971 to the appointment of a Vigilance Officer. This uas a
full time position funded by a levy on the casual members workÂ
ing through the pick-up, the duties of the position being to
secure work for these members.
9.7.2 Demands
Demands have been made on ships in the Ports of Melbourne
and Geelong.
9.7.3 Melbourne
Demands for payment for work done by ships' crews in MelÂ
bourne were made in respect of nine ships, commencing with the
Beta in August 1971 and concluding with the Capitaine Cook in
March 1973. Six of the demands resulted in payments and the
total amount obtained by the Union uas $768.85. In the case
of the Mosor $172.80 uas also paid to four shipwrights employed
on the ship. Details of these demands are set out in Table 5.
9.7.4 Geelong
In Geelong the Union made three demands; in 1970 on the
Maria Rosa, 1972 on the Ho Chi Min and 1973 on the Yamasa Maru.
As mentioned when dealing with the Painters and Dockers
Union demand on the Ho Chi Min, this payment may properly be reÂ
garded as a negotiated settlement.
The other two demands resulted in payment to the Union of
$440. Further details are included in Table 5.
9.7.5 Summary / .
All the demands were in relation to work associate'd with
cargo, and thus conform to the general claim of the Union. In
no case uas industrial action threatened and no delays occurred.
126
The moneys obtained from the early demands were deposited
to the General Fund of the Union. Later, as the result of a
decision of a meeting in September 1971, moneys obtained from
ships in Melbourne uere paid to the Vigilance Officer's Fund,
to further assist in the search for uork. The moneys resulting
from the Geelong demands continued to be paid to the General
Fund.
The cessation of demands in 1973 coincides with the retireÂ
ment of the Vigilance Officer that year for health reasons. The
position has remained unfilled since that time through lack of
a nominee; a reflection of the distaste of the members for the
nature of the duties.
I see the demands by this Branch arising as a by-product of
a campaign in genuine pursuit of the uork uhich members believed
uas the right of the shore-based shipwright. In Melbourne,
the campaign uas aimed specifically at improving the uork
situation for the casual workers obtaining work through the
roster. In Geelong, where no pick-up operates, I see the
demands as part of the general campaign to have this work reÂ
served for shore-based shipwrights.
127
FEDERATED SHIPWRIGHTS & SHIPCGNSTRUCTORS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA
Agent/Principal
Karlander (Aust) Pty Ltd
7
Paid by stevedore Patrick Stevedoring Co.
Patrick Agencies Pty Ltd
Patrick Agencies Pty Ltd
George Wills & Co Ltd
Karlander (Aust) Pty Ltd
Chandris Line
Aoent/Pri nr.i pal
Howard Smith Industries Ltd
Interocean Swire Pty Ltd
Hetherington Kingsbury Pty Ltd
McArthur Shipping & Agency Co Pty Ltd
P & 0 ( Australia) Ltd
1848. 02
TABLE 5
GET
FEDERATED SHIPURIGHTS & SHIP CONSTPUCTURS ASSOilnTIDh CF ~bET:~_:â
VICTORIAN BRANCH - DENANDS AND fiAYflEETS
Date Sh'g work in Die ute DeTand Agent
PORT OF MELBOURNE â .
Howard Smith
Aug'7l Beta Crew tomming in 100 100 Industries Dty
port Ltd
Aug'7l Navelinacore Crew tomming or 100 100 APT Shipping
laying gratings Dty Ltd
(?) in port
Nov'7l Josef Conrad Crew erecting Fences 200 200 H.C.Sleigh Ltd
or tomming (?) in port
Feb'72 Natko Nodilo ? 20 Rejected Uilliam
Haughton & Co.
Ltd.
Mar'72 Uanliu Crew securing wages Rejected P & 0(Australia
vehicles in port 2 men Ltd.
x 4 hrs
Nar'72 ? Crew replaced '40 Rejected Pioneer Steam
gratings Cleaners
(Contractors)
May'72 Mosor Crew constructed 78.85 78.85 Uilliam
hatch gratings +172.80 +l72.80 Haughton & C0.
to men to men Ltd
Feb'73 Aliki I.P Crew removed tim- 250 250 Patrick
ber bridging Operations Pty
From holds Ltd
Mar'73 Capitaine Crew tomming in 4U 4U Burns Philp &
Cook port Co Ltd
TET
9.8123 able
PORT OF GEELDNG
Uct'70 Maria Rosa
May'72 Ho Chi Min
Mar'73 Yamasa Maru
TABLE 5 Contd)
work in Dis ute
Crew burlapped bilges
Crew Fitted Feeders and bulkheads
Crew demolished timber bulkhead in port
9% $
34B
500
100
Payment
35
340
500
100
1881.65
flgent
Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd
Patrick Operations Pty Ltd
10 UATERSIDE UORKERS' FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA
In all Australian ports, the UUF has members engaged in steveÂ
doring operations, i.e. the handling of cargo, either loading or
unloading. This work is reserved to shore labour by s.45(l) of
the Navigation Act which provides, inter alia, that:
A member of the crew of a foreign going ship (whether British or foreign) shall not be employed in a port in Australia in handling cargo or ballast in connexion with the loading or unloading of a ship.
In ports where waterside worker and painter and docker labour
are available, it is the practice for UUF labour to do a 'rough'
sweep after cargo is discharged and for painters and dockers to
do a 'fine' sweep if further cleaning is required.
In Uestern Australia in the ports other than Fremantle, where
painters and dockers are available, the work of painters and
dockers so far as it relates to cargo is performed by members
of the UUF. These days, the major part of this work is the
cleaning and preparation of holds, and work associated with
lashing and unlashing of cargo.
The Federation, through its branches, has been involved in a
number of demands and payments and I deal with them briefly
hereunder.
10.1 NEU SOUTH UALES
Evidence was given of four demands which resulted in payments by
shipping agents totalling $913.68.
10.1.1 Port de Franee
Uhile this vessel was unloading cargo in Sydney in February
1972, the members of the UUF employed on the vessel attended the
Uaterside Uorkers' Picnic Day. During the absence of UUF labour,
a list developed on the vessel and the Master instructed the crew
to discharge the cargo in order to arrest the problem. On reÂ
suming work the following day, the uaterside worker;-, noticed that
132
this uork had been done and the delegate made a demand for payÂ
ment, as compensation for the work lost. A payment of $216.58
uas made to the Union branch. The work uas clearly that of uaterÂ
side uorkers, but if the evidence of the circumstances is
accepted, the action of the Master should not have led to disÂ
pute; certainly no demand should ever have been made.
10.1.2 Astree
This vessel arrived in Sydney in Oune 1974 to discharge cargo.
After the uaterside uorkers shift had ended, the creu did some
cleaning, follouing the discharge of cargo. Although no demand
seems to have been made by the UUF, a payment of $135.22 uas made
to the Branch. The N.S.U. Branch of the Painters and Dockers
Union also demanded compensation in respect of a portion of the
cleaning uork in question (see Table 1).
10.1.3 Uaglan Island
In December 1974, uhile this vessel uas at berth in Sydney
discharging cargo, the creu cleaned the holds in the 'tueen
decks during the evening shift uhen it appears there uere no
uaterside uorkers employed. A payment uas made of $247.94 to
the UUF Branch uhich represented tuo days uages for one gang.
The Painters and Dockers Union also received payment of $198.36
being uages for six men for one shift for 'fine' cleaning, in
respect of the same job. In evidence before the Commission, the
ship's agent stated that he understood the creu had not realised
that this uas the uork of shore labour.
10.1.4 Lone Star
This vessel brought a cargo of cars from Japan and discharged
some in Brisbane and the balance in Sydney. It uas then intended
to proceed to Neu Zealand in ballast. In July 1975, uhile at
berth in Sydney, the creu carried tuo car deck pontoons from the
holds and secured them on the ueather deck. As this uas uork
133
associated uith handling cargo, the UUF claimed compensation
amounting to $313.94. The vessel uas declared 'black' and at
the request of the UUF, the Firemen and Deckhands Union refused
services until negotiations had been concluded and payment made.
A further demand in respect'of cleaning uas made by Galleghan of
the IM.S.U. Branch of the Painters and Dockers Union (see Table 1)
10.2 QUEENSLAND
Only one case of a demand and/or payment uas found to have
occurred in Brisbane; in respect of the Neptune Oasper. On
18 March 1975, after UUF labour had completed the day shift, the
creu put the tent on No. 1 hatch and then removed it the
follouing morning, prior to the commencement of the day shift.
The UUF delegate demanded payment of half an hours pay to the
gang employed in the No. 1 hatch. After other UUF labour emÂ
ployed on the vessel threatened to ualk off the job, a payment
of $411.16 uas made to uaterside uorkers on the job.
10.3 SOUTH AUSTRALIA
One instance only of payment and demand relevant to the ComÂ
mission uas dealt uith. The vessel involved uas the Pedro De
A1vardo. It arrived in Adelaide on 26 July 1972, after a rough
passage through the Bight. The cargo included drums of arsenic
uhich 'broke loose' in No. 5 'tueen deck. Members of the creu
cleaned up the spillage en route and also discharged drums of
arsenic on arrival in port. It uas said that this uas done beÂ
cause the drums contained 98/ pure arsenic uhich uas an extremely
dangerous cargo. The creu had been willing to do the job. The
uaterside uorkers e/ployed on the vessel demanded payment for
seventeen men and a foreman for four hours each. The UUF refused
to commence discharging this cargo until the agent agreed to the
payment of $200.
134
10.4 NORTHERN TERRITORY
On 14 August 1974, a refrigerated vessel the Golar Freeze uas
proceeding betueen Uyndham-Broome-Daruin to load meat. RefrigÂ
erated meat had been loaded at Uyndham and some of it left on
pallets. It uas alleged that for safety reasons, it uas
necessary on the voyage betueen Uyndham and Broome for the creu
to 1 break doun1 the pallets and stou the meat conventionally.
When the vessel arrived in Daruin, uaterside uorkers employed
on it demanded payment of $563.24 in respect of this uork. This
uas the only demand recorded in the Northern Territory. The eviÂ
dence uas scanty and entirely hearsay and on it I do not feel
able to record any finding.
10.5 VICTORIA
There uere a number of payments demanded and made in Melbourne.
The first concerned a vessel Uelsh Troubador in August 1974. The
vessel had been at anchor at its berth for tuo days prior to the
discharge of cargo commencing, and during that time containers
on deck had been unlashed by the creu. It had been the practice
for shore-based unions to do this uork. Uhen uaterside uorkers
employed on the ship learned that this uork had been done by the
creu, demands uere made for payment for the equivalent of uages
lost. An amount totalling $142 uas paid.
The other demands appear to relate to the opening of hatches
in port by the creu. One instance occurred uith the Sovereign
Sapphire in October 1974. Uhen uaterside uorkers enaged to disÂ
charge cargo found the creu had opened the hatches, they refused
to uork unless paid an amount for the time uhich they uould have
taken to do this uork. The men concerned uere paid $257.60.
A further demand occurred on 24 August 1975 in similar cirÂ
cumstances, uith a vessel knoun as the Golden City. The amount
involved uas $42.
135
10.6 WESTERN AUSTRALIA
In Western Australia there were demands made that shifting boards
which had been erected by the crew for the purpose of carrying
bulk grain cargoes should be dismantled and re-erected by shore-
labour. The first was in respect of a vessel Marco Botsaris on
3 November 1970 at Albany and the second was in respect of the
Tewkesbury on 9 November 1970 at Geraldton. In each case, the
demand was acceded to and the shifting boards dismantled and reÂ
erected by waterside worker labour. A further demand, in similar
circumstances, occurred in July 1972 in respect of the Wienertor
at Geraldton.
On 28 February 1975, a demand for payment of $756.50 to ten
members of the WWF was made in respect of the Cape Grenville.
The work in question was the erection of a heavy pontoon in the
lower hold which assisted in stabilising the cargo. The Master
would not allow shore labour, which he claimed was inexperienced,
to handle theequipment because of the high degree of danger. He
agreed to pay the WWF members as if they had erected the pontoon.
This work was in fact done by the crew.
A number of disputes involving demands and payments occurred
where it was claimed that crews had performed work which by virÂ
tue of s.45(l) of the Navigation Act was reserved to shore-labour
and forbidden to crews.
The first demand was in respect of the Petrel on 9 February
1972 at Fremantle. Drums of lubricating oil were loaded by the
ship's crew at Fremantle. The waterside workers working on the
vessel demanded and were paid $548.97 as compensation.
On 30 July 1974 a demand was made for payment to waterside
workers engaged on the Meer Drecht at Albany. The sum paid was
$90 but the work was not able to be identified.
On 18 September 1974 a demand was made for !;he payment of the
sum of $81.69 to waterside workers employed on the Asia Flamingo
in respect of the sweeping of hatches by the crew at berth in
Albany. The ship's agent agreed to make the payment.
A further demand, in this instance for work, was made in reÂ
spect of the Capulet on 2 April 1973. After a cargo of sulphur
136
had been discharged in Kuinana, it was intended that the vessel
proceed to Albany to load bulk wheat. Prior to departure, the
MUU demanded that the vessel be cleaned by shore labour. After
negotiations, it uas agreed that the vessel be cleaned in Albany,
using members of the UUF, the cost being $2974.70. It had been
the Master's intention to clean with the crew between ports.
10.7 RECENT DISPUTES IN VICTORIA
At the commencement of the second part of the Inquiry, the AEUL
were advised of the general matters being raised before the
Commission and particularly the claims of the Shipwrights and
the Painters and Dockers Union that s.45 of the Navigation Act
be amended to give shore labour an exclusive right to certain
work.
When giving evidence in Sydney, on 15 October 1975, Mr.
Ooblin, the General Manager of AEUL, made it clear that his
Association did not propose to make any submission on these
matters.
During his later evidence on 27 October in Melbourne, he
said that since his Sydney evidence had been given, the Committee
of Management of his Association had met and passed a resolution
in relation to its participation in the Commission. It had deÂ
cided that it would make a submission in relation to certain
activities of the UUF in the Port of Melbourne.
The submission it sought to make uas in relation to claims
by the UUF for the work of rigging cargo gear and the opening
and the closing of hatches on foreign vessels to the exclusion
of ships' crews. The dispute had started in February 1975 and
had been discussed by a body known as the National Industrial
Relations Committee, which deals with disputes in the steveÂ
doring industry. Ultimately, on 16 September 1975, the
Association and the UUF failed to reach agreement on the dispute.
The matters were first raised before me in detail on 27
October 1975, when the Commission uas within three days of comÂ
pleting the evidence and arrangements had been made for the
137
commencing of addresses. No notice had been given to the UUF of
the intention to raise these matters and that Federation would
quite clearly have been entitled to be heard. No explanation
was given for the failure to raise these matters earlier, alÂ
though it was clear they dated back to at least February 1975.
In all these circumstances I took the view that, although
these matters might technically be within the Terms of Reference,
in fact they were not related to the other issues, and that I
should not proceed further with them, in view of the delays and
inconvenience to parties which would inevitably arise. Had the
matters been raised at a more appropriate time my ruling might
well have been different.
138
11 THE SUBSEQUENT OR PROPOSED USE OF THE PAYMENTS
In accordance with the Terms of Reference, I nou consider the
subsequent proposed use and/or disposal of the payments uhich
uere made by the shipping agents to the Unions. As the circumÂ
stances in ports differ, each port and Union is dealt with
separately.
11.1 PAINTERS AND DOCKERS UNION
11.1.1 Brisbane
There uere no payments demanded or made in this State uhich
are uithin the Terms of Reference.
11.1.2 Neucastle
The only demand and payment made in this port relates to the
Shirrabank. The amount paid uas $3138.
Uith regard to the use and disposal of this amount, the
Branch Secretary, Mr. Milne, stated at page 2731 of the transÂ
cript :
Ue had a turnout for the Federal Secretary, ue paid for that out of it ... the rest of the money
uas placed into the children's social fund.
After considerable cross-examination uhich uas complicated by
the unorthodox accounting methods practised by Mr. Milne, it
emerged that $1814.90 uas spent on the dinner for the Federal
Secretary, Mr. Gordon, and $824.30 uas deposited in the childÂ
ren's fund, the balance being nearly $500.00. Although Mr.
Milne uas given the opportunity to examine his Cash Book, he
could not account for this sum of money.
139
11.1.3 Sydney
Due to the number of demands and payments made in this port,
I do not intend to deal uith individual cases here. A comÂ
prehensive list is in Table 6.
An approximate sum of $20,000 uas deposited in the General
Fund of the Branch from January 1974 to August 1975. By uay
of comparison, 'contributions' for the financial year ending
December 1973, as disclosed in the last return filed uith the
Industrial Registrar, uas $31,677.60.
In addition, a sum of $1035.40 uas paid to painters and
dockers employed on the Glyfada Summer in the circumstances set
out in Chapter 4.6.7, and $200 uas paid to the Union and is
included in the figure of $20,000.
In the case of the Hyoqo Maru, $5000 uas paid to the Union
and also is included in the figure of $20,000, and an amount of
$20,630.87 uas paid as a result of a demand for unnecessary uork
on this vessel. This amount included uages payable to fifty-
five painters and dockers in the circumstances set out in
Chapter 4.6.9.
It appears that some of the money deposited in the General
Fund has been spent on redecorating and furnishing the pick-up
centre and adjoining office accommodation. Mr. G. Young and
Mr. G. Heuson, both members of the Committee of Management,
uere picked up from the roster to do the painting and their uages
uere met from these funds. Other moneys have been spent on the
ordinary running expenses of the Branch.
11.1.4 Port Kembla
Demands and payments uere made in respect of tuo vessels in
this port - $3000 for the Aqano Maru and $379.99 for the.Jarl R.
T rapp.
The first payment of $3000 uas paid by cheque uhich uas
made out to cash and, according to the Secretary of this SubÂ
branch, Mr. Uoodbury, uas distributed betueen the fifteen men
140
uho would have been employed on the job. There was no record
of this transaction in the union books of account.
Similarly, the sum of $379.29 uas paid in cash at Uoodbury1s
request and distributed to the nine men uho would have worked.
These cases are discussed in Chapter 4.7.3 and 4.7.4
respectively . ·
11.1.5 Melbourne
No record exists of the disposal of the moneys received as
a result of demands made prior to 1974 either in this port or
in the Port of Geelong. Of the later demands, the sum of $500
in respect of the Moresby Express was paid into the Union's
General Fund, and subsequently uas used to purchase various
items of office furniture and a billiard table for the use of
members. A balance of $20 remains in the General Fund of the
Union.
The further payments of $250 for the Straat Oohore, $150
for Straat Singapore and $500 for Straat Luanda, a total of
$900, was said to have been paid to Mrs. Uilma Shannon, the
widow of Mr. Pat Shannon. This was not corroborated in any
way and, in that circumstance, I am not prepared to find that
it uas so paid.
11.1.5 Port Adelaide
A sum of $201.60 uas demanded and paid in respect of the
vessel Marsha and uas distributed among the nineteen men uho
would have been employed cleaning the vessel.
Similarly, an amount of $1250 which uas paid in respect of
the Capulet was divided among the men uho uere picked up to
do further cleaning on the vessel.
11.1.7 Fremantle
Of the total of $42,000 paid out by shipping agents as a
result of demands, some amounts, the total of which I have been
141
unable to ascertain, have been paid to the FPA in respect of
charges for levies and administrative expenses and some uere
wrongly retained by the two ship repair firms, Petterson &
Co. and Fremantle Shipurighting Co. I have been able to
satisfactorily establish those amounts received by the crew,
the Union and registered casual workers and these are set out
in detail in Table 7. These total $36,341.73 and were distriÂ
buted in the following way :
Paid to Crew
Deposited in ' General Fund1 of the Union (includes donation of $295.44 to Darwin Relief Fund)
Deposited in 1 Special Account' of the Union
Paid to registered casual workers through pay office
Direct cash payment to Union to be paid to registered casual workers
Amounts paid to Uells and subsequently by him to Union funds
It would appear that the sum of $4,408.36 which was deposiÂ
ted in the General Fund of the Union is still located in that
fund. It is probable that the donation of $295.44 which was
sent to the Darwin Relief Fund by the Union has been distriÂ
buted at this stage. According to Fir. Uells, it was intended
that the money held in the Special Account be distributed to the
members at the end of the year. However, at the suggestion of
the Commission, Uells agreed that the money should remain intact
until the Commission reported.
The sums of money paid to the registered casual workers in
respect of bogus 1 jo jo and finish1 payments obviously has been
spent.
Uith regard to the payment to Uells, the Committee of
Management passed a resolution that the amount 1 donated1 to
Union funds by Uells be reimbursed to him under the guise of
'Clothing Allowance' and this was done. I have no doubt this
money also has been spent.
692.80
4,408.36
12,141.86
17,702.28
1,283.76
112.67
142
There are four instances where the amount retained by the
ship repair firms can be determined.
Mr. Johansen of the Fremantle Shipurighting Co. stated in
evidence that he has no intention of refunding the sum of
1928.28 which he charged for levies on the Oranqefield but
did not remit to the FPA.
Mr. Marshall of Patterson & Co. undertook in evidence to
refund the amounts charged and retained for levies in respect
of the following vessels : $
Qctavia 615.30
Chennai Perumai 128.75
Sea Crest 95.36
11.2 SHIPWRIGHTS
There have been no recent demands or payments made by Shipwrights
in Brisbane, Newcastle, Port Kembla or Adelaide. The situation
in other ports is as follows :
11.2.1 Sydney
Approximately $1848 has been collected as a result of
demands for payment. The sum of $524.87 was paid into the
General Fund, $812.85 into the Picnic Fund and $510.30 into
the Long Service Leave Fund. It would appear that this money
has been spent on the running expenses of the Branch.
11.2.2 Melbourne
Approximately $768.85 was paid to the Union as a result of
demands on various vessels between 1971 and 1973. Of this
amount, the sum of $278.85 was deposited in the General Fund,
$490.00 was paid into the Vigilance Officer's Fund which
financed the Vigilance Officer's wages. Also, on one occasion,
$172.80 was paid to the shipwrights employed; on the Mosor.
It is assumed these moneys have been expended.
143
11.2.3 Geelong
In this Port three payments totalling $940.00 were demanded
and made between 1970 and 1973 of which $600.00 was deposited
in the General Fund. A further payment of $340.00 was made
but could not be traced.
11.3 UUF
With regard to payments to the Branches of the UUF, it appears
that some payments have been made to individual members and in
some cases it is not clear. There are no cases where money was
clearly paid to the Union.
/â
144
TABLE 6
PAINTERS AND DOCKERS UNION
NEU SOUTH WALES BRANCH - DISPOSAL OF PAYMENTS
GENERAL FUND $
SafOcean Albany 172.76
Glyfada Summer 200.00
Astree 157.79
Union East 674.40
Capitaine Tasman 268.00
Neptune Amber 158.00
Neptune Jasper 315.58
Port Caroline 526.75
florvada 646.37
Benvorlich 360.00
Uaglan Island 198.36
Hoi Kung 2139.10
Stolt Zeus 2473.23
Uishua Bindu 216.84
Northern Star 429.30
Weser Despatcher 160.00
Voorne 600.00
Dona Amalia 691.60
Port de France 180.96
Michaelis 358.15
Capitaine La Perouse 573.04
Lama 938.70
Stolt Span 129.05
Komsomolets Nakhodki 387.71
Lone Star 400.00
Nalanda 200.00
Hyogo Maru 5000.00
Dordrecht 232.55
Malais 464.18
Gerda Bech 129.05
19381.47
TABLE 6 (CONTD)
PAYMENTS DIRECT TO MEMBERS
Glyfada Summer
$1035.40 uas distributed to thirty-tuo
men uho stopped uork when the fatal
accident occurred - allocated in accorÂ
dance uith length of shift remaining.
Hyoqo flaru
The total payment for the unnecessary
uork demanded by the Painters and
Dockers Union on this ship amounted to
$20,630.87. This amount includes the
uages of the fifty-five men picked up
for the double-header1 shift, plus
associated costs for materials, plant,
etc. and the contractor's overheads
and profits.
146
MARITIME WORKERS UNION - DISPOSAL OF PAYMENTS
TABLE 7
Ship Amount Paid
by Agent $
Amount Received $
CREW
Kythnos 400.00 400.00
Appollonian 292.80 292.80
GENERAL FUND
La Estancia 124.40 124.40
Emma Bakke 197.76 197.76
Carl Trautuien 198.00 198.00
James Stove 1216.60 935.20
Castledore 1104.60 1104.60
APJ Priya 1000.00 1000.00
Malaysia 90.96 90.96
Malaysia 508.00 462.00
. Sea Crest 401.44 295.44
SPECIAL ACCOUNT
Aegis Eland 4667.00 4667.00
Cape Wrath 1474.98 1474.98
Graceous 3603.60 3603.60
Chennai Perumai 2550.24 2396.28
REGISTERED CASUAL WORKERS
Jersey Bridge 784.56 784.56
Octavia 3281.73 2604.90
Eastern Merit 1089.12 807.23
Geiko Maru 1642.25 1371.14
Cape York 1589-75 1589.75
Lok Prabha 410.63 283.37
Novolvovsk 1838.20 1514.67
Koryu Maru 1430.60 1120.85
147
TABLE 7 (Contd)
Amount Paid Amount
by Agent Received
Breim 2930.50 2415.40
Asia Morality 965.84 747.68
Seizan Maru 1637.73 1165.05
Orangefield 2212.04 1283.76
Amstellaan 3202.83 1960.14
Anna Bakke 992.10 734.88
Parnassos 493.60 384.34
Fuhai 273.90 218.32
SECRETARY, MR. 3. UELLS
Cape York 66.25 66.25
Orangefield 46.67 46.67
T O T A L
>
42718.68 36341.73
148
12 THE REASONS FOR AND THE PURPOSES OF THE PAYMENTS OR DEMANDS
12.1 THE STATED REASONS
It uas put to me by the Unions, at different times and uith
varying emphasis, that the reasons for making the demands uere :
a) that each Union had a right, in accordance uith demarcation principles to the uork claimed and that the denial of this right by shipping interests uas a reason for the making of the demands,
b) that practices in overseas ports afforded support for the claim in (a) hereof, and uas an independent reason, and
c) that the demands for payment and the various forms they took uere the implementation of policies adopted from time to time by the ACTU.
Before proceeding to consider further the reasons for the
demands, I shall deal uith each of these three factors separately.
12.2 DEMARCATION
Each of the Painters and Dockers and the Shipurights Unions
sought to justify its actions by claiming that its members had
a 'right1 to do the uork in question. This uas also frequently
expressed in the phrase that the uork uas 'our uork'. Touards
the end of the hearing, this claim seemed barely pressed, but
since it uas raised and put as a reason for the making of the
demands for payment, I shall deal" uith it.
12.2.1 Acquisition of a Right to Uork
It is a uell recognised concept in industrial lau that a
union or its members may acquire a right to do certain uork or
that in some circumstances such a right may be conferred upon
them. The acquisition of such a right is generally regarded as
arising from a consideration of the constitution and auards of
the union in question. Generally, in Australian industrial lau,
a union is, on registration, given a monopoly in a particular
24228 / 76â 6 149
field and it is a belief in the existence of this monopoly uhich
leads to a claim that certain uork is to be performed exclusively
by certain classifications of employees.
Generally speaking then, one may talk of a union or its memÂ
bers having a right to do certain uork if the uork in question is
covered by the constitution rule of the union and not by the
constitution rule of any other union. In that case, the members
of the union concerned are regarded as having an exclusive right
to do the uork. Another case arises uhere constitution rules of
tuo or more unions may give each of those unions a right to enrol
persons performing the uork, but only one union has protected the
industrial interests of the employees concerned by obtaining
auards or agreements covering them. In this case also, the union
uith the auard coverage is generally regarded as having a right
to have the uork performed by its members, any right uhich had
existed in the other union being treated as abandoned. Uhere
houever employees doing the uork are eligible for membership of
more than one union and more than one auard or agreement covers
the uork, no union is regarded, as having an exclusive right to
the uork unless such a right is specifically conferred either by
agreement or by order of an appropriate tribunal.
12.2.2 The 'Right1 to Cleaning Holds
Constitution and Auards
In the present case, the position is sufficiently illusÂ
trated by taking the uork of cleaning holds. There is no doubt
that this uork is specified in the constitution of the Painters
and Dockers Union. To that extent, the constitution may be reÂ
garded as giving that Union the right to enrol persons performing
this uork. The Union is clearly intended to be a land-based one
and therefore the right uould be in respect of the uork uhen done
in port. It is not houever a right uhich that Union alone has.
Other Australian unions have the right to enrol persons performÂ
ing this uork and in fact do so. The Seamen's Union of Australia
and the Uaterside Uorkers Federation of Australia are tuo such
unions. The relevant auard so far as the Painters and Dockers
Union is concerned is the Ship Painters and Dockers Auard. It
150
applies to persons performing the work of cleaning holds uhen
employed by respondents bound by the Award. None of the overÂ
seas shipowners or charterers are so bound.
It is necessary to consider whether the Painters and Dockers
Union has a right to have the work of cleaning ships' holds,
whether in port or not, performed exclusively by the members of
that Union. So far as the work in port is concerned it falls,
as I have pointed out, under the constitution rules of at least
two other unions. Moreover, seamen on foreign vessels are almost
invariably members of seamen's unions, such as the British,
Norwegian and Korean Unions. Agreements between those unions and
shipowners, the equivalent of awards or industrial agreements in
this country, all either provide for or contemplate this work
being performed by crew members.
It is impossible then to regard the constitution or award
position as conferring any right on the Painters and Dockers
Union to have its members perform the work of cleaning ships'
holds to the exclusion of all others. This is clearly so with
work performed in port. So far as work performed between ports
or on the high seas is concerned, there is probably no right enÂ
titling the Painters and Dockers Union and its members to
perform this work at all. The Ship Painters and Dockers' Award
does not cover such work, but seems to me to deal only with work
in port and, in my view, the constitution of that Union would not
entitle it to enrol persons performing this work as part of the
duties of a seaman at sea. A Fortiori the Union has no exclusive
right to the work.
It seems to me clear then that there is no exclusive right
existing in the Union or its members in respect of this work
arising from a consideration of constitutions or awards.
Customs and Practice
The other factor frequently relied on as conferring an
exclusive right is that certain work is by long established
custom and practice the work performed by either a certain
classification of employee or by members of a certain union. In
the present case, the evidence is overwhelming that no custom or
practice entitles the Painters and Dockers Union to claim the
151
uork exclusively. Indeed, the work has been, over a long period,
and still is, performed at sea by the creus of foreign vessels
and, in many ports in the world, and in some in Australia, perÂ
formed by members of the crew.
12.2.3 No 'Right' to Uork
Similar considerations apply to other uork in dispute. There
is then no basis at all for a claim that any of the uork in
question 'belongs' to painters and dockers by reason of any lau
or any industrial practice.
12.2.4 Mr. Elliott's Views
These views are further reinforced when regard is had to the
evidence given by Mr. Elliott, the General Secretary of the SeaÂ
men's Union of Australia. In speaking of the Maritime Industry
Seagoing Award and the duties there set out of seamen, which inÂ
clude the cleaning of holds, Mr. Elliott said:
They are normal duties depending on the time, the conditions and the place. For instance we would not go and clean a fresh water tank at sea. They
are the normal duties of seamen.
How about cleaning of holds, bilges and strum boxes? ... Cleaning holds at sea, no. Cleaning of the strum boxes and bilges in an emergency, yes, but only in an emergency.
Are those duties also performed by shore unions at different times? ... Yes, with our permission or consent or tacit agreement, in port of course.
By painters and dockers? ... Yes.
Shipwrights - some of them? ... Yes.
Waterside workers mainly? ... Some of that uork, yes.
Miscellaneous Workers Union, gangway watching? ... Yes.
A number of waterfront organisations? ... Yes, ironworkers.
So that the Seamen's Union does not forfeit the right to do any of those duties in the award? ... No.
But have understandings with the other people also performing them? ... Yes, by agreement.
Written agreement? ... No.
152
This evidence of course is clearly inconsistent uith the
uieu that there is any right in the Painters and Dockers Union
to perform this uork to the exclusion of all others.
12.2.5 Shipurights
I think similar considerations apply in the case of the
Shipurights. Many ships' creus include in their number a shipÂ
wright or ship's carpenter uhose training and skills are virÂ
tually identical uith the shore shipwright. So far as Australian
creus are concerned, the seagoing and shore based shipurights are
members of the same union, while in the case of foreign creus,
they appear to be members of the Seamen's Union of the particular
nation involved.
The shore-based shipwright cannot sustain a claim to the
right to perform all shipurighting on a particular vessel to the
exclusion of seagoing shipurights. This is quite obviously so in
the case of uork being performed outside port. If sea-going
shipurights could not then perform shipurights' uork, there would
be no possible reason for their employment.
So far as uork in a port is concerned, there are some ports,
e.g. in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria, where no
shipurights are employed. In those ports, any shipwrights' uork
must be done by seagoing shipurights.
In ports where shipurights are employed, a vessel may spend
either a very short period or some weeks. It would be odd if a
seagoing shipwright were forbidden to uork during such periods,
but nothing has been put to me to suggest any exclusive right for
shore-based shipurights to perform all shipurighting work in
those circumstances.
12.2.6 Conclusion
The conclusion I have reached is that there are no rights in
either Union for its members to claim an exclusive right to perÂ
form the uork by reason of demarcation principles. I think the
officials never really believed there uas, but the claim uas
153
adopted as a convenient propaganda cry, particularly for the
Painters and Dockers Union which has a formidable history of
dispute and litigation in demarcation matters.
12.3 OVERSEAS PRACTICES
In an effort to ascertain whether there uas merit in the claims
about demarcation, enquiries were made by the Commission in
various countries to ascertain the demarcation of duties perÂ
formed by shore labour and foreign crews, both at sea and in
port.
Information uas forwarded about the practices in several
countries and this uas made available to the parties appearing
before the Commission. In the case of Canada, copies of the
relevant agreements were provided. The information obtained is
summarised below.
12.3.1 Argentine
In the case of foreign ships at Argentine ports, all
loading and unloading operations, cleaning of holds after loading
or unloading, and placing of fittings, such as centre boards, are
carried out by dockers exclusively.
Uith regard to Argentine State-owned ships, and in spite of
the regulations in force, there is a special agreement in pracÂ
tice between the Dockers Union and the Crewmen's Union, whereby
teams of crewmen are allowed to carry out certain operations
allotted in principle to dockers.
>
12.3.2 Canada
Vanco uver
Article 20 of the Collective Agreement between the
British Columbia Maritime Employers' Association and the InterÂ
national Longshoremen's & Warehousemen' s Union - Canadian areas,
inter alia, reserves jobs such as loading ships' stores, handling
hatch covers, dunnaging, lashing cargo, erection of fittings and
154
cleaning holds, to longshoremen. If certain conditions exist,
and at the option of the vessel, crew members may undertake such duties.
Montreal
Article 1.09(a) of the Montreal Agreement reserves to
longshoremen the right to, inter alia, lash and unlash cargo,
secure or shore cargoes on the deck or in the hold, and erect
fittings.
Article 1.09(b) contemplates ships' crews being employed to
wash and clean cargo holds, clean large tanks by means of chemiÂ
cal products, and to handle supplies to be loaded on board a
vessel for the use of the creu and/or the passengers.
However, Article 1.10 states that the provisions of Article
1.09 shall not apply uhen other unions or locals are certified
to perform the said work or any part thereof.
Article 10.04 allous either the crew or longshoremen to open
and close hatches and rig gear.
. Halifax
The Halifax Agreement reserves to longshoremen, such
duties as opening and closing hatches, cleaning holds, dunnaging,
securing cargo, handling ships' stores, with the exception of
small daily orders, and the erection of fittings.
12.3.3 United States of America
General information about the practices in the U.S.A. uas
provided to the effect that uhen a ship comes into port, every
function from and including the opening of the hatches is perÂ
formed exclusively by longshoremen, and that ships' crews do not
perform longshore work at all uhen longshoremen are available.
12.3.4 Summary
No further information on overseas practices uas put before
the Commission by the Unions. There uas houever overuhelming
evidence led by shipouners and agents that the cleaning of holds
155
is very generally done by creu members at sea, and in port by
either creu members or shore labour, as the master or owner or
charterer of the vessel may determine.
12.3.5 Conclusion
The information obtained on overseas practices does not
justify any other conclusion than that expressed in 12.2.6.
12.4 ACTU RESOLUTIONS
I have already set out in Chapter 3 dealing with the history of
the dispute, resolutions carried by the ACTU, but it seems to me
necessary to consider them separately because each Union claims
to have relied on these resolutions as support for the action
taken. It has been put, at least by implication, that the
reason for the demands uas the desire of the Unions to enforce
ACTU policy. It is sufficient I think to deal with the three
most recent resolutions.
12.4.1 Resolution of September 1971
It will be noted that the resolution of September 1971
claimed that:
uhen a ship is in port for loading or unloading, the shore-based labour would be used to clean or prepare cargo holds of the vessels and also to release and secure cargo.
This claim uas limited to work done in port when a vessel
uas there for loading or unloading and the work claimed uas that
of cleaning or preparing holds and releasing and securing cargo.
It uas a limited claim and appears to have reflected the practice
which uas completely established in Brisbane and which uas the
general position in other ports.
156
12.4.2 Resolution of April 1973
The second resolution uas carried in April 1973. Uhile
this resolution extends the area of uork claimed by the use of
the words ' shoring off', dunnaging' , and such like work, it is
not clear whether the claim is limited to work performed in port
or whether it seeks to go further, but the fact that emphasis is
given to an amendment of the Navigation Act, no doubt based on a
consideration of the cargo handling provision in s .45 of that
Act, suggests that it uas the intention that it apply only to
work in port.
12.4.3 Resolution of September 1975
The third resolution uas the one carried in September 1975.
This expresses the view of Congress, as to ' future government
transport policy'. The resolution is not easy to interpret. It
states inter alia that:
Congress approves the principle of the elimination of permit vessels in the coastal trade and, in pur suance. of this objective, amending the Navigation Act to provide ... that crews of vessels of foreign
registry shall not be used to perform work which could be performed by shore based labour.
It is difficult to see how the elimination of permit vessels
would be furthered by the provision about crews of foreign
vessels and it is probable that these are two quite unrelated
objectives. The whole of the evidence before me shows that the
vessels where disputes have arisen are not engaged or likely to
be engaged as permit vessels in the coastal trade.
Problems of Interpretation of Terms
The actual terms of the resolution are so wide that it is
impossible to give them a literal interpretation.
If one takes the case of a foreign vessel in port, then
quite obviously there are a vast number of duties performed by
crews which could be performed by shore labour. The duties of
the cooks and stewards and catering staff could be done by shore
labour, the keeping of watches, the cleaning of crews' accommoÂ
dation and the like could also be performed by shore labour.
157
Sea-going shipwrights' duties could be performed by shore-based
shipwrights while land-based engineers could take over the duties
of marine engineers. Similar considerations apply to radio
officers and other crew members.
In truth, the terms used are so wide that there would be
nothing members of a crew would be able to do in port.
Mr. Campbell clearly acknowledged that this interpretation
went far beyond the intention of the resolution, while Mr. Gordon
persisted that it was a proper resolution in those terms. He
then maintained that those who took part in the making of the
resolution knew its real meaning and its real meaning was not the
literal interpretation. Whether Mr. Gordon knew the meaning he
ascribed to it may be one thing. It is impossible to view each
of the hundreds of delegates present at the Congress as accepting
the same view and one differing so widely from the words used.
In the circumstances I find it difficult to obtain any
assistance from this resolution of the flCTU. As mentioned elseÂ
where, the ACTU was on a number of occasions invited to make
submissions to the Commission but did no more than acknowledge
receipt of the invitations.
12.4.4 Reluctance of the ACTU to be Involved.
In considering the weight to be attached to the resolutions
I must have regard to the fact that they were not supported in
any way by evidence or by argument, and no explanation was
offered of the reasons which led to the resolutions being
adopted in the particular form. This was not for want of trying
by this Commission. Evidence was given by the ACTU in the first
part of this Inquiry and after the second part had commenced a /â
letter was written by the Secretary of the Commission on 4 August
1975 to the A C T U . This letter set out, inter a l i a :
The purpose of this letter is to draw to your
attention certain matters of general interest which were raised by the Commissioner. It is
the Commissioner's intention to examine the following aspects and, in the light of the findings, to make appropriate recommendations in relation t o :
158
a) the desirability of amending the Navigation Act to prohibit the use of crew labour to perform work normally performed by painters and dockers -(i ) at sea;
(ii) in port;
b) the adequacy of union accounting and the require ments for filing of financial statements; and
c) the legality of the payments made to the Maritime Unions and to the Ship Painters and Dockers and Shipwrights of the type disclosed in the evidence to date and, in particular, the introduction of penalty provisions for the obstruction of permit
vessels and making demands.
A copy of the transcript announcing the programme of the
Commission was also forwarded to the ACTU. The letter uas ackÂ
nowledged by that body on 13 August 1975 but no steps were taken
by it to appear.
In these circumstances the Croun Solicitor on 21 August 1975
wrote again to the ACTU. The letter drew attention to some eviÂ
dence which had been given before the Commission and to a short
statement made by Counsel assisting the Commission. I set out
this statement:
But it is quite apparent that your problems would include consideration of the propriety of these payments that are now under consideration; it is . quite apparent that that will involve consideration of trade union ethics; and it seems to me, Your
Honour, that I should say that I, at any rate, would regard it as being very important that we should hear from the Australian Council of Trade Unions about this matter. I am not suggesting that we
need a representative from that organisation in attendance every day, but it would seem to me with respect that the very least that could be expected from that body - which presumably has general re sponsibility for trade unionism in this country - is an attendance by a high ranking officer and a
statement of policy with respect to the sort of problem that this Commission has got to decide.
The ACTU uas further advised that if it intended to make
submissions the Commission would arrange a suitable date and
venue to enable this to be done. This letter uas acknowledged
and the Crown Solicitor uas advised that its contents would be
considered by the Executive of the ACTU at a meeting on or about
1 September 1975. No further advice uas received from the ACTU
159
and no evidence led or submission made on its behalf. This uas
obviously a matter on uhich the ACTU uas entitled to take whatÂ
ever course it thought best, but when it chose not to appear to
discuss an attitude or to state and explain vieus it is difficult
to regard those vieus and attitudes as being considered of
importance by the ACTU.
12.4.5 Unions' Actions not Supported
It will be noted that even the last three resolutions of the
ACTU appear to express differing vieus as to the work involved
and other matters. Houever, none of them appears to be a demand
that work, such as cleaning, uhich could be performed by crews
either between ports or on a voyage to Australia should be reÂ
served to shore-based labour. In addition it is quite clear that
nothing in any of the resolutions gives any approval to the
practice of demanding payment either to the Unions or their memÂ
bers where work was not performed. I treat the ACTU resolutions
as showing a union belief that, where the existence of a pool of
labour is necessary, some work should be reserved to them, but
not as supporting a policy either of demanding payment or inÂ
sisting that crews be deprived of work if performed outside
ports. Other than this the ACTU resolutions properly interpreted
afford no support for the action taken by the Unions.
12.4.6 Conclusion
I am satisfied that the reasons for and the purpose of the
demands were not to enforce ACTU policy.
The demands would have been made and pressed whatever the
ACTU policy. If further support for this view is needed there
is the glaring fact that there appears to have been no report at
any stage to the ACTU or its officers that these demands were
made and payments obtained.
160
12.5 THE REAL REASONS
I turn then to consider the real reasons and purposes for the
demands and payments.
12.5.1 Ships' Agents
So far as those making the payments are concerned, the
reasons may be very shortly stated. With the exception of a
feu vessels where it uas accepted by the shipping company that
work had been done by creus in breach of a practice, the payments
were made in the face of an express or implied threat that the
vessel concerned would be banned until the payment uas made or in
the fear that this would happen. The threat uas a very real one
and where the fear existed, it uas engendered by a knowledge of
uhat had happened in the port and uas a reasonable fear.
One can readily understand the plight of a ship's agent or
master, if there uas a refusal to comply with the demand. He had
to face the possibility that the vessel would be held up at a
cost to the charterer or the shipowner far exceeding uhat uas inÂ
volved in the payment. It uas clearly to the short term comÂ
mercial advantage of the shipowner or charterer that the payment
should be made and there were many instances of agents so
advising their clients.
12.5.2 Painters and Dockers Union and MUU
So far as these Unions are concerned, the payments began
after attempts to secure a greater volume of work for casual
painters and dockers were seen to have failed. As pointed out
earlier, there uas a decline in work available uhich uas accenÂ
tuated from time to time by technological changes, such as the
use of bulk carriers and the introduction of containerisation.
At the outset, in Fremantle the demands were for payment of
painter and docker rates to creu members uho had done the work.
That then changed to a demand for payment to the casual painters
and dockers uho would have been picked up for the job if done in
port. There uas then a period when payment to the Union uas
161
demanded. This changed back to a demand for payment to the
casual painters and dockers and then changed back again to payÂ
ment to the Union. This has varied somewhat indiscriminately
since then.
In other ports, except Port Kembla, the demand has been,
uith rare exceptions, for payment to the local branch of the
Union.
I am satisfied that the reason for the early demands and
the purpose of those demands uas to secure a greater share of
work for painters and dockers. In ports other than Fremantle,
there uere pools of casual painters and dockers. They were
necessary for the industry, but remained completely casual, unÂ
like other sections of the seagoing and uaterfront industries.
In the case of seagoing employees, the licensing system
reserved uork in the coastal trade for them, and the various
stabilisation schemes eventually ensured them of the advantages
of permanent employment.
In the case of waterside workers, s .45 of the Navigation Act
reserved to them an area of uork and varying schemes under the
Stevedoring Industry Act have ensured them of a system of guaranÂ
teed earnings, annual leave, sick leave, paid public holidays and
long service leave.
The painters and dockers then uere at a grave disadvantage
and uere left behind not only by the wave of technological
change, but by the facts of industrial life.
12.6 CONCLUSION
I am satisfied then that the campaign began in order to secure a
greater share of uork for the painters and dockers. I think that
in the Ports of F rem-Sntle, Sydney and Port Kembla, it has since
acquired other overtones.
12.6.1 Sydney
In Sydney, I am satisfied that an additional motive has beÂ
come a desire to build up Union funds. This is illustrated by
a number of facts. There uas the willingness to allow uork to be
162
done by the creu in exchange for payment, as in the case of the
Glyfada Summer and the Stolt Zeus and other ships.
12.6.2 Fremantle
Similarly, in Fremantle, uhat began as a campaign to secure
uork I think uas transformed into a campaign designed to build-up
Union funds and to distribute money to casual painters and
dockers for uork uhich uas never in fact done.
An example of this is the demand on the Havtor in March
1975. This is a large vessel and required a lot of cleaning. The
amount of uork made it necessary for some cleaning to be done
auay from a berth, at anchorage. Wells refused to supply labour
for this but agreed to the creu doing it.
The real motivation for the Campaign
Until 1973 the MWU had sought and taken part in disÂ
cussions and conferences uith shipping interest. At the same
time demands and payments had occurred. The real motive, I
think, uas up to this time to secure some uork for members. It
uas fear of unemployment through redundancy. This is not enÂ
tirely the case in recent years. No real effort has been made
to. have any discussions or reach agreement uith the shipping
agents on the uork claimed by the Union. This fact is evident
in the attitude of Wells and his Committee of Management touards
the meetings of interested shipping agents, uhich uere held in
1975.
The meetings uere held after Mr. K.N. Patrick had approached
the Western Australian Branch of the AEWL for assistance, uithout
success. Apparently Patrick advised the AEWL that quite a large
disagreement existed uith the MWU on areas of uork and their deÂ
mands for payment. The matter uas referred to the Committee of
Management of the Federal body of AEWL, uhich informed the
Western Australian Branch that it uas not prepared to act on the
problems in Fremantle.
It uas then suggested that the AEWL in Fremantle act as a
Secretariat for a meeting of interested shipping bodies. The
163
first such meeting uas held on 1 May 1975, at uhich various
problems uere discussed and possible steps to overcome them.
At the next meeting on 20 June 1975, it uas decided to ask
Uells for a meeting to discuss these disagreements and, if
possible, come to some agreement on uhich uork uas to be reÂ
garded as the Union's uork. This uas the first indication of
uillingness by shipping interests to discuss and negotiate on
the Union's demand for uork.
After discussion uith his Committee of Management, Uells
telephoned Patrick, and said that the Committee could see no useÂ
ful purpose in such a meeting. In response, Patrick urote a
letter dated 6 August, referring to this telephone conversation
and again requested that a meeting be held. This correspondence
uas considered at a Committee of Management meeting of the MUU on
12 August, and a resolution uas carried that 'the Union hold its
present position in respect to uork rights until the Royal ComÂ
mission has concluded'. Uells agreed during the hearings that
the Union should agree to meet the committee set up by the
shipping interests.
Advice uas subsequently received that Mr. Uells did attend,
on 25 March 1976, but merely delivered an address to the meeting
and that he 'spoke for approximately ten minutes on the ACTU
policy relating to shipping and shipbuilding as adopted by conÂ
gress 1975' and 'provided the meeting uith a copy of the document
setting out such policy'. I do not regard this as having disÂ
cussions and, therefore, I assume that the problem is no uay
nearer to being solved.
This attitude clearly casts doubt on Uells' claim throughout
the hearings of the Commission that the Union's primary concern
uas to secure uork for members and that the money uas not
important. *'
Had that been the primary concern I find it inconceivable
that advantage uould not be taken of an offer by shipping agents
to confer on the problem.
While the campaign started as one to secure more uork, the
acquisition of moneys for Union funds and the gaining of bogus
164
'job and finish1 payments have become probably equally strong
motives for its continuance.
12.6.3 Port Kembla
In Port Kembla there were tuo demands. The outrageous
nature of the demand in the case of the flqano Maru leads me to
the view that the intention there uas primarily to secure money
for division among painters and dockers. Some members of the
Union shared in the spoils, but more went to non-members who may
have been available had more men than those on the roster been
required for the work. Similar considerations apply in the case
of the other vessel, the 3arl R . Trapp.
12.6.4 Tax Free
The circumstances in which the payments were made to indiviÂ
dual painters and dockers leads to a belief that many were
intended to be tax-free.
F rernantle
Examples may be taken firstly from the Port of
Fremantle. As explained in Chapter 7.6.7 dealing with the
Dranqefield, payments to painters and dockers for work not done
on this ship were made in cash and no record appears to have been
kept of the individual men receiving payment. Certainly no tax
was deducted. So too it was intended that the special fund be
divided among casual registered painters and dockers and I do not
believe that this would have been treated as taxable income. An
indication of the general approach is shown by Marshall's eviÂ
dence that he had been asked on one occasion by Uells to pay
painters and dockers directly without deducting tax, but had
refused.
Sydney
In Sydney there are indications of the same approach in
the payment made in the case of the Glyfada Summer. The men who
worked on the vessel were all employees from one shipyard in
Sydney who were then on strike. They worked on this vessel under
165
false names. The only purpose of this could have been to avoid
taxation and, indeed, Mr. Gordon had no hesitation in agreeing
that this uas so.
At Port Kembla no records uere available of the men uho reÂ
ceived payments directly frohi Woodbury, and this, in my vieu, uas
partly for the purpose of evading taxation.
12.7 SHIPWRIGHTS
In the case of the Shipwrights, I am satisfied that the only
reason for the demands uas an endeavour to secure uork for their
casual members. In both Melbourne and Sydney, the demands uere
modest by comparison with those of the Painters and Dockers
Union, and in all cases except one, appear to be of very precise
amounts calculated as the exact amount which would have been
payable had shipwrights been employed. The exception is rather
understandable in the light of the evidence that the agent conÂ
cerned regarded the claim for compensation as one legitimately
made and one where a genuine and fair settlement had been
reached.
12.8 WWF
In the case of the Waterside Workers Federation, the claims for
payment dealt with arise in cases where there uas at least an
arguable case that uork had been done on the vessel in breach of
s.45 of the Navigation Act.
The penalty provided under this section is small and the
delays and difficulties which would be involved in prosecuting
a claim are clear.
I think the real' reason for the demands in the case of this
Union uas to ensure compliance with the Navigation Act provision
and they and the payments uere so treated by all concerned.
166
13 THE LEGALITY AND THE PROPRIETY OF THE DEMANDS AND PAYMENTS
Term 1(e) of the Terms of Reference requires the Commission to
enquire into and report on the legality of any payments or
demands and their propriety, having regard in particular to
Australian trade union principles and ethics.
13.1 LEGALITY
I have been somewhat troubled by the consideration of legality
required by this Term of Reference. It must, I think, be
examined in the light of the functions of a Royal Commission
and the manner in which Royal Commissions are necessarily conÂ
ducted.
13.1.1 Functions of a Royal Commission
There is an obvious and well known difference between Royal
Commissions and Courts of Law. Indeed, on one notorious
occasion it was said, by Counsel speaking of another Commission,
that the only resemblance between it and a Court of Law was that
it happened to have used the same court room and the same furniÂ
ture. I do not go to that length but there are quite important
differences, some of which it is relevant to mention here.
I have, in the hearing, endeavoured to afford all those who
have been concerned in any allegation, an opportunity of being
heard and no one who wished to give evidence has been denied a
hearing. Nevertheless, as these are not judicial proceedings,
specific notice has not been given to all persons of all
allegations made affecting them and persons affected have not
at all times heard evidence affecting them. In many cases I have admitted hearsay evidence or permitted the tender of
documents which would not be admissible in ordinary court proÂ
ceedings. This was done in particular cases where there
appeared to be no real dispute on major aspects of a matter.
In almost all cases, not all those who took part in payments or demands have been called. As an example, in almost all cases the ships' masters played some part in discussions and since none
167
of these officers were at the relevant times in Australia none
uere called. If they gave evidence, their evidence may or may
not support that given and there may well be cases uhere the eviÂ
dence of other uitnesses could have a material bearing. It is
also to be remembered, that a statement or disclosure made by a
person in this Commission is not admissible in evidence in subÂ
sequent proceedings against him.
In these circumstances, it would seem to be inappropriate to
report specifically on whether specific acts in relation to speÂ
cific ships were offences against criminal law or made particular
individuals or bodies liable under civil law.
I am further led to adopt this course in part by the fact
that it did not appear that any of those who had made a payment
wished to take proceedings either civilly or criminally in reÂ
spect of the demands or payments.
One Governmental authority, the Fremantle Port Authority,
which might have acted by using its disciplinary powers had not
done so, and the final address on its behalf showed a continuing
reluctance to use such existing powers as it had either under its
own statute or under Western Australian Law.
Counsel assisting the Commission urged that I should not
attempt to record findings in detail on each of the numerous cases
before me. Indeed, to do so would involve a careful consideration
of facts relating to over one hundred separate incidents. A conÂ
siderable further amount of evidence would be necessary and much
more time occupied and the ultimate result may well be entirely
negative.
13.1.2 Course to be Adopted
I do not propose then to examine the facts of any particular
case with a view to making a specific finding whether some illeÂ
gality has been committed by an individual person or body. NeverÂ
theless , I think it is not unimportant to consider some areas of
the law.
In considering legal issues I have had the benefit of
addresses from Counsel appearing for various employment bodies
168
and of Counsel assisting the Commission. I have also had the
benefit of reading an opinion given by fir. 3.U. Smyth, Q.C., Mr.
J.R. Kerr (as he then was) and Mr.3.H . Uooten (as he then uas).
This uas an opinion obtained from these leading Counsel as a reÂ
sult of the report of a Senate Select Committee reporting upon
payments to maritime Unions in September 1958.
13.1.3 Commonwealth Crimes Act Section 30 K
This section provides uhere relevant:
30 K. Whoever, by violence to the person or property of another person, or by spoken or written threat or intimidation of any kind to whomsoever directed, or, without reasonable cause or excuse, by boycott or threat of boycott of person or property ...
(d) obstructs or hinders the transport of goods or the conveyance of passengers in trade or commerce with other countries ... shall be
guilty of an offence.
In the light of the facts disclosed, the most likely offence
under this section would be the offence of without reasonable
cause or excuse, by boycott or threat of boycott of property,
obstructing or hindering the transport of goods in trade or
commerce with other countries.
As has been pointed out, a number of difficulties arise in
considering this section.
It seems necessary to show an actual obstruction or hindrance
of transport of goods and not that such hindrance is simply antiÂ
cipated, feared or threatened. In some cases, although a ship was
held up, there uas no obstruction because no cargo uas being
carried.
The obstruction or hindrance must be brought about ny -a) violence to the person or property of another person, or b ) spoken or written threat or intimidation of
any kind, or c) by boycott or threat of boycott of person or property.
169
On the evidence before me, it uould seem unlikely that a
prosecution under s .30 K uould succeed, as to an allegation of
violence or spoken or written threat or intimidation. This seems
to be the opinion of those Counsel who addressed the Commission
on this aspect.
However, the offence to which a majority of addresses conÂ
cerning s .30 K turned uas that of obstruction caused by boycott
or threat of boycott. There is no specific evidence before me as
to the commission of an act of boycott by any particular person
or body even though some union officials may be liable as prinÂ
cipal offenders under the aiding and abetting provisions of s.5
of the Act, that is if any offence uas committed by those who
boycotted the vessel. It may well be that certain union officials
incited or encouraged the commission of an offence and so comÂ
mitted an offence under s .7 A.
There is, however, the defence of reasonable cause which
uould seem to apply to all the cases of boycott or threatened
boycott which were before the Commission. It uas held in King v .
Archdall & Roskruqe, ex parte Corrigan & Bruun (1928) 41 C.L.R.
128 at p.136:
Reasonableness is relative, and must be proportioned to the circumstances of the case considered as a whole...
So one uould necessarily have to consider 1 as a whole'
whether the actions were in support of a genuine industrial
policy or a mere pretext for extorting money. Assuming the forÂ
mer, the question of reasonableness of the actions uould then
arise. The tribunal uould necessarily examine and analyse the
circumstances having regard to the nature of the boycott, the
positions of the parties concerned, the grounds, the means emÂ
ployed, the object of the person charged and other relevant
factors. f â
In the circumstances I have outlined and having regard both
to th,e time which uould be involved in an investigation of each
cane and the attitudes of the parties, I do not propose to conÂ
sider this matter further.
In both areas the Commission has dealt with it would seem
that there is sufficient evidence which would enable a tribunal
170
hearing a charge to find that the boycotts were imposed or
threatened in pursuance of an industrial po;licy (Thorne v. V/eitch
(1942) A. C . 435),, The support of policies for welfare of a 'body'
or any of its constituent parts could constitute ' reasonable
cause' and thus a sound defence. This uould apply to the mariÂ
time unions and the Painters and Dockers Union and the Shipwrights
which appeared before the Commission.
Mr. Carruthers appearing for certain shipping interests
argued that s .30 K could certainly apply to the cases of the
Hyogo Maru and the Agano Mar u (at p . 6471 of the transcript). This
now, however, does not seem to be so since at the relevant times
the former vessel does not appear to have been obstructed and the
latter uas not engaged in transporting goods.
13.1.4 Conspiracy at Common Law
Conspiracy has bee:: defined in Kenny's ' Outlines of Criminal
Law' (17th Edn) at p .391 as being ' the agreement of two or more
persons to effect any unlawful purpose, whether as their ultimate
aim or only as a means to it'.
The concept of civil conspiracy has developed and the culÂ
mination of numerous House of Lords' decisions was seen in Crofter
Harris Tweed Co. v. l/eitch (1942 A.C.435). It uas held in this
case that if the 'predominant purpose' of a combination is to
damage another person and damage does result, that is a tortious
conspiracy. If the predominant purpose is the lawful protection
of the combiners (no illegal means being employed) it is not a
tortious conspiracy, even though damage is caused to another
person.
The question, then, is to determine the predominant object
of the combination of the unions involved and their representative
officials. Complications will obviously arise when there are a
number of people involved as there may be mixed motives.
It turns on whether the combination uas simply directing its
mind to extorting money from shipowners by threat or boycott, or
whether the predominant purpose uas the lawful interests of the
171
unions where those involved believed that those interests would
directly suffer if the threat of boycott uas not made.
The real objective seemed to be to enforce union policy
(inter alia employment for Australian crews and shore-based labour
labour).
There seems no question that convictions for criminal conÂ
spiracy would be unlikely since a jury would have to be satisfied
beyond reasonable doubt of the wrongful or unlawful purpose of
the combination. The difficulties in defining and substantiating
in law the word 1 unlawful' was dealt with at considerable length
in the Royal Commission on Espionage in its report at p.287 and
the evidentiary problems are patently obvious.
In some cases it seems there may have been illegal actions
which would make participants liable. So in Western Australia
and New South Wales there appear to have been threats to procure
or incite employees on tugs to take part in a strike illegally
under the State Arbitration Acts. If this were so, and it deÂ
pends on whether these employees were bound by State Awards, as
to which I have no real evidence, then I think there would clearly
be liability for civil conspiracy.
There is not however sufficient evidence before me clearly
to establish the authority of individuals involved and hence the
liability of the bodies in which they held office.
13.1.5 Statutory Conspiracy
Section 86 of the Crimes Act 1914-1973 is the only relevant
section and it is only relevant if there had been an offence under
s . 30 K , and this seems unlikely following what has been discussed
as a defence to 1 without reasonable cause'. >
13.1.6 Demanding Money with Menaces â
Section 99 of the Crimes Act (NSW) creates or codifies the
crime of demanding money with menaces.
In Thorne v. Motor Trade Association (1937) A.C. 797 at
p . 807, Lord Atkin said:
172
... It appears to me that if a man may lawfully, in the furtherance of business interests, do acts which will seriously injure another in his business he may also lawfully, if he is
still acting in furtherance of his business interests, offer that other to accept a sum of money as an alternative to doing the in jurious acts. He must no doubt be acting
not for the mere purpose of putting money in his pocket, but for some legitimate pur pose other than the mere acquisition of money.
Uhether or not a demand is 1 properly imposed1 depends on
whether the person demanding has a claim of right to do so.
This was dealt with in R .u. Bernhard (1938) 2 K.B. at p.264,
and it seems that if one has a claim of right within the meaning
of this judgment, then that is good defence to a s .99 prosecution.
Such claim of right seems to have been established in discussion
turning on Thorne's case, and all Counsel considered that no proÂ
secution should be pursuant to s .99 or s.100.
Thus it seems unlikely that a conviction would be obtained
under s.99 or like sections in other State Statutes.
13.1.7 Other Tortious Liability
It should be stated at the outset that in relation to these
civil matters, it should be left to the parties to pursue such an
avenue if it is desired.
Mr. Newman (for Australian Newsprint Mills and others) dealt
at some length with the question of civil liability.
However, in all the circumstances, including those to which
I have referred earlier and the history of the use of civil action
in industrial disputes, I do not propose to go further than to
say that I am of the view that if the evidence given before me
were available in a civil action, I am satisfied that actions for
damages would lie.
13.1.8 Moneys Had and Received
The particular aspect of common money counts which would seem
to apply is that of money paid under duress. It is dealt with in
173
Bullen & Leake 'Precedents of Pleadings' (12th Edn ) at p . 671.
At p .6521 of the transcript, Mr. Tinney, Counsel assisting
the Commission, deals in some detail with this count, but the
relevant part seems to be:
The action is based on a promise implied by equity to repay and I would submit there are some clear cases here where the shipping agents would have to succeed if they brought their action. One has in mind cases where they had pressure put on them, where pressure went to bans and threats of bans, where they even resisted, and a couple of cases where they paid under protest. They would be the clearest cases for recovery.
Modern authority for this proposition in the High Court is
Bell Brothers Pty. Limited v. The Shire of Serpentine - Oarrahdale
(1969), 44 A.L.ZJ.R. p. 26.
13.1.9 Unsuitability of Existing Legal Remedies
Uhat is clear, however, is that there are considerable diffiÂ
culties in the way of any legal remedies which may exist at the
present time. One reason is that those concerned with a vessel
are always concerned that there should be as little delay as
possible. Proceedings which might require officers of a vessel
either to remain in, or to return to, Australia would involve very
heavy expense and perhaps delays to ships. In addition, partiÂ
cularly in the case of payments to the Painters and Dockers Union
and the Shipwrights, the amounts involved are relatively small as
against the consequence of delay to the vessel.
A combination of these two factors seems to have led to the
position that no attempt has been made over the years during which
payments have been demanded to invoke the law in any way at all.
For this reason, I considered it would ultimately be more fruitful
to consider a provision of a speedy and summary remedy which may
discourage actions of the type I have been dealing with, as proÂ
posed in Chapter 15.
174
13.2 PROPRIETY
13.2.1 Permit Vessels
In my Interim Report, I expressed the vieu that the demands
and receipt of payments by the seven maritime unions uere imÂ
proper (see Chapter 29 - 1, 2, 4).
On reconsideration, I am still of the vieus then expressed.
13.2.2 Painters and Dockers Union
Nature of Campaign
The history of the campaign uhich has been already set
out in Chapter 3, shous it beginning as a campaign by the Union
to secure more uork for painters and dockers. The Union has
attempted to achieve this not by uhat might be regarded as a
normal union campaign against an employer but by demanding uork
and later money from shipping agents uho uere never employers of
painters and dockers.
The amounts ultimately uould be payable by the shipping
ouners or charterers and uould inevitably be reflected in costs
to the Australian community. This uould arise in at least tuo
uays. In some places there uas some evidence of a great reluctÂ
ance for foreign shipping ouners to charter their vessels for use
in voyages to and from Australia. The time of the hearing uas
one uhere there uas a uorld surplus of shipping and uhen that
ceases one uould expect that reluctance to become more marked
and shou itself in increased freight rates. Uhen foreign ships
are held up because uork must be done in port, the costs of the
delay uhich may be considerable uill be added to the costs of
either the charterer of goods or the consignee of goods. In any
event, the community generally is affected.
I am satisfied that the campaign degenerated from its origiÂ
nal purpose and that the purpose of securing a share of booty
for certain union members, and the purpose of boosting the Union
funds, uere as strong motives for the campaign as any desire to
secure the uork.
175
Method of Enforcing Payments
The method adopted of enforcing payments uas not disÂ
similar to that used in the case of the maritime unions, dealt
uith in the Interim Report. It uas the threat, express or imÂ
plied, that if payments were not made as demanded, the vessel
uould be refused the use of tugs, pilots and/or berthing creus,
or the use of stevedoring or painter and docker labour, so that
it could not be moved and uould be held indefinitely in port.
This involved no loss of uages to any member of the unions inÂ
volved but the cost to the ouner or charterer of keeping a vessel
in port uas very great and ranged betueen $1,500 and $10,000 per
day. The amounts of payment demanded uere markedly less than this
cost and it uas for this reason that so many of the agents and
ship-ouners chose the cheaper uay out and made payment.
Not Ordinary Industrial Disputes
This is not then a case of a union using its industrial
strength against an employer to secure a benefit for its members
from that employer. It is a case of a union using its strength
against third parties and, ultimately, the public. It cannot be
regarded in the same light as strikes in the ordinary sense - the
uithdraual of their labour from an employer by employees in the
course of a struggle against that employer.
Loss of Confidence in Union
There are further factors uhich are particularly disÂ
quieting. A union should drau its income primarily from its
members and uith perhaps further income from voluntary donations.
In the case of the MUU and of the N.S.U. Branch, sums uhich uere
obtained from shipping agents, ouners or charterers, and placed in
Union funds formed a very significant part of the annual income
of each.
t·
Moreover, the total of the amounts being obtained increased
rapidly throughout 1975 and but for the possible easing of the
campaign uhen the Commission uas established, the position uould
probably nou have been reached uhen the amounts received by the
MUU and the N.S.U. Branch in this uay uould far exceed their other
income.
176
Demands and payments were being made with a minimum of pubÂ
licity but, inevitably, within parts of the industry, there would
be a growing knowledge of them. In the case of other unions
particularly and in the case of the public generally, I am satisÂ
fied and, indeed, it was conceded by the union witnesses, that
there would be a loss of confidence in the unions concerned. There
would be a suspicion of their bona-fides which could lead to a
significant loss of public confidence when it might be needed. I
think the same loss of confidence could be expected on the part
of members of the union, certainly those not directly involved
in the payments.
It is not a happy sight to see a belief being developed that
it is proper to receive, in the guise of wages, payments for
nothing which is done or contemplated being done, and the cost of
which is ultimately to be borne by the public. It adds insult to
public injury when the payments appear to be designed to be
tax-free.
Union Officials
Suspicion must inevitably arise as to the position of
officers of the Union. The plain fact is that when a foreign
vessel comes to port, it is a practice for the Master of the
vessel to draw from the ship's agents or other sources, a conÂ
siderable sum of money which he keeps in cash aboard the vessel.
This is used for various purposes, including the purchase of
stores, etc., for the vessel. It seems to me inescapable that in
these circumstances, there must arise suspicions that union
officials would, in some cases, be offered payment in cash
directly by the Master of the vessel.
It would certainly be cheaper for the vessel and for the
Master to do so, and not all the normal standards of commercial
morality seem to have remained in this industry. This suspicion
of course, may be baseless but would be fed by the knowledge that
Mr. VJells, for example, had received two payments in cash from
ship repair firms. This incident is dealt with in Chapter 8.2,
but it shows that temptations can arise and there would clearly
be justification for a suspicion that they were prevalent and may
have been yielded to.
177
Neglect of Members1 Real Interests
A further factor of importance is that this campaign,
which I believe gradually degenerated into a method of securing
payment for work not done and to boost union funds, seems to have
prevented the Union from taking any steps to remedy the problems
their casual members were facing.
In ports other than Fremantle, there were men employed
casually with no security at all. In the case of other waterfront
labour, schemes exist which ensure both a reservation of some area
of work and give a guaranteed weekly income, yet no steps at all
were taken in these ports except Fremantle to put painters and
dockers in the same position as the other workers. One reason
for this is, I think, that officials were too blinded by their
campaigns and the moneys they found available, to give sufficient
thought or take any steps to remedy the plight of their members.
So too, no action was taken to provide any compensation for those
made redundant by technological and other changes.
l\lo Attempt to Justify
I find it significant that no official appearing before
me sought to justify completely the campaign of demands and payÂ
ments . At the best, they complained that they had been forced
into the campaign because other methods were not open to them. It
was suggested, however, that the fact that the ACTU had not critiÂ
cised these payments was an endorsement of them.
This is really an argument of desperation and merits no
further discussion.
Conclusion
In all these circumstances I have no doubt that the
system of demanding and receiving payments is grossly improper.
It is contrary to thge best interests of the Australian community,
trade unions and their members generally and to particular unions
and their members. â
13.2.3 Shipwrights
The part played by the Shipwrights was in a much lower key
than that of the Painters and Dockers Union. In N.S.LJ. there were
178
uere ten vessels where payment was involved and in Victoria,
nine. In some of these cases, I am satisfied the proposal for
payment of money came from ships' agents and, in other cases, payÂ
ments uere made when there was a clear breach of the practice
uhich had been reached by 1970 in respect to the erection of
fittings.
In the remainder, the picture uhich emerges is that, after
the Union found that work had been performed by ship's crew uhich
they regarded as their uork, a request uas made for payment of an
amount to compensate for this. In each case, the amount uas careÂ
fully calculated to be equal to payment at auard rates of the
number of men uho uould normally be involved. In one case only
does there appear to have been a threat to hold the vessel up. The
amounts involved are quite small and it cannot be said that they
shou any intention to build up Union funds in the uay I have inÂ
dicated in the case of the Painters and Dockers Union. Moreover,
both Mr. Campbell, the General Secretary and Mr. Gay, N.S.U.
Secretary, expressed their strong dislike for the systems used.
While I am of the opinion that the method of seeking compenÂ
sation uas still improper, I don't think that the same degree of
criticism should be levelled at this Union.
13.2.4 UUF
I have dealt earlier in this report uith the various demands
made by the UUF Branches. These are relatively feu in number and
relate to occasions of the performance of uork by members of the
ship's crew uhich, in my view, has been reserved to shore labour
by s .45 of the Navigation Act. Exceptions are recent demands made
in the Port of Melbourne, uhich are considered in Chapter 10.7,
dealing uith this Union.
Uhile I think that these demands uere not justified, it is
easy to see hou they have arisen. The penalty provided for a
breach of s.45 of the Navigation Act is small, and obvious diffiÂ
culties uould arise in bringing proceedings and having them heard
and a penalty imposed uhile the vessel uas in port.
179
If the demands had reached any significant number, I think
it would be necessary to consider an amendment of s.45 to increase
the penalty and to provide a method of proceeding against, for
example, a ship's agent, which would ensure that the penalty proÂ
vision could be properly enforced. In view, however, of the
small number of incidents, I think it unnecessary at this stage
to take this aspect further.
/ ·
180
TERÎ OF REFERENCE 2
I come then to the second of the Terms of Reference which is -
2. To recommend in the light of the findings -a) what action, if any, should be taken in respect of such payments; and
b) what legislative or administrative changes are necessary or desirable in relation to these matters,
and I propose to deal with it under three headings.
Firstly, amendments proposed to s .45 of the Navigation Act.
Secondly, other amendments proposed to that Act or to the ConÂ
ciliation & Arbitration Act and thirdly, action appropriate to
be taken concerning accounting practices and financial reporting
requirements.
Under the first head, I deal with proposals made to me by
some of the Unions, designed to reserve an area of work to
painters and dockers and shipwrights.
Under the second head, I deal with the question of what
should be done in respect of the moneys paid, and with other
proposals made primarily by the shipping interests for legisÂ
lative provisions.
Under the third head, I deal with deficiencies revealed in
the accounts of unions and I rely considerably on investigations
and reports made by Price Waterhouse Associates who were engaged
as consultants.
24228/ 76â 7
181
14 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 45 OF THE NAVIGATION ACT
14.1 UNION PROPOSALS
At an early stage the two Unions concerned in this part of the
Inquiry made various proposals for amendments to s.45 of the
Navigation Act to prohibit crews of foreign vessels doing
certain wor k .
14.1.1 Shipwrights
The Shipwrights Union has maintained a consistent attitude
throughout - that work which requires the use of shipwrights'
tools, other than some undefined maintenance work, should be reÂ
served to shore-based shipwrights and that members of the crew
should be prohibited from doing the work.
The major aspects of the work involved are the preparation
of holds, including sealing the bilges, manufacture, repair and
replacement of gratings, the shoring or tomming of cargo and
the lashing and unlashing or otherwise securing or releasing of
cargo, whether deck cargo or cargo in holds. There are other
minor items but these are the principal ones.
During final addresses Mr. Campbell, appearing for the
Shipwrights, put forward the following proposed amendment to
s.45, on behalf of the Union:
45-(1) Except as prescribed, a member of the crew of a foreign going ship (whether British or foreign) shall not be employed at or between ports in Australia in handling cargo, ballast, or on work in connection with the securing or releasing of cargo, or the prep aration of ships' holds for the carriage of cargo or the loading or unloading of a ship.
Provided that the regulations shall forbid the use of ships' crews to perform such work, at or between Australian ports, where a sufficiency of shore-.based labour is available.
(1A) The rates of wages to be paid in any port in Australia to shore labour employed on the work speci fied in the preceding sub-section shall be not less than the rates in any scale prescribed, under an award or agreement (if any) made or agreed to under any Commonwealth or State Act, for the payment of such labour at that port.
182
Penalty (on master, owner, agent or charterer) for any offence against either of the last tuo preceding sub-sections: Tuo thousand dollars.
(IB) If a sufficiency of shore labour cannot be obtained at such rates of wages it shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be not available, and, in that case, the creu may be employed to the extent of the insufficiency.
(2) Uithout limiting the generality thereof, the work referred to in sub-section (l) shall include the loading and discharge of cargo, ballasting, cleaning of ship holds and bilges, laying dunnage or gratings, battening out, burlapping, livestock fittings, grain fittings, cargo or grab damage repairs, shoring or lashing of cargo, dismantling lashings and shores, air bags or any other form of cargo securing device, and any work requiring the use of tools of trade of shipwrights.
(3) The regulations may forbid the employment, except as prescribed, of members of the crews of Australian-trade ships in handling cargo or ballast in connexion with the loading or unloading of ships.
14.1.2 Painters and Dockers
The Federated Ship Painters and Dockers' Union, at first
advanced a claim that crew members should be prohibited from
doing any work which fell within the description of work in the
scope clause of the Ship Painters and Dockers Award. An examinÂ
ation of the scope clause set out in Appendix VIII will show the
unreality and width of this claim. It would include work never
in dispute which, it was freely conceded, was proper to be perÂ
formed by crew members. This claim was pressed by some branches
in respect of work whether done in port between ports or on the
nigh seas.
At a later stage Mr. Gordon announced that he did not proÂ
Dose to make any submissions at all, and that remained his final
nosition. However, he tendered a resolution of the ACTU Congress
:f September 1975 which announced a policy of that body as being
30 seek an amendment of the Navigation Act to provide that 'crews
3f vessels of foreign registry shall not be used to perform work
:hat can be performed by shore-based labour'. I have already
iiscussed in Chapter 12.4.3 this resolution and its width.
183
14.1.3 Maritime Workers' Union
Mr. Troy, appearing for the MUU, put forward, during his
final address, the following proposed amendment to s.45, on beÂ
half of the Union:
45. - (1) Except as prescribed a member of the crew of a foreign-going ship (whether British or foreign) shall not be employed at. a port in Australia in -a) the loading or unloading of cargo into or
from ships or vessels;
b) the loading or unloading, into or from ships or vessels, of ships or vessels' stores, coal or fuel oil (whether for bunkers or not), passengers' luggage or mails;
c) the handling or storage of cargo or other goods at or adjacent to a wharf;
d) the driving or operating of mechanical appliances used in connexion with the loading or unloading of ships or vessels or with the handling or storage of cargo or other goods at or adjacent to a wharf or jetty;
e) the haulage or trucking from ship or vessel to shed, or shed to ship or vessel;
f) the removal or replacing of beams or hatches;
g) the handling of dunnage or ballast;
h ) the preparing or cleaning of holds or tanks;
i) the securing of cargo;
j) the preparation of gear for use in connexion with the loading or unloading of ships or vessels.
Provided that the regulations shall not allow the employment of the crew of such ship or vessel in any of the above mentioned operations where a sufficiency of shore labor is available.
Provided further that for the purpose of this Sub. Section the word 'port' shall be deemed to include voyaging from an Australian port to another Australian port.
14.1.4 Summary of Submissions
It is a matter for regret that the Painters and Dockers
Union chose to make no submissions, but I do not think that for
that reason I should fail to consider its claims. On the other
184
hand, I have had valuable submissions from the Shipwrights Union
and from the Maritime Workers Union and despite the other
union's refusal, I must reach the best conclusions I can without
any assistance from it.
What the Unions are seeking then is that an area of work be
reserved to shore-based labour, to the exclusion of ships' crews.
The substantial case put by the Unions is that there is a
need for a reserve force of both shipwright and painter and
docker labour at least in the major ports of Australia. The
work available to this reserve force has, for a number of
reasons, kept dropping away, until the survival of such a work
force is placed in doubt. If it is to survive then work must
be found and the solution proposed is that ships' crews be preÂ
vented from doing work which can be done by shore-based labour.
The case for the shipping interests, in opposition, was in
substance based on the view that the owner or charterer of a
vessel should be entitled to choose the type of labour he deÂ
sires to perform work in the disputed classes in his vessel. In
addition, it was argued that if there was a prohibition of the
use of crew labour, freight costs would inevitably rise and this
would be contrary to the public interest.
It was common ground that a pool of skilled shore labour
was necessary to meet the needs of the shipping industry. The
question is how to do this in a manner which does justice to all
concerned. I now consider the cases presented by the two 'sides'
in more detail.
14.2 THE PAINTERS AND DOCKERS' CASE
The Painters and Dockers Union is a small Union with a total
membership now of approximately 2,100. It has members in a
number of ports, but in a number of other ports the work of
painters and dockers is performed either by members of the WaterÂ
side Workers Federation or by non-union labour. The ports where
the Union has an effective membership and where work of the
nature now being considered is performed are -
185
Fremantle Port Adelaide Geelong Melbourne Port Kembla Sydney Newcastle Brisbane
14.2.1 Most Evidence Concerns Fremantle
The position of painters and dockers varies somewhat
between ports. More evidence was given of the systems of work
at Fremantle than at other ports and I use that material to conÂ
sider the claims and their effect at Fremantle. While there was
not the same detail available for other ports, the general
position appears little different.
Work Available
The evidence shows that the hours worked at Fremantle
varied very markedly. Exhibit BG tendered showed that in the
years since 1958/59, the greatest number of hours worked in any
one year was 171,764, and that these were worked in that period
by ninety-five registered casual workers. For the year 1973/74,
the number of hours worked had fallen to 62,567, and the average
daily number of registered casual workers in that twelve months
period was seventy-three. For the year 1974/5, the number of
hours worked had increased to 78,045 and the average daily numÂ
ber of registered casual workers was seventy-four. This inÂ
crease was due in part to an unexpected refit of the H.M.A.S.
Moresby. I think it was also due in part to the fact that some
hours paid for but not worked, as part of the bogus job and
finish scheme, are included.
There is no doubt that there has been a very considerable . . Î
falling off in the hours of work available to casual painters
and dockers. This is due to a number of factors to which referÂ
ence has already been made; technological change such as the
use of self-trimming bulk carriers in the grain trade, the use
of more modern and better maintained vessels which has reduced
the quantum of cleaning and other work required, the use of
larger vessels, the use of more specialised vessels and
186
containerisation have all played their part in reducing the need
for painters and dockers.
In recent years, the falling off in overseas trade has also
had its effects in reducing the uork available. Houever,
although the uork available has been dramatically reduced, need
for a uork force of casual painters and dockers still remains
and during the tuelve months ended September 1974, uhen the
quantum of uork uas at its louest, there uere fifty-five days on
which all available registered casual uorkers were employed. Of
forty-one of those days, there uere shortages of labour uhich
involved either employment of unregistered casual uorkers or
transfers of labour from less urgent to more urgent jobs. In
the tuelve months ended 30 September 1975, there uere ninety-
four days uhen all available men uere employed, on eighty-one
of those days there uere shortages of labour uhich involved
either the employment of unregistered casual uorkers or the
transfer of labour from less urgent to more urgent jobs.
Fluctuations in Labour Requirements
The evidence and the documents tendered by the Fremantle
Port Authority shou that there are violent fluctuations in
labour requirements and quite unpredictable calls for labour in
the Port of Fremantle. This appears to arise partly from the
fact that in the case of some cargoes, the requirements for
cleanliness of vessels are necessarily high, e.g. for grain carÂ
goes, uhich are nou almost invariably carried in bulk carriers
and not bagged, the holds of the vessels employed in this trade
must be cleaned to a high standard. It appears that in the case
of something like 50%, of the vessels uhich come to Fremantle in
ballast to pick up grain cargoes, further cleaning is required
before they can load, because they have failed survey.
The major cost factor is the cost of delay to a ship and
uhen cleaning or other uork is required, it is almost invariably
required to be done urgently and speedily. It is for this reaÂ
son that there are violent and unpredictable fluctuations in the
number of men required. As many men as can be usefully employed
are engaged for the job and the uork frequently extends into
ueekends and overtime hours on ueek days.
187
The MUU first sought that creus of foreign vessels be preÂ
vented from doing any uork of the nature performed by painters
and dockers, whether on the high seas, between Australian ports
or in port.
Its case for a prohibition on the use of crew labour for
certain uork, was expressed in two ways:
a) it was said that the primary reason for seeking a prohibition was that the uork was dangerous to ships' crews if performed other than in port and it was also stated that the work was of such a nature that the I4WU had a right to it as a matter of industrial practice.
b) The further claim was that this action should be taken because a pool of labour was necessary and such a pool could only be maintained or given just wages and conditions if they had a monopoly of the uork.
I am satisfied that the claim that the safety of the ships'
crew was now the primary concern of the Union is false. l\lo eviÂ
dence was brought to show that there had been any recent
accidents while doing this work at sea, and on the contrary, the
evidence of a number of ships' agents was that there was no
record of any seamen being landed recently for hospital treatÂ
ment at any port in Western Australia for injuries received
doing this work.
At a later stage in the proceedings fir. Wells, the Secretary
of the Union abandoned his claim that a primary reason was conÂ
cern for the safety of the crew. I have dealt elsewhere with
the claim that there is some industrial right based on the prinÂ
ciples of demarcation in the MWU or the Painters and Dockers
Union to the work but I am quite satisfied that this is not so.
A
14.2.2 The Case in Opposition
Submissions were made by the Australian Chamber of Shipping
and other shipping interests and the Association of Employers of
Waterside Labour, opposing any amendments to s.45.
The written submissions from the International Shipping
Federation Ltd. in London, Australian Chamber of Shipping Western
Australian Branch, Baltic and International Maritime Conference
188
of Copenhagen, and the oral submissions from other shipping
interests, expressed the attitude that shipowners were entitled
to elect whether to use ships' creus or shore-based labour to
perform the work. For reasons of economy creus uould be used
where possible but where considerations of safety or of the size
of the job and the numbers of the crew available made it preferÂ
able to do so, shore labour uould be used. The decision was one
to be made by the owner or charterer, providing it did not
involve dangerous or unreasonable conditions for the workers
involved.
The case against reserving certain work for shore-based
labour on other grounds was put through an Accountant, Mr.
A.C. Pryce, and briefly centred around what uere described as
the 'disastrous' effects of added costs.
The basis of calculation was an average size bulk cargo
carrier of 25,000 tonnes dead weight, which uould normally carry
22,000 tonnes of cargo. Cost components taken into account uere
the cost of fine cleaning, as shown in sample invoices provided
by one member company of the Australian Chamber of Shipping in
Geelong and Sydney, periods of time taken to clean, charter hire
and port charges, such as berthage, towage and mooring, etc.
The cost of cleaning per tonne of cargo was then calculated,
ranging from 91 cents per tonne, based on 2- 5- days cleaning time
at a charter hire of $4,000 per day, to a maximum of $3.28 per
tonne on days at $8,000 charter hire per day. It was then
concluded that, based on the assumption that all cleaning is
carried out by shore labour, the additional cost per year uould
range from $12.3M to $44.4M, which uould result in the escalÂ
ation of freight rates and, ultimately, increases in the cost of
Australian exports, thus prejudicing the export trade.
However, this exercise in effect was meaningless, as it was
based on the assumption that all ships arriving in port uould be
cleaned or needed cleaning, and disregarded the substantial
amount of cleaning already being done by shore labour. The
possible condition of ships was not considered. In fact, some
50/& of ships arriving in Fremantle require no cleaning to pass
survey and, according to the evidence of Mr. Uillings from the
189
Ship Brokers' Association, 80% of foreign bulk cargo ships
arrive in ballast and are cleaned prior to arrival in Australia.
Moreover, it would appear that when submissions are prepared for
negotiations with the Australian Shippers' Council for freight
increases, the cost of cleaning has never been considered as an
item.
14.2.3 Conclusions
No witness uho appeared before the Commission said pools of
casual shipwrights or painters and dockers were unnecessary. On
the contrary, all witnesses questioned on this matter agreed
that this labour was necessary, as some jobs cannot be done by
ships' crews.
It is clear from what has been put before me during the
hearing that there is a need in major ports for pools of casual
painters and dockers and shipwrights. Their services are reÂ
quired to enable the industry to function. Because the need for
them fluctuates, it is not possible for permanent employment to
be provided for them. This was the experience in all of the
ports which were looked at. There were some cases of men in
both types of occupation uho preferred casual work but, in the
majority of cases, casual work was taken because there was no
permanent work of the type available.
In these circumstances, when the number of men required will
vary unpredictably from day to day and from week to week, it is
neither the most just nor the most desirable method of organising
a labour force that they be expected to make their services
available as required, hold themselves in readiness to work, but
have hanging over their heads a continual possibility that their / â opportunities for employment will end.
I am of the opinion that, as the Unions propose, an area of
work should be reserved for shore-based labour. The work I have
in mind is that of cleaning and preparing holds, including, where
necessary, the sealing of bilges and dunnaging, and, also, the
shoring or tomming, lashing or unlashing or otherwise securing or
releasing of cargo, including deck cargo. However, it is
190
necessary to examine first the geographical area where any such
reservation of work should apply.
IJork between Ports and on the High Seas
I am satisfied that a case has not been made out for the
prohibition of crews performing the work referred between ports
or on the high seas, and it would be wrong so to provide. There
is no very real distinction between what is done by a crew in
voyaging from port to port or on the high seas, and in fact, in
voyaging from port to port a vessel will frequently leave
Australian territorial waters.
The facts before me show quite clearly that at the present
time, many vessels are able to do a substantial part of their
cleaning while voyaging. This is particularly so in the case of
vessels arriving in ballast, to pick up a cargo in an Australian
port. If prohibited from so doing, freight costs would inevitÂ
ably rise considerably.
The examination I have made of the facts of employment of
painters and dockers in Fremantle does not satisfy me that a
monopoly of this type is necessary in order to maintain a pool
of labour of approximately the present size. There is nothing
before me to lead to a different conclusion about other ports.
I am not prepared to recommend then that a prohibition
should be introduced against the use of the crews of foreign
vessels for this work, when performed outside a port.
Work within a Port
There remains, however, the area of work within a port,
and it is this work which I propose should be reserved to shore
labour where and when that labour is available and subject to
the conditions later discussed.
As in s .45 at present, the prohibition should apply to
foreign vessels not Australian vessels. However, there are some
foreign vessels which have Australian crews paid at Australian
rates. The prohibition should not extend to them.
The evidence before me discloses quite a mixed position. At
one end of the scale is the Port of Brisbane where, except in
rare cases, any cleaning done in port is done by shore-based
labour. The position in other ports varies markedly and indeed
191
changes from time to time in the same port. There is probably
more cleaning and other uork done by a crew in the Port of Sydney,
spread over such a wide area, than in the case of Fremantle,
which is quite compact and thus more easily policed by the Unions.
It is thus difficult to estimate the additional costs involved in
preventing crews doing the work proposed in port. However, these
costs will have to be met, initially by the shipping interests
and indirectly by the Australian public, if this essential labour
force is to be maintained.
14.2.4 Recommendations - Painters and Dockers
Prohibition on Crews Working
In recommending that a certain area of work on foreign
ships in Australian ports be reserved to shore labour, it is
difficult to specify generally that certain uork be reserved for
the members of a certain union. In some of the ports where shore
labour is available, both the Painters and Dockers Union and the
Shipwrights are represented, in others the work is performed by
members of the WWF, who may be skilled painters and dockers or
qualified shipwrights. Where all three Unions are represented,
there exist demarcation agreements covering the uork. I think
that the matter would be sufficiently covered by a general proÂ
vision in the Navigation Act prohibiting members of the crews of
foreign ships being employed on the work when shore labour is
available. The term 1 foreign ships' should be so defined as to
exclude those foreign vessels with Australian crews working at
Australian rates and conditions. There are a feu such vessels
and no dispute has arisen, or is likely to arise, with them.
Should the Prohibition Operate in all Ports
Any dispute^ as to which union was then entitled is a
matter able to be dealt with under the demarcation powers of the
Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or a State Tribunal.
The prohibition should not be general, but should apply to
particular ports as decided by the Minister for Transport.
The criteria the Minister should apply in determining which
ports should be covered, include -
192
a) The existence in the particular port of a sufficient pool of competent labour operating through a satisfactory roster system.
b ) That the pool is not of such a size that it exceeds the likely requirements of a port.
c ) That arrangements have been made for labour to be available at reasonable times and for supplementing this labour when necessary, or enabling labour to be obtained in an emergency.
d ) There should be in existence a reasonable system of ensuring that work will be per formed with reasonable speed and efficiency.
e ) There should be no continuance of such practices as the demand for and acceptance of payments of the type dealt uith else where in this Report.
Based on the findings of the Commission, I am of the vieu
that the following ports should be prescribed as ports where
crews may not perform the work in question while shore labour is
available:
Brisbane Newcastle Sydney Port Adelaide
if, at the relevant time, they satisfy the criteria.
There are other ports, particularly outports in Uestern
Australia and South Australia, which were not dealt with in eviÂ
dence, so were not considered in any detail by the Commission,
but which may be considered for prescription.
I have certain reservations about prescribing certain other
ports in respect of the work of painters and dockers at this
stage, which I now examine.
Port Kembla
The Sub-branch of the Painters and Dockers Union in this
this port has many unsatisfactory features. Financial arrangeÂ
ments uith the Sydney office are loose and its accounts are not
audited. No financial records are kept and there are no rules
laid down for the proper conduct of the roster. The outrageous
action in the demands and in the methods of distributing the
193
payments leads me to conclude that this port should not be preÂ
scribed under present conditions.
Victorian Branch
The prohibition should not apply in this State. This
Branch of the Painters and Dockers Union covers the Port of
Melbourne. The operation of the Union here has a number of unÂ
satisfactory aspects, for example, statistics reveal that each
member obtaining work from the casual roster averages less than
seven casual jobs per year. I find it impossible to conclude
that a proper system of labour control operates here, and I am
firmly of the view that the organisation of casual painter and
docker labour in this port, in the manner shown in Chapter 4.11
is for some purpose other than stated. The contents of confidenÂ
tial exhibits and the Branch's unsavoury public reputation
afford a deal of support for this vieu.
Geelong is a Sub-branch of the Victorian Branch and similar
considerations apply here.
Fremantle
Some practices have been adopted in Fremantle which are
quite unsatisfactory. The very fact that registered casual
workers here are so much better off than those elsewhere, but that
the demands and payments have reached the level they have, is
disturbing.
Uhen the Minister is satisfied that the criteria are met,
consideration should be given to a prescription of this port.
14.3 THE SHIPWRIGHTS' CASE
The Shipwrights Union is an even smaller union uith about 1,200
members Australia wide of whom some 200-250 are involved in seaÂ
going work. The membership is more widely dispersed than that of
the Painters and Dockers Union, but the ports of interest to the
Commission were the same as those considered in the case of the
Painters and Dockers Union, viz:
F remantle Port Adelaide Melbourne Geelong
194
Port Kembla Sydney Newcastle Brisbane
The evidence obtained by the Commission leads to the conÂ
clusion that the Shipwrights have almost achieved in practice
uhat they are now seeking to have recognised in law and, genÂ
erally , that their claims are not disputed by the shipping
interests.
In the case of Shipwrights, one must also bear in mind that
these are skilled tradesmen who serve an apprenticeship and
possess skills of particular importance to Australian society.
There is no doubt that shipwrights are necessary, principally in
the day to day work, but partly, also, if shipbuilding should
revive. At times in the nation's history, for example, during
UorId Uar II, there were absolute shortages of shipwrights and
numbers had to be built up by drawing very heavily from other
trades. They form an important pool of skills to be drawn on
which cannot quickly be built up.
14.3.1 Recommendations - Shipwrights
I think provision should be made for the prohibition of the
performace of any of the following work which involves the use
of shipwrights' tools of trade while in port.
In Section 2.3 of this Chapter, when dealing with painters
and dockers, I stated that an area of work should be reserved for
shore-based labour, that work being the cleaning and preparing of
holds, including, where necessary, the sealing of bilges and
dunnaging, and, also, the shoring or tomming, lashing or unÂ
lashing or otherwise securing of or releasing of cargo,
including deck cargo. Adoption of this recommendation would mean
that the work of this nature, involving the use of shipwrights'
tools of trade, would be reserved to shore-based shipwrights when
available.
As in the case of painters and dockers the prohibition
should apply in particular ports as decided by the Minister. The
criteria applied by the Minister should be the same in each case.
195
I would add that no branch of the Shipwrights Association
had adopted any practices which would lead me to feel that it
should be treated differently from other branches.
14.4 STABILISATION SCHEMES
In considering whether particular areas of work should be reÂ
served for shore labour, I have taken into account submissions
put to me that shipwrights generally and painters and dockers,
except in Fremantle, are in an anomalous position.
I have already referred in passing to these problems.
The position may be summarised by comparing the conditions
of employment of painters and dockers in Fremantle with those
elsewhere.
14.4.1 MUU
In Fremantle, partly by award, partly by statute and partly
by agreement, registered painters and dockers now receive a
guaranteed weekly income of $133.80. If their earnings together
with attendance money fall below this in any one week they are
paid the difference. Their actual earnings for the last finanÂ
cial year ranged between $8,000 and $10,000. They receive four
weeks annual leave, with a loading of 25%; sick leave; paid
public holidays and long service leave. They are thus in a
somewhat privileged position, both as regards other painters
and dockers and as regards many other employees. This position
has, however, been reached by a combination of award and agreed
provisions, and certain statutes. I do not suggest it needs
review or alteration and it does not seem appropriate to draw
any conclusion otheii' than it is a position properly reached.
Evidence was given of opposition which had been advanced by
employers, to some of these provisions. It seems to me" clear
that they do not result from any 'sweetheart1 deal.
The number of registered casual painters and dockers partiÂ
cipating in this scheme is about seventy-nine. A roster
operates and men are allocated to jobs substantially in turn.
196
At the present time, in Fremantle the cost of the scheme
uhich provides for guaranteed weekly earnings and leave of the
various types I have set out, is met by imposing a levy on emÂ
ployers of painter and docker labour which at present amounts to
$2.98 per man hour. The effect of this has been that the costs
charged to customers by employers of this labour is markedly
higher than that charged by employers of this labour in other
Australian ports.
Casual shipwrights in Fremantle are on the casual roster.
They perform both shipwright and painter and docker work. They
receive the same conditions of employment in these respects.
14.4.2 Painters and Dockers
Outside Fremantle, no attempt has been made by the Painters
and Dockers Union to introduce any of these conditions. It was
explained to me by Mr. Gordon, that the members outside Fremantle
recognised that if a scheme such as the Fremantle one was introÂ
duced, there would necessarily be provisions for discipline and
to ensure a reasonable standard of work. His members, he said,
were opposed to this. That being the position, it would be enÂ
tirely inappropriate to attempt to introduce outside Fremantle a
scheme for painters and dockers such as exists in Fremantle.
14.4.3 Shipwrights
A different view is presented by the Shipwrights. Their
members outside Fremantle do not enjoy these conditions. They
accept that a de-casualisation of the industry must be accomÂ
panied by provisions for registration, suspension or cancelÂ
lation of registration, and disciplinary powers, and are
consequently prepared to accept this.
I was informed that negotiations were being held with the
Metal Trades Industry Association, with a view to such a scheme
being introduced and that the Department of Employment and InÂ
dustrial Relations had also embarked on a study of the
Shipwrights' position with a view to introducing such a scheme.
197
I am strongly of the opinion that such a scheme, based with
appropriate modifications on the schemes adopted for seagoing
unions and waterside workers, should be adopted. If the negoÂ
tiations with the Metal Trades Industry Association break down,
then in my view the Department of Employment and Industrial
Relations should proceed with its investigation. Unless further
investigation leads to a different conclusion or the scheme was
found to conflict with some industrial principles such as Wage
Indexation principles, such a scheme should be implemented.
I do not have sufficient information before me to determine
whether such a scheme should be introduced in all ports. It
appears that the Tasmanian position, for example, is very differÂ
ent from that elsewhere and other ports may well have important
factors, which are different.
198
15 OTHER STATUTORY AMENDMENTS PROPOSED
15.1 OBLIGATION TO REPORT DEMANDS AND PAYMENTS
It uas put to me during the first part of this Commission that
legislative provisions should be made to prevent demands and
payments of the nature there discussed. I discussed these proÂ
posals in Chapter 28 of my Interim Report. I then said :
During the course of the addresses, proposals were made by some of the shipping interests that parti cular provisions should be introduced, making it clear that offences uould be committed if permit
ships were obstructed, or if demands uere made for payments, of the nature uhich had been investigated, under threat of obstructing the vessel. A further proposal uhich uas discussed at some length uas that a duty should be imposed on operators of tugs to provide services to permit vessels and a corresponding
duty imposed on the creus of tugs not to refuse their services by reason of the fact that a vessel uas operating or had operated under a permit for a partiÂ
cular voyage.
I have given careful consideration to the proposals made to me. I am deeply impressed by the fact that although these proposals uere made, most of those seeking the legislative changes sought that the task
of enforcement should rest on someone other than themselves, in particular, on the Department (of Transport) .
This seems to me at least to shou considerable doubts about the value of such provisions in settling disputes of this nature. I uas more impressed by the proposals as to tugs but the fact remains that no attempts have been made by tug operators to use the
provisions of either the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Act or the provisions applicable in State Statutes uhich governed the particular industrial operations.
I made the follouing recommendation in Chapter 28.2 of that
Report I think it important that the secrecy uhich has surrounded some of the operations should not be alloued to continue. To this end I think there should be an obligation imposed on a shipowner, charterer or agent who makes payment to an organi sation, or as directed by an organisation, in respect
199
of the operations of a permit vessel, to report the payment uithin a limited period to the Industrial Registrar in the case of a Federal organisation or to the Industrial Registrar of a State in the case of a State registered organi sation and in addition to the Department in each case.
This should be done by uay of amendment to the Navigation Act. There should be a corresponding obligation on the part of any union which receives directly, or indirectly such a payment, to report it to the same persons. This obligation is one which could best be introduced in both the Navigation Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If payments were so reported, they could be more readily and quickly examined and both those paying and those receiving given opportunities of explaining the circumstances.
This would in itself I think operate as a deterrent and knowledge of the payments and receipts would enable appropriate further action to be taken.
I am of the opinion that this proposed obligation to report
should be extended to an obligation to report in respect of any
demands for or payments made because work on a foreign vessel
had been done or was proposed to be done by the crew.
15.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISPOSAL OF MONEYS
In the hearing which led to the making of the Interim Report, I
was asked by all parties, including the Unions, to make recomÂ
mendations for the disposal of the moneys which had been received.
I did so, and the recommendations appear in Chapter 31.9 of that
Report.
15.2.1 Interim Report
After the further hearing had proceeded some distance, the
unions concerned were summoned to appear before the Commission
and I then enquired what steps, if any,had been taken to
implement the recommendations. I was then informed that the
ACTU had summoned a meeting of unions concerned and the question
would be there discussed. I asked that I be advised of the
200
result of the meeting. I was subsequently advised that the
meeting would be held on 3 February 1976. I have not since
been advised if the meeting uas held or of any decisions reached
by it. In these circumstances, I feel obliged to proceed on the
basis that my recommendations, although asked for, have not been adopted.
There is, however, one exception to this. nr. Troy, appearÂ
ing for the MUD, advised me that negotiations had been opened
with P & 0 (Australia) Ltd. for the repayment of an amount in
respect of the Bay Boats. I accepted this as I accepted Mr.
Troy's assurance that the negotiations would be continued and
an amount agreed upon repaid.
15.2.2 Second Stage of Inquiry
In the case of the payments to the Painters and Dockers
Union, N.S.U Branch, the attitude adopted by the Branch was that
the amounts received would not be repaid, but would be retained
by the Branch and dealt with by it. The moneys obtained by
the other Branches have obviously been spent. So far as the
nUU is concerned, it agreed to leave payments in a special fund
untouched until the Commission had concluded. Moneys collected
by other branches and the Shipwrights Union have long since
been disbursed.
15.2.3 Conclusion
There seems little point in these circumstances in the ComÂ
mission making recommendations for the disposal of the moneys
now being considered.
It seems, moreover, that there is no reason why one should
anticipate that, if no steps are taken, the examination of
these payments and the findings of the Commission as to their
propriety would lead unions to cease their demands. Had my
recommendations as asked for been accepted, it would have been
necessary to consider whether the effect of this Royal ComÂ
mission and its findings was sufficient. This appears to have
201
been the view taken in the investigation and report of the
Senate Select Committee into Indemnity Payments to Maritime
Unions in 1958. Findings were made by that Committee but no
subsequent legislative amendments were made, although some were
recommended, no doubt in the view that in the light of the
publicity and the findings, the actions would not be repeated.
I feel unable to recommend a similar course here.
I remain firmly of the view that demands and payments of
this nature are improper and should, in the best interests of
everybody, be stopped.
15.3 PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER MONEYS PAID
I have already expressed my view that existing remedies, because
of factors of delay and the like, are largely ineffective and I
think that a simpler remedy should be provided to enable moneys
paid under these circumstances to be recovered. The appropriate
course, in my view, would be to provide that, where a demand is
made by an Organisation registered under the Australian Act, or
a Trade Union registered under a State Act, for payment to it or
into a fund or the like or to a union officer or delegate or
members for the reason that a vessel has, or proposes to take
part in the coasting trade under a permit issued under Section
285 of the Navigation Act, or for the reason that work other
than the work at present specified in s.45 and as proposed to
be amended has been or will be done by the crew, then the person
actually paying the moneys or any person on whose behalf the
moneys were paid may sue to recover them. Provision should be
made for the suit to be brought in the Australian Industrial
Court or in any District, County or Local Court or Court of
Summary Jurisdiction that is constituted by a Judge, by a Police,
Stipendiary or Special Magistrate or by an Industrial Magistrate
appdinted under any State Act who is also a Police, Stipendiary
or Special Magistrate. This would enable proceedings to be
brought promptly by allowing a choice of Tribunal. It should
be provided that any action is to be brought within a period of
three years from the date of payment.
202
In any such proceedings, if all the facts and circumstances
otter than the reason for the defendants action are proved, it
should lie upon the defendant to prove that he or it uas not
actuated by the reason alleged. This follows the provisions
of section 5 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which
casts this onus upon an employer in circumstances where the
reason would be peculiarly of his own knowledge. In a case
where the reason is peculiarly within the knowledge of the union
or person making the demand, I think it appropriate that a
similar provision as to onus should be made.
This, in my view, is a type of proceeding where, if brought
in the Australian Industrial Court, costs should be able to be
awarded.
An appeal should lie from any other court in which proceedÂ
ings are brought to the Australian Industrial Court.
I think there is good reason for giving this some retrosÂ
pective operation and it should operate so as to apply to payÂ
ments and/or demands after 1 July 1974.
This provision could ensure speedy and relatively simple
action by a ship's agent or others connected with the vessel
to recover moneys paid and this would, in my view, strongly
discourage a continuance of this behaviour.
15.4 PENAL PROVISIONS
There has been some discussion before me during both hearings
whether a further provision should be introduced making it an
offence to make any demand of this nature or to receive payment
as a result of a demand. It seems to me that little enthusiasm
for a penalty provision was shown by any of those concerned.
This is illustrated by the failure to make use of what legal
remedies existed. No proceedings, civil or criminal, have ever
been brought except a prosecution by the FPA which was withdrawn
before the hearing. Nor since the early 1950's does any use
appear to have been made of any arbitration machinery. I think
that some doubt may exist whether the actions of the Painters
and Dockers Union really constituted industrial disputes able
203
Î
to be dealt uith by arbitration tribunals. Houeuer, where the
Firemen and Deckhands Union in Port Kembla or the MUU in FreÂ
mantle banned the provision of tugs and linesmen for a vessel
concerned, it seems clear that offences uere committed under
State Arbitration Statutes.
No action uas brought under them and I am extremely doubtful
whether, if more precise penalties existed, they would be used.
15.5 SUMMARY
Several employers and some of those representing other bodies
expressed doubts about the desirability and efficiency of the
penalty provisions.
So far as the amendments I have recommended are concerned,
they are directed to demands made not of an employer but of a
third party. Moreover, the third party is one which does not
employ members of a union or unions demanding payment. In these
circumstances, it seems to me quite a different matter than the
ordinary type of penalty. It is designed not to interfere uith
the employer/employee relations or the settlement of industrial
disputes but to prevent improper and indeed socially dangerous
actions in demanding payment from the ships' agents, charterers
or owners.
/â
204
16 ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
16.1 INTRODUCTION
Terms of Reference 1(b) and 1(c) require, inter alia, that the
Commission enquire into and report 'to uhom payments ... have
been made1 and 1 the subsequent or proposed use or disposal' of the payments.
This task necessitated examination of the accounts of the
unions uhich received payments and revealed deficiencies in a
number of these, at both branch and federal level. Some defiÂ
ciencies were of such a serious nature that the adequacy of
union accounting and reporting uas investigated by the Commission
in some depth; as foreshadowed in my Interim Report, p. 88.
The firm of Price Waterhouse & Co. were engaged as conÂ
sultants to investigate, report and propose solutions.
This is one of the leading firms of accountants in
Australia. In addition to its accounting and auditing activiÂ
ties, it has a separate group, Price Waterhouse Associates Pty. ,
within the firm which provides management consultant services.
It has carried out many assignments in this field, a numÂ
ber of them for organisations with some similar characteristics
to unions, including clubs, building societies, professional inÂ
stitutes and associations.
Its associated firms overseas have carried out assignments
for trade unions in other countries, principally the United
Kingdom and the United States of America.
Mr. G.G. Broun, a financial consultant on the Sydney staff
of the consultants, carried out the major part of the work. He
had had particular trade union experience xn Europe, carrying
out an extensive accounting and finance assignment for a very
large trade union in the United Kingdom. He had a detailed knowÂ
ledge of the main problem areas of accounting in trade unions
and other bodies. The firm of consultants was chosen as one particularly well
equipped to assist in this field and I have relied considerably
on their report and discussions which I have had with Mr. Brown.
205
In an attempt to ascertain the breadth of the problem, the
books of account of a number of unions not involved in the InÂ
quiry were, with the agreement of the officials concerned,
obtained for examination.
The ACTU was advised that the question of accounting proÂ
cedures uould be considered by the Commission and was invited to
make submissions. l\lo submission was made by it. Details of the
attempts to obtain the vieus of the ACTU are set out in Chapter
12.4.4.
16.2 GENERAL PRINCIPLE
Any organisation of employers or employees established to further
the common aims of its members and deriving its funds principally
from membership subscriptions or moneys collected in the name of
the organisation, should maintain financial records sufficient
for individual members, and where appropriate the public, to be
able to establish the uses to which those funds are put and the
financial state of the organisation.
This is especially important where there is any element of
compulsion towards membership such as exists in trade unions
where, in order to obtain employment in the vocation of his
choice or training, an individual may be required, by an employer,
or,by an award or agreement, or simply by custom, unless he proÂ
fesses conscientious objection, to become a union member.
Similar considerations apply in the case of employer organiÂ
sations where the realities of industrial life make membership
necessary for employers. Even in the case of many purely volunÂ
tary bodies such as clubs and co-operatives, statutes prescribe
accounting requirements in some detail.
16.3 EXISTING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS "
The Conciliation and Arbitration Act (referred to in this Chapter
as 1 the Act') recognises this need and, in conformity with its
objectives:
206
e) to encourage the organisation of representatives bodies of employers and employees and their reqistration under the Act; and
f) to encourage democratic control of all organ isations so registered and the full participation of members of such organisations in the affairs of the organisation, requires -
Section 152(1)(c ) ; that an organisation keep -an account, in proper form, of the wages, payments, funds and effects of the organisation and of each branch of the organisation,
Section 152(4) (inter alia); that an organisation file -a copy of these records with the Registrar each year, certified by Statutory declaration of the secretary or other prescribed officer to be a correct statement,
Section 154; the appointment of auditors.
16.4 CURRENT PRACTICE
A small number of the unions/branches investigated had not even
complied with these statutory requirements, some for a number of
years. Even among those which had, the books of account and/or
financial reports of some revealed unsatisfactory features. They
evidenced a lack of the skills and knowledge of accepted accounÂ
ting practices and of reporting requirements, a problem not
entirely unexpected where secretaries/treasurers are elected
officials drawn from the rank and file of unions with membership
of tradesmen, skilled workers or others who would in their orÂ
dinary occupations have little need for accounting skills and
knowledge. The deficiencies revealed do appear to be due more to the
absence of these skills, together perhaps with a lack of awareÂ
ness of the importance of financial records and report to a
membership organisation such as a union, rather than to any
attempt to mislead or defraud. However, in a small minority of
cases, records were so badly kept that any such attempts would
not have been detected. As examples, I set out below some of
the worst cases encountered in the course of my enquiries.
207
Î
16.4.1 Painters and Dockers Union
The Port Kembla Sub-branch of the Federated Ship Painters
and Dockers Union and the Victorian Branch of that Union are perÂ
haps the worst examples of financial administration and record
keeping encountered amongst the registered organisations surveyed.
In both, payment received in respect of demands for crews working
were not passed through the accounts.
16.4.2 Port Kembla Sub-branch
In the case of Port Kembla, this was aided by the payment of
cash in respect of the Sari R. Trapp demand and by payment in the
form of an open cheque in the case of the Aqano Maru demand. In
both cases, though receipts were obtained by the agents concerned,
no official receipt was issued by the Union. The evidence of the
Secretary/Treasurer of the Sub-branch, Mr. Uoodbury, is that the
money obtained was distributed to the men who would have obtained
work .
The accounting records of the Sub-branch are minimal and
totally inadequate. A single cheque account is operated and,
apart from the banking records associated with the running of
this account, only a receipt book is used. All subscriptions
are deposited to this account and remittances of members' contriÂ
butions are made to the N.S.U. Branch in bulk at varying interÂ
vals. Other income, for which no receipts appear to be issued,
e .g., a 5% levy on wages of non-members who obtain work, is also
banked to this account and form part of the Secretary/Treasurer's
1 rolling fund1. These deposits along with any others and exÂ
penditure against them, or against the 'rolling fund' are not
declared to the Branch office in Sydney, and hence do not form
part of the records filed with the Registrar. No record of exÂ
penditure is maintained other than that provided on cheque butts
and bank statements. Books kept such as they are, are not reÂ
garded as part of the books of account of the N.S.U. Branch and
are not subject to audit.
208
16.4.3 Victorian Branch
The Victorian Branch of the Union has not complied with the
filing requirements under the Act since 1973 uhen a fire deÂ
stroyed all records, nor it appears have the financial records
been audited since that time. Accounting records are maintained
haphazardly, centred about the Cash Book, an incomplete record
of income and expenditure which is not reconciled with the single
bank account maintained. Subsidiary bank accounts are kept by
delegates at the different locations, but these are not regarded
as part of the accounts of the Branch as a whole and are not
subject to Branch control or audit.
The four payments received by the Victorian Branch since the
destruction of the financial records were all made by crossed
cheque. No official Union receipt was issued for any of these
payments, and only the most recent clearly appears in the books
of the Branch, and then only in the banking records as a deposit
to the Union's account. The payment does not appear as an
income entry in the Cash Book.
Of the other three payments the Secretary, Mr. Nicholls,
stated in evidence that the funds were paid to firs. Uilma
Shannon, wife of the deceased former Secretary, fir. Pat Shannon,
who was murdered in 1974, to assist with the provision of a headÂ
stone. There was no clear evidence of the moneys being banked
to the Union's account and none of payment to firs. Shannon.
16.4.4 The Marine Industry Group of VJestern Australia
This is an unregistered body, which was described in my
Interim Report, p .12, and comprises various registered maritime
unions. Being unregistered, there are no statutory provisions
for filing of financial reports or for audit.
The accounting system in use is totally inadequate and the
records incomplete. No audit is undertaken. The only books
maintained are those associated with the single bank account and
some receipt books. These records, where present, do not provide
sufficient detail on the nature and purpose of receipts or
209
payments. In one case at least, information recorded on cheque
butts, the only record of expenditure, uas deliberately
misleading.
16.5 CONSULTANT'S REPORT
The consultants retained to investigate the problem, Price
Waterhouse Associates, examined some of the books and financial
statements involved in the Inquiry and those of five other unions
uhich, on request, made their financial records available to the
Commission. The consultants reported on these unions but in the
circumstances I undertook that the names and the information
would not be disclosed and would be confidential.
The accounting and reporting requirements of analogous
bodies in Australia and of trade unions overseas were also
examined.
The report of the consultants made detailed recommendations
in respect of accounting principles, accounting practices and
financial reporting for organisations, the duties of auditors
and the responsibility of the Registrar. The sections of their
report dealing with these matters and with the accounting and
reporting requirements of analogous bodies, are included as
Appendix IX to this report.
16.6 ADEQUACY OF EXISTING LEGISLATION
In view of the findings of this Commission in the course of
its investigations and the report of the consultants, it is
obvious that the current legislative and regulatory provisions
do not meet the objectives of protecting the interests of members
and the public where the financial affairs of registered
organisations are concerned. ·
The Act, s.152(4), does provide for the filing of financial
records with the Industrial Registrar and, s.152(7), for inÂ
spection of these records at the Registrar's Office. However,
it relies on s,152(i)(c) to specify the records to be kept and
filed by organisations. The obligation imposed by this section
210
is couched in very vague and imprecise terms and it is difficult
to determine just uhat the obligation entails. Uhat is 'an
account in proper form'?
This problem seems to have been in the minds of a Select
Committee of the Senate which, under the chairmanship of Senator
R.G. Uright, investigated and reported on indemnity payments to
maritime unions, in September 1958. The vagueness of the term
uas indeed alluded to in an opinion subsequently obtained in
accordance with a recommendation of that Committee. No amendÂ
ment uas then made to the section.
I think the section remains unsatisfactory and should not
continue in its present form. It just does not specify the
requirements in sufficient detail to ensure that financial
records present a full and accurate picture of the financial
activities of the body. A member or an interested individual is
thus unable to ascertain the financial state of the body, and the
public interest, theoretically protected by the filing of these
documents with a public authority, can receive only token proÂ
tection because of the deficiencies in information provided.
Similarly, while auditors must be appointed, their duties
are not specified in any detail and there is no specific requireÂ
ment that the auditor's report be included in the accounts filed
with the Registrar.
Also, because there is no specific direction in the Act to
the Registrar to examine the documents, no evaluation of the
records filed takes place.
In short, the present requirements of the Act have proved
inadequate.
16.7 CONCLUSIONS
I have considered the recommendations made by the Consultants
(see Appendix IX) in the light of the findings of the Commission.
I now set out my detailed recommendations on these matters and
consider amendments necessary for their implementation.
211
16.7.1 Accounting Principles and Practices
In considering the recommendations of the consultants on the
subjects of accounting principles and practices, see Appendix IX
pp.8-9, I took the view that detailed specification in the Act,
or in regulations to the Act, of the standards to which these
should conform, or of a model form of accounts or the like, would
be cumbersome, and difficulty would be experienced in making any
such specifications sufficiently flexible to encompass the needs
of all organisations.
Uhile accepting the recommendations, the approach I have
taken is that only general requirements should be set down, and
that compliance with the principles and practices recommended
should be reported on by the organisations' auditors, whose
duties would be prescribed in detail. It would appear to me that
the individual auditors, being familiar with the generally
accepted accounting standards and with the needs of the organisÂ
ation, are in the best position to ensure the adequacy of the
accounting principles and practices employed.
16.7.2 Training
As suggested by the consultants, see Appendix IX pp.9-10,
steps should be taken to improve the accounting skills of those
responsible for the finances of registered organisations. This
is of course partly a matter for the organisations themselves,
however, I consider that the Government should provide financial
incentives for this training and, if necessary, provide courses
under the Trade Union Training Act.
Development of a/basic accounting package for use by organÂ
isations if they so desire, with standard forms, etc., to be
provided through the Registries, could also be undertaken" by an
appropriate government authority.
16.7.3 Disclosure of Information
Insufficient detail was the most widespread deficiency eviÂ
dent in the financial reports examined. It is essential in the
212
interest of democratic control that the financial dealings of an
organisation are presented in sufficient detail to allow those
members interested to establish the state of the organisation's
finances, evaluate its financial administration and satisfy themÂ
selves that the financial transactions are in accordance uith the
rules and the decisions of the membership. This is also necessary
if the Registrar is to be effective in his role of protecting the
public interest.
The Consultant's report considers this matter, see Appendix
IX pp.11-14, and makes certain recommendations. I accept these
recommendations.
16.7.4 Financial Reports
At pages 15-24 of Appendix IX, the consultants addressed
themselves to the problem of insufficient disclosure. They develÂ
oped formats for financial statements to be included in financial
reports to the membership and the Registrar, these together uith
supporting schedules are set out in the Appendix. The Income and
Expenditure Statement is shown at p .17 and the supporting schedule
pp.18-19, the Balance Sheet at p .20 and supporting information at
pp.21-24. They recommend that the information required in these
is the minimum needed for filing and reporting to membership, but
that additional information can and should be provided on certain
items in detail appropriate to the cost structure and needs of
the organisation.
I accept these recommendations and consider that the form and
content of financial reports should be prescribed by the incorÂ
poration of the report formats and schedules in the Act or in
regulations to the Act.
16.7.5 Statements as to Conduct and State of Financial Affairs
Financial reports are necessarily abstractions, the income
and expenditure statement being a summary of the financial
dealings over a period and the balance sheet a summary of the
financial state of the organisation at a particular point in
24228 / 76â 8 213
time. Euen uhen provided in the detail previously recommended,
it is possible that matters having an important bearing on the
financial dealings of the organisation can be hidden. Also, the
reports give no indication whether the information they disclose
was arrived at in accordance with the laid down rules of the orÂ
ganisation, or in accordance with sound accounting practices, etc.
In my opinion, it is necessary in the further interests of
adequate disclosure for the Management Committee and the chief
accounting officer, to provide statements certifying that the
reports truly reflect the financial position and that this has
been arrived at in the proper fashion. Similar statements are
required under company legislation in Australia. I consider that
statements should be prescribed under the Act or Regulations. The
consultants put forward suggestions for the content of these
statements, see Appendix IX, pp. 27-29.
16.7.6 Duties of Auditors
As with accounting principles and practices, the auditors of
organisations are in the best position to comment on the accuracy
and adequacy of financial reporting.
The consultants consider the duties of the auditor, see
Appendix IX pp.25-27, and submit a list of matters to be covered
in the statement made by the auditors. A requirement in the Act
that auditors must complete such a statement, and if unable to do
so must qualify the particular item(s) of the statement, would be
the simplest method of prescribing the duties and responsibilities
of auditors in this regard. The consultants suggest, at p .15,
that auditors should receive copies of financial statements and
reports and be entitled to attend and be heard at a meeting at /â
which these are presented. I consider that the duties of an
auditor should require him to ensure that the audited accounts,
together with statements and his report, are those actually preÂ
sented for adoption. Uith many unions, it is already the
practice for the auditor or his representative to attend the
meeting. This should be specified under the Act as part of his
duties.
214
16.7.7 Financial Reporting to Membership
As stated above, the Act does not provide for the reporting
of financial information to membership. Provision is, of course,
made uithin the rules of most organisations for this to be done,
in some cases at an annual general meeting. It is highly desirÂ
able that the general membership be regularly acquainted with
these details and able to express its views. In some organisÂ
ations this requirement would be satisfied by the adoption of
the financial report at a general meeting. However, many unions,
especially those with a widely distributed membership, do not
present accounts to a general meeting but to a council, conÂ
ference, etc. I see no reason why where this arrangement exists
it need be altered, in fact such a body may well exercise a
greater degree of control than a much larger body, such as a
general meeting.
Delay in reporting on the financial state of an organisÂ
ation and its financial dealings can serve no useful purpose and
in view of the findings of this Commission the prompt presenÂ
tation of this information to the membership, for consideration,
especially when matters of an extraordinary nature are involved,
is highly desirable. There would appear to be no good reason
why reports together with the necessary statements should not be
submitted promptly uithin a prescribed period after the end of
a financial year.
Members should have the opportunity of examining the
financial report prior to it being presented for adoption. Some
unions do publish and distribute a full annual report, which
includes the financial report. The cost of this could be quite
significant and, in any case, I think it unnecessary to prescribe
that this should be the only means of distributing the inforÂ
mation. In the majority of cases unions have journals which are
distributed to members and in which copies of the financial reÂ
ports are published and this would be quite satisfactory. There
should however be an obligation on organisations to distribute
to the members in some manner the financial reports and assocÂ
iated statements which will be required to be filed.
215
16.7.8 Filing of Financial Reports uith the Registrar
Section 152(4) of the Act requires only that 'an account in
proper form' as described in s.l52(l)(c) be filed uith the RegiÂ
strar. No statement by management committee or treasurer is
required, and there is no specific requirement that an auditor's
report be filed. The only statement required is that by the
'Secretary or other prescribed officer' that the documents filed
are a ' correct statement of the information contained therein'.
In their report, the consultants recommend that the finanÂ
cial reports, together uith statements by auditors, management
committees and treasurers should be filed uith the Registrar,
see Appendix IX p . 29. I agree, and consider that this should be
specified in detail in the Act.
In submitting the information, the ' Secretary or other
authorised officer' should be required to certify that they are
a copy of those officially adopted follouing their circulation
to membership.
Regulation 132 to the Act prescribes that the financial
records demanded by 152(l)(c) of the Act be filed uithin three
months of the final audit in each year. No minimum period is
stipulated uithin uhich this audit must take place. It is conÂ
sidered that the financial reports should be filed uith the
Registrar uithin a prescribed period after the closing of
accounts.
16.7.9 Pouers and Duties of the Registrar
Under the Act, the Registrar has no pouers to investigate
the finances of organisations and, as mentioned above, is not Î even required to examine the accounts filed. This situation
falls short of providing adequate protection for the public inÂ
terest. This objective uill not be achieved merely by filing
documents uith a public body uithout any requirement for
evaluation.
On the other hand, I do not favour the idea that the RegiÂ
strar should become a second auditor and routinely examine the
records filed. Apart from duplication of effort, such an
216
arrangement would tend to produce a situation of shared responsiÂ
bility. In my view, the audit responsibility should be with the
auditor and be final.
Acceptance of my earlier recommendations will mean that the
Registrar will receive annually from each registered organisation
a financial report supported by the statements of the management
committee and the treasurer, and an audit report. These should
be examined.
The Registrar should first be required to ensure that the
information filed is complete and prepared in accordance with the
Act. Secondly, the Registrar should examine broadly the inforÂ
mation supplied, noting any adverse situations indicated by the
financial reports, statements or auditor's report.
If unsatisfactory or out of control situations are revealed
by his examination or, upon the request of the organisation's
membership, the Registrar should have the power and the duty to
investigate the finances of an organisation and its financial
administration. He should be able to call meetings of management
committees and interview union officials in the course of his
enquiries.
It is quite clear that the imposition of these new duties on
the Registrar will require a considerable increase in staff and
in some cases staff with professional qualifications will be reÂ
quired. If appropriate staff cannot be provided, then these
requirements of the Registrar to examine and investigate must be
postponed.
16.8 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Conciliation & Arbitration Act and
the regulations thereunder be amended in
accordance with the above findings to
prescribe for organisations of employers
and employees registered under the Act,:
217
a) the financial records to be maintained by
organisations,
b) form and content of annual financial reports,
c) statrre nts to be made by management committees
and treasurers in support of financial reports,
d) the duties of auditors and the matters to be
considered in audit reports,
e) the financial information to be supplied to
members and its distribution, and that these
financial reports be considered at general
meetings or meetings of appropriate governing
bodies uithin a defined period following the
end of a financial year,
f) when and uhat financial reports are to be filed
with the Registrar and the arrangements for
filing,
g) the duties of the Registrar in respect of
receipt and examination of financial docuÂ
ments , the investigation of anomalies and
the initiation of full investigations and
of legal action where appropriate.
NOTE :
These provisions should not apply to organisations or
branches falling uithin Regulation 138F, i.e. those
whose receipts in the preceding twelve months do not
exceed $2000.
2. That the Government sponsor courses of training
for officers of organisations responsible for
financial matters and more elementary courses in
bookkeeping for other officers and employees.
In discussing amendments in this field I have no.t sought to
determine which should be requirements in the Act and which in
the Regulations. As a general principle, matters which might
require speedy alteration from time to time are more conveniently
placed in the Regulations.
218
APPENDIX I
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. To inquire into and report on -a) Whether any payments (other than those of a
normal commercial nature or made pursuant to
any lau or any industrial auard or agreement)
have, in recent times, been or are being made
or demanded in respect of the use of ships in
voyages to or from Australia, or uithin the
Australian coasting trade under permit or
licence under the Navigation Act 1912-1973;
b) the circumstances under which and the persons
(including corporate bodies) by whom and to
uhom any such payments or demands have been
made;
c) the reasons for and the purpose of any such
payments or demands;
d) the subsequent or proposed use or disposal of
any such payments;
e) the legality of any such payments or demands
and their propriety having regard in particular
to Australian trade union principles and ethics.
2. To recommend in the light of the findings -a) what action, if any, should be taken in respect
of such payments; and
b) uhat legislative or administrative changes are
necessary or desirable in relation to these
matters.
219
APPENDIX 11
ABBREVIATIONS
ACTU Australian Council of Trade Unions
AEWL Association of Employers of LJaterside
Labour
CSOA Commonwealth Steamship Owners
Association
MWU Maritime Workers' Union of Western
Australia
OSRA Overseas Shipowners' Representatives
Association
Painters and Dockers Union Federated Ship Painters & Dockers' Union of Australia
Shipwrights Federated Shipwrights and Ship Con structors Association of Australia
WWF Waterside Workers' Federation of
Australia
The Act Conciliation and Arbitration Act
1904-1972 (Chapter 16 only)
/â
2 2 0
APPENDIX 111
A P P E A R A N C E S
COUNSEL ASSISTING Mr. F.G. Tinney
FEDERATED SHIP PAINTERS & DOCKERS UNION OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIAN BRANCH
Mr. T.B. Gordon
Mr. 0. Nicholls
FEDERATED SHIPWRIGHTS & SHIP CONSTRUCTORS ASSOCIATION NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH
Mr. Campbell Mr. 0. Murray Mr. R.H. Gay
FIREMEN & DECKHANDS UNION OF N.S.W Mr. D. Henderson
MARITIME WORKERS UNION Mr. P.L. Troy
P & 0 (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED Mr. K. Carruthers
McARTHUR SHIPPING & AGENCY CO.PTY.LTD STAR SHIPPING (AUST) PTY. LTD BANK LINE (A'SIA) PTY. LTD
H. C. SLEIGH LTD. Mr. A . J . Ray
McILWRAITH McEACHARN LIMITED Mr. J .K. Bouen
OWNERS OF Cape Wrath AND UNION- BULKSHIPS MR. R.A. MARSHALL Mr. B.E. Peek
P & 0 (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED OWNERS OF Graceous THROUGH WIGMORES LIMITED
Mr. R.3.M. Anderson
PATRICK AGENCIES GEORGE WILLS & CO. LIMITED UNION BULKSHIPS PTY. LIMITED
Mr. D.E. Clayton
WILLIAM HAUGHTON & CO. LIMITED P & 0 (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED McILWRAITH McEACHARN LIMITED
Mr. D. Worrall
WESTRALIAN FARMERS TRANSPORT PTY.LTD ACTA PTY. LIMITED
FREMANTLE PORT AUTHORITY Mr. G.F. Scott
AUSTRALIAN CHAMBER OF SHIPPING Mr. R.W. Nicholl
NATIONAL EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION Mr. C . Polites
BROKEN HILL PTY. CO. LIMITED Mr. B. Hill, Q.C.
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE CSR LIMITED WESTERN AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION
221
APPENDIX IV
ANDREWS, A.U.
ATKINS, B.U.
AYCKBOURN, P.
BARTHOLOMEUSZ, R
BEESLEY, G.R.
B E V A N , R . H .
BJORNUM, C.J.O.
BOUDVILLE, H.V.
BOULTON, R.U.
BOURKE, 0.A .
BOYLE, J.D.
BRENTON, A .B.
CAITHNESS, M.C.
CAMPBELL, G.
CLARK, H.H.
CLARK, R.H.
COOL ICAN, P.S.
CORK, R.M. / ,
CRILLY, G.T.P.
CROSSLAND, Î.Î.
CULLEN, P .A .
DANGAR, R .A .
DAY, C.L.
National Industrial Advocate, Metal Trades Industry Association.
Assistant Traffic Officer, Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
Manager, Western Australia, ACTA Pty.Ltd.
,V. Commercial Manager, Western Australia, ACTA Pty. Ltd.
Traffic Officer, P & 0 (Australia) Ltd.
Manager for Melbourne, Mclluraith McEacharn Ltd.
Operations Manager, Sofrana Unilines (Aust. ) Pty. Ltd.
Line Manager, Tramp Operations, McArthur Shipping & Agency Co. Pty. Ltd.
Personnel & Industrial Relations Officer, Eremantle Port Authority.
Shipping Clerk, Mclluraith McEacharn Ltd.
Traffic Officer, Patrick Agencies.
Shipping & Operations Manager, Burns Philp Ltd.
Victorian Shipping Manager, British Phosphate Commissioners; and Manager, Corio Shipping Services Pty. Ltd.
General Secretary, Federated Shipurights & Ship Constructors Association of Australia; and Secretary, Victorian Branch.
Shipwright, Uilliamstoun.
Shipping Manager, Burns Philp & Co. Ltd.
Shipping Officer, Tramp Operations, McArthur Shipping & Agency Co. Pty. Ltd.
Traffic Officer, Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
Joint Manager, John Manners & Co. (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. ·
Shipping Officer, Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
Manager, Port Adelaide, George Wills Ltd.
Brisbane Manager, Union Bulkships Pty.Ltd.
Central Shipping Company.
W I T N E S S E S
222
WITNESSES (Cont0 )
DEANE, S .H · Executive Director, Hetherington Kingsbury Pty. Ltd.
DEDMAN, L.N. Operations Manager, Shipping Division, P & 0 (Australia) Ltd.
DENNY, C.3. Shipping Officer, Wesfarmers Co-operative DERCKSEN, T.C. Manager, Western Australia, Seabridge Australia Pty. Ltd.
DESCHAMPS, G.L. Shipping Officer, Hetherington Kingsbury Pty. Ltd.
DICK, F.I. Assistant to Labour Controller, Fremantle Port Authority.
DORAN, P.E. Shipping Agency Manager, Westralian Farmers Transport Pty. Ltd.
EADIE, 3.D. Manager, Overseas Division, Union Bulkships Pty. Ltd.
GALE, D.C, Manager, Shipping, McArthur Shipping & Agency Co. Pty. Ltd.
GALLEGHAN, R.E. Vigilance Officer, N.S.W. Branch, Feder ated Ship Painters & Dockers Union.
GAY, R.H. Secretary, N.S.W. Branch, Federated Ship wrights & Ship Constructors Association.
GODDARD, 3.N. Operations Manager, Shiptraco Sea Transport Services Pty. Ltd.
GORDON, D.L. Overseas Manager, Melbourne, Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
GORDON, T.B. Federal Secretary, Federated Ship Painters & Dockers Union of Australia.
GREIG, P.R. Senior Operations Officer, H . C .Sleigh Ltd
GRIFFITHS, D.R. Traffic Manager, Seabridge Australia Pty. Ltd.
GROOFI, C.F.S. Western Australian Manager, Association of Employers of Waterside Labour.
GRUNDELL, L.U. Branch Manager, (Geelong), Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
HALBERT, H. General Manager, Garnock Engineering Co. Pty. Ltd.
HALFRICH, 3.A. Manager, Patrick Agencies, Victoria.
HASTINGS, D .A . Marine Superintendent, Karlander (Aust. ) Pty. Ltd.
HEDDLE , A.M. Operations Superintendent, Wigmores Ltd.
223
HENDERSON, D.C.
HENDERSON, T.L.
HENUOOD, B.A.
HICKS, M.G.T.
HOOKER, R.H.
HOWARD, C.R.
HUGHES, G.P.
HUNTER, B.E.
JARRETT, C.E.
JOBLIN, J.S.
JOHANSEN, 1*1.E.
JOHANSEN, R.E.
JONES, R.A.
KEI*1P, J.H.
KENNY, U.D.
KNOWLES, R.J.
LEE, G.
LEWIS, A.M.
LINDSAY, E .A .
LINKLATER, B.G.
LIVINGSTONE , K^.'j.
McALPINE, I.W.
McALPINE, K.A.
McARDLE, J.P.
Secretary/Treasurer, Fireman & Deckhands Union of N.S.W.
President, Maritime Workers Union of Western Australia.
Manager, Interocean Swire Pty. Ltd.
Director & Manager for Australia, Sofrana Unilines (Aust.) Pty. Ltd.
Company Secretary, T.J. Prest & Sons Pty. Ltd. '
Manager, South Australia, Patrick Agencies
Assistant Traffic Manager,Patrick Agencies
Traffic Officer, Howard Smith Industries Limited.
Shipping Superintendent, Wesfarmers Co-operative.
General Manager, Association of Employers of Waterside Labour.
Secretary, Fremantle Shipurighting Co.
Proprietor, Fremantle Shipurighting Co.
Assistant Manager, APT Shipping Pty. Ltd.
Divisional Director, A.U.S.N. (Australia) Pty. Ltd.
Port Adelaide Manager, Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
Branch Manager, Port Kembla, Patrick Agencies.
Traffic Manager, Interocean Swire Pty.Ltd
Proprietor, Lewmarine Pty. Ltd.
Manager, Peters Slip Pty. Ltd.
Stevedoring Manager, Consolidated Steve dores Pty. Ltd.
Manager, Hobsons Bay Engineering Co. Pty. Ltd.
Traffic Manager, (Brisbane), McArthur Shipping & Agency Co. Pty. Ltd.
Senior Supervisor, (Geelong), Corio Shipping Services Pty. Ltd. and British Phosphate Commissioners.
Traffic Officer, Opal Maritime Agencies Pty. Ltd.
WITNESSES (Cont.)
224
UITNESSES (Cont.)
McAULEY, K .A . Industrial Officer, Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd.
McCASHNEY, R. Assistant Manager, Conventional Services, ACTA Pty. Ltd.
McCLENAGHAN, S . M . Shipowners Employment Centre , Melbourne.
McFARLANE, J.P. (retired) Partner & Manager of McFarlane & Sons.
Mc Ph e r s o n , c .d . Manager, Storey & Keers (Kembla) Pty.Ltd.
MARSHALL, R .A . Manager/Secretary, Petterson & Co. Pty. Limited.
MATTHEUS, E.E. Partner, E.E. & T.C. Mattheus.
MICALE, J.F. Labour Controller, Fremantle Port Authority.
MILLER, D.B. Assistant Shipping Manager, George Uills & Co . Ltd.
MILNE, M. Secretary/Treasurer, Newcastle Branch, Federated Ship Painters & Dockers Union of Australia.
MOOD IE, 0. N.S.U. Shipping Manager, Dalgety (Aust.) Ltd.
MOORE, R.V. Traffic Officer, Patrick Agencies.
MORRIS, C.R. Chairman, Waterfront Section, Metal Trades Industry Association; and Personnel Manager, Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty. Ltd.
MULLER, E. Marine Superintendent Engineer, Omni Traders Pty. Ltd.
MULLIGAN, L. Shipping Clerk, Union Bulkships Ltd.
NICHOLLS, O.S. Secretary/Treasurer, Victorian Branch, Federated Ship Painters & Dockers Union of Australia.
NOBLE, B.L. General Manager, Fremantle Port Authority
O'BRIEN, E.H. Shipping Manager, Australian Uheat Board.
O'CONNELL, 0. Manager, United Ships Services Pty. Ltd.
OR I BERT , P. Representative, Cie des Messageries Maritimes.
O'REGAN, H.3. Chief Executive Director, ACTA Pty. Ltd.
OVERELL, R.McI. Engineer/Manager, Ships Services Division P & 0 (Australia) Ltd.
225
WITNESSES (Cont.)
PALMER, T.H.
PATRICK, K.N.
PEMBERTON, F.L.
PETERSON, J.
PRIDEAUX, G.U.
PRONK, L .
PRYCE, A.C.
PRYKE, W.J.A.
PURNELL, R.U.
QUICK, 0.R ·
RAULINGS, T.U.
REED, D.U.
REGAN, L.O.
RUDDLESTON, M.A.
SCALES, F.C.
SCRUTTON, P.U.
SHORTEN, U.R.
SMITH, H.J.
SNOWBALL, T.
STEPHENSON, J .H /
STEPHENSON, R.
THOMPSON, C.
TRELOAR, R.S.
Secretary, Wesfarmers Co-operative.
Manager, Western Australia, and Director, Patrick Operations Pty. Ltd.
Manager, Shipping Division, Melbourne, P & 0 (Australia) Ltd.
Manager, R.D.H. Middlemass & Co.
Shipping Officer, Union Bulkships Pty.Ltd.
Executive Officer, Australian Chamber of Shipping.
Accountant, Coopers & Lybrand.
Manager, South Australian Branch, Assn. of Employers of Waterside Labour.
Director, Robert Purnell Pty. Ltd.
Shipping Manager, McArthur Shipping & Agency Co. Pty. Ltd.
Secretary, Western Australian Branch, Seamen's Union of Australia.
Operations Manager, Burns Philp & Co. Ltd.
Shipping Manager, Dalgety Australia Ltd.
Assistant Fleet Operations Manager, Australian National Line.
Secretary, Port Adelaide Branch, Feder ated Ship Painters & Dockers Union of Australia.
Shipping Manager, South Australia, Elder Smith-Goldsbrough Mort Ltd.
Manager, Dukes & Orrs Amalgamated Dry Dock Pty . Ltd.
Shipping Officer, Lynn-Elder Pty. Ltd.
Shipping Manager (Brisbane) Burns Philp & Co. Ltd.
Brisbane Manager, Adelaide Steamship Co. Limited.
General Manager, Storey & Keers Pty. Ltd.
Manager, Torrens Shipping Services Pty. Limited.
Assistant Manager, Union Bulkships Pty. Limited.
226
WITNESSES (Cont.)
VAN ALEBEEK, W.3.
VAN DIEPEN, 3.C.
VINCENT, D.F.3.
VIVERS, 3.D.
WEATHERBY, 3.F.
WELLS, 3.C.
WHITBY, R.G.
WHYTE, P.
WILKIE, D.H.
WILLIAMS, F.R.
WILLIAMS, H.K.
WILLINGS, A .B .
WILLIS, W.E.
WILSON, E.3.
WILSON, T.
WINNING, R.H.
WOOD, G.3.
WOODBURY, E.S.
WINGATE, K.G.
WYNER, I.
YOUNG, G.R.
Assistant Manager, Interocean (Australia) Services Pty. Ltd.
Deputy General Manager and Director, Interocean (Australia)Services Pty. Ltd.
Marine Superintendent, Bank Line(A'sia) Pty. Limited.
Shipping Manager, Burns Philp & Co.
General Manager, Varley-Group of Companies, Newcastle and Port Kembla.
Secretary, Maritime Workers' Union.
General Manager, Tayport Building Consultant.
Manager, Shipping & Transport Division, Wigmores Limited.
Managing Director, 3ebsens Aust. Pty.Ltd.
Shipping Manager, George Wills & Co. Ltd.
Shipping Manager, William Haughton & Co. Limited.
Managing Director, Universal Charterers Pty. Limited.
Divisional Manager of Administration and Secretary, Fremantle Port Authority.
Assistant Marine Manager, P & 0 (Australia) Limited.
Pick-up Centre, Federated Shipwrights & Ship Constructors Assn, of Australia.
Secretary/Treasurer, Queensland Branch, Federated Ship Painters & Dockers Union of Australia.
Operations Manager & Marine Superintendent, Star Shipping (Aust.) Pty. Ltd.
Secretary/Treasurer, Port Kembla Sub Branch, Federated Ship Painters & Dockers Union of Australia.
Managing Director, 3ohn Wingate & Sons Pty. Limited.
Secretary, N.S.W. Branch, Federated Ship Painters & Dockers Union of Australia.
Vice-President, N.S.W. Branch, Federated Ship Painters & Dockers Union of Aust.
227
APPENDIX V
LIST OF EXHIBITS
PART T
SYDNEY HEARINGS
Exhibit No. Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 A
9 B
9 C
9 D
9 E
9 F
9 G
9 H
9 J
9 K
Department of Transport
Procedures for obtaining single voyage permits.
List of applications for permits since January 1973.
Letter 26.8.74 from Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd. (ANM) to Minister for Labor & Immigration re Sevillan Reefer
Letter 30.8.74, ANM to Minister for Labor & Immigration about demands re Sevillan Reefer
Telex 9.8.74 from Refrigerated Express Lines (A 1 si a) Pty. Ltd.(REL) to Minister for Transport and reply 9.8.75, telex from REL to Minister 19.8.74 re Sloman Alstertor
Telex from P & 0 (Australia) Ltd. (P&0) to Mr. House about demands re Sevillan Reefer
List of ships licensed during current year until 30.6.75.
Publication "Australian Shipping and Shipbuilding"
P & 0 (Australia) Ltd.
Exhibits 9A - 9M relate to Sevillan Reefer
Telex 26.8.74 from ANM authorising payment.
Requisition for Cheque.
Letter 26.8.74 from ANM to Seamen's Union of Australia (SUA ) re payment.
Letter 26.8.74 and schedule from ANM to SUA re payment.
Amended letter 26.8.74 from ANM to SUA re payment,
Receipt from SUA.
Liner Booking Note. _
Telex 23.8.74 to Mr. House for Minister for Transport re demand.
Telex 23.8.74 to ANM.
Letter from P&0 to ANZ Bank, photostat copy of cheque, cash disbursement sheet No. 181, Pass Sheet, Deposit Slip.
228
Exhibit No.
Description
9 L Ledger Card A/c No . 4466.
9 M Copy letter 27.8.74 from H. Jones & Co. and copy
of permit application 22.7.74
10 A
Refrigerated Express Lines (A'sia) Pty. Ltd.
Exhibits 10A-10AA relate to Sloman Alstertor
Single voyage permit No. 22899 of 31.7.74.
10 B Telex from Boalch Shipping Agency re demand.
10 C Telex 8.8.74 from Fremantle Office re demand.
10 D Telex 9.8.74 from Sydney Office re demand.
10 E Telex 9.8.74 to Fremantle Office re demand.
10 F Telex 10.8.74 to Sydney Office re demand.
10 G Telex from Sydney Office re demand.
10 H Telex from Fremantle Office re attitude of Maritime Unions.
10 0 Telex 14.8.74 to Sydney Office re ban on sailing.
10 K Telex 15.8.74 to Fremantle Office re payment.
10 L Telex 15.8.74 to Sydney Office re sailing time.
10 M Telex 15.8.74 from Sydney Office re sailing time.
10 N Telex 15.8.74 to Sydney Office re delay in sailing.
10.0 Calculations re wage differential.
10 P Letter 15.8.74 to SUA re calculations and photostat copy of bank cheque.
10 Q Amended letter 16.8.74 to SUA.
10 R Telex 9.8.74 to Minister for Transport re legality of claim.
10 S Letter 9.8.74 to, ACTU re demand.
10 T Telex 9 8.74 from Minister for Transport.
10 U Telex 14.8.74 from Minister for Labor &
Immigration.
10 u Letter 14.8.74 from ACTU.
10 u Receipt 16.8.74 from SUA.
10 X Telex 19.8.74 to Minister for Transport seeking advice.
10 Y Application for single voyage permit.
10 z 10 AA
Letter 31.7.74 to Fremantle. Liner Booking Note.
229
Exhibit No . Description
Hetherington Kingsbury Pty. Ltd.
Exhibits llfl-HF relate to Thunderbird.
11 A Telex 22.7.74 to Hobart re uage rates.
11 B Letter 23.7.74 to SUA.
11 C Copy of letter 26.7.74 from ANÎ to SUA.
11 D Letter 29.7.74 to National Bank of Australia re bank cheque.
11 E Letter 30.7.74 from ANM to SUA re calculations.
11 F Receipt from SUA.
11 G Correspondence and telexes re payment to creu re Gamma.
11 H Document re ITF Asia rates to 31.8.74.
11 3 Single voyage permit re Thunderbird.
Department of Transport
12 Departmental files re Prima Maersk
13 Sloman Alstertor
14 Sevillan Reefer
15 Report of Duly 1974 re backlog of cargo in
Tasmanian ports.
16 Departmental file re Thunderbird.
17 Recommendation to Minister re application for Prima Maersk
The Shell Co. of Australia Ltd.
Exhibits 18A-18K relate to Pacific l/oyaqer.
18 A Letter 3.8.72 and
Hamilton & Co. fixing letter from MacDonald
18 B Telex 11.8.72 from Daruin re sailing time.
18 C Te 1 e^ from Brisbane re arrival and discharge.
18 D Bill of Lading.
18 E Invoice 6.9.72 for
differential.
charter hire and uage
18 F Fixing letter 8.11 .72.
18 G Telex 2.11.72 from Daruin re voyage i details.
18 H Telex 7.11.72 from Daruin re arrival .
18 3 Bill of Lading
230
Exhibit No.
Description
18 K
18 L
18 ÎÎ
18 N
18.G
18 P
18 Q
18 R
18 S
18 T
18 U
19 A
19 B
19 C
19 D
19 E
19 F
19 G
19 H
19 3
19 K
19 L
19 Î Î
Amended inuoice of 23.11.72
Exhibits 18L-18R relate to Allied Trader.
Copy of tanker voyage charter party between Far East Shipping Co. Ltd. and Shell.
Single voyage permit No. 22702 issued 31.7.73.
Telex 5.8.73 from Shell Refinery, Geelong, re loading and departure.
Telex 8.8.73 from Sydney re arrival.
Bill of Lading.
Letter and Debit Note 6.8.73 from Dorval Tankships Pty. Ltd.
Letter 10.12.73 from Dorval Tankships re time sheets and list of crew.
Telex 21.6.74 to Shell International, London, re chartering a vessel for Ampol Petroleum and indicating conditions demanded by SUA.
Telex 21.6.74 from Shell, London, re Ondina
Telex 24.6.74 to Shell, London, indicating owner's attitude re chartering Ondina and Prima Maersk.
Ampol Petroleum Ltd.
Telex 18.6.74 to Maritime Unions re P.3. Adams
Telex 20.6.74 from Department of Transport.
Telex 20.6.74 to Department of Transport re application for permit for Poly queen and P . 3. Adams
Cable to London brokers re Holospira.
Letter 1.7.74 to SUA re agreement to conditions for Prima Maersk.
Telex 1.7.74 to Department of Transport re problem on P .3. Adams .
Exhibits 19G-19M relate to Prima Maersk.
Telex 3.9.74 from Department of Transport.
Telex 19.8.74 from Brisbane re wage differential.
Receipt 29.8.74 from SUA.
Confidential document re estimate of charter costs.
Photocopy extract from diary of A.E.3. Burgess, Shipping Manager.
As above, for K.F. Drinan, General Manager, Refining & Supply.
231
Exhibit No .
Description
20 A
P & 0 (Australia) Ltd.
Circular 6.9.74 from Merchant Service Guild re publicity about demands.
Exhibits 20B-20G relate to Wild Avocet.
20 B Telex 3.10.74 from Captain Quigley re demands of crew.
20 0 Permit No. 22032 of 9.9.74.
20 D Liner Booking Note.
20 E Telegrams 13.10.74 to Prime Minister, Attorney- General and Ministers for Labor & Immigration and Transport, requesting assistance.
20 Î Reply 14.10.74 from Minister for Transport.
20 G Letter 15.10.74 and annexures re payment of differential to SUA .
Exhibits 20 H and 20 3 relate to Italian Reefer.
20 H Liner booking note and confidential letter 1.10.74.
20 3 Letter 24.10.74 to Firemen & Deckhands Union.
21
PERTH HEARINGS
Statutory Declaration, P.C. Lushey, Manager, Boalch's Shipping Agencies Pty. Ltd.
22 Bank Statements of Marine Industry Group (MIG).
23 Document listing details of cheque draun on
Account No. 902-108, MIG.
24 ACTU policy 16.4.73 re work by shore based unions.
25 Correspondence between Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd.(BHP) and Minister for Transport and the Department of Transport, 25.5.73, 19.7.73, 20.6.73, 10.7.73, 12.7.73, 18.7.73 re single voyage permit to lift iron ore.
26 Statement of L.U. Uallis, Australian Iron & Steel Pty./'Ltd. re application for permit for World Nomad and Daqland and rejection.
27 Amendments to Exhibit 2.
28
Patrick Agencies
Documents and receipt re Games Stove.
29 Receipt for payment re Castledore.
30 Tuo receipts for payment re APJ Priya.
232
Exhibit No.
31
32
33 A
33 B
34
35
35 A
35 B
36
37
38
39
Letter 12.11.71 MWU to Patricks re payment to creu of Aopollonian.
Documents re settlement of dispute on Kythnos.
P & 0 (Australia) Ltd.
Exhibits 33A-37 relate to Manchester Vigour.
Copy of letter from creu to SUA of W.A. refusing uage differential.
Cheque payable to Noongah Memorial Fund, to SUA.
Letter to SUA re payment to Noongah Fund.
SUA Journal, Nov/Dec. 1973, p.288.
SUA Journal, August 1973, pp.204 and 205.
SUA Journal, August 1973, pp.169 and 170.
SUA Journal, September 1974, p.247.
Letter 7.12.73 and receipt from Federal Office.
Affidavit F.A. Drake-Brockman, Manager, (U.A.) Overseas Containers Australia Pty. Ltd.
Wesfarmers Co-operative
Receipts, telex and letter 3.5.74 re Carl Trautuian and Neu Keelunq
Description
Department of Transport
Files re application for permits for -40 A Safocean Albany 20.8.73
40 B Safocean Albany 20.11.73
40 C Safocean Albany 22.3.74
40 D Safocean Auckland 16.4.74
40 E Safocean Auckland 7.8.74
40 F Safocean Albany 11.7.74
40 G World Nomad, Welsh Minstrel
and Daqland
40 H London Clipper
40 J Botany Triumph 5.9.74
40 K Botany Troian, Botany Trader
40 L Botany Triumph 26.6.74
40 M Botany Triumph 6.5.74
233
Exhibit No .
Description
40 N Lisbeth Hue
40 0 Lsco Tabanqo 7.2.74
40 P Discovery Bay
40 Q Tobicruiser
40 R Golar Freeze
40 S Uesterplatte
41
Lynn Elder Pty. Limited.
Letter 12/13/17.5,70, wages sheet and wages paid re Mini Latria
42 Tuo receipts re ITF payment re World Diana.
43
Dalgety Australia Limited.
Documents re payment to UUF for Fleer Drecht.
44 As above, for Petrel.
45
Houard Smith Industries Pty. Limited.
Documents re payment to MUU for La Estancia.
46 Documents re payments to UUF for Asia Flaminqo.
47 Circulars 7.3.72 and 6.9.73 from AEUL, U .A .
Branch re policy on demands.
48
Union Bulkships Pty. Limited.
Documents in relation to payments on Capulet and Jersey Bridge.
49
Uigmores Limited.
Documents re dispute on Uienertor.
50
APT Shipping Limited.
Documents re payment on Emma Bakke.
51 Documents re payment on Golar Freeze.
52
Petterson & Co. Pty. Limited.
Wages* Sheets for 9 and 24.5.74.
53 Service and leave charge returns re James Stove.
54
Marine Industry Group.
SUA Journal, January 1972, pp. 6 and 7.
55 Documents produced by Commonwealth Savings Bank.
56 Tuo Cheque Books.
57 List of selected receipts from receipt books.
234
Exhibit No.
Five receipt books.
Description
59
60
60 A
60 B
60 C
61
62
62 B
62 C
62 D
63 A
63 B
63 C
63 D
63 E
63 F
63 G
63 H
SYDNEY HEARINGS
Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Limited.
Statement of R.C. McLennan, General Shipping Manager.
Detailed calculations re Uorld Nomad.
Statement of R. Boyd, Australian Iron & Steel Pty. Limited re effects on production if ironstone not shipped.
Statement J.R. Sullivan re meeting with SUA on provision of shipping tonnage.
Comparative costs of chartering Uorld Achilles and Uorld Nomad.
Statement J.B. Prescott, Assistant Manager, Fleet Operations Division re Iron Hunter.
Ampol Petroleum Limited.
Extracts from Minutes of meetings 31.7.74, Policy Meeting No.29 of 28.6.74 and Policy Meeting No.39 of 27.9.74 re P â 3 .Adams & charter of Prima Maersk.
Handwritten document re calculation of payment re Prima Maersk.
Copy of list of creu and document entitled Creus Uages Account 16.7.74 to 10.8.74 re Prima Maersk.
Costs of shipping Uesternport/Brisbane from 1.1.73 to 31.12.73 and 1.1.74 to 30.9.74.
Australian Newsprint Mills Limited.
List of vessels carrying newsprint 26.9.70 to 19.8.74.
Correspondence with shipowners re availability of ships from 17.3.66.
Letter 28.3.74 to UUF, Hobart, re ban on removal of newsprint.
Telex 30.8.74 to Sir Peter Abeles re availability of Poolta.
Document re newsprint held in storage 1973/74.
Documents setting out shipments, cumulative pro duction, etc., 1973 and 1974.
Letter 26.9.74 to Associated Steamships Pty. Ltd. re shipping problems.
Telex to R.U. Miller & Co. re Ricky Miller.
235
Exhibit No.
Description
63 3
63 K
63 L
63 M
63 N
63 0
63 P
63 Q
63 R
63 S
63 T
63 U
63 V
63 U
63 X
63 Y
63 A A
64
64 A
64 B
65 A
Notes of discussions uith Mr. Colbourne, PKIU, re dispute between TUU and UUF.
File note by Mr. E . Bugg, re shipment on Astree.
Letter 15.3.74 to Minister for Transport re 'grave' situation.
Telexes 22.5.74 to Elliott and Hauke re situation.
Telex to Mr. Garrad, Private Secretary to Minister for Transport re union's demand for a meeting.
Telex to Harradine re meeting
Liner Booking Note re North Sea.
Letter 31.5.74 to all parties represented at Conference on 29.5.74.
Copy letter 3.6.74 from Associated Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. to SUA.
Exhibits 63S-63V relate to Thunderbird.
Copy telex 17.7.74 to Department of Transport re problems.
Copy letter 26.7.74 to Minister for Labor & Immi gration , and telex 29.7.74 re problems.
Letter 30.7.74 to ACTU re payment.
Telex 7 J3.74 to ACTU re demand.
Letter 26.8.74 to Minister for Labor & Immigration re payments on Thunderbird and Sevillan Reefer.
Letter 14 May to Minister for Transport re general situation.
Schedule of comparative costs of charter vessels.
Letter 27.8.74 from P&0 re reimbursement for pay ment on Sevillan Reefer.
Shiptraco Sea Transport Services Pty. Ltd.
Documents re payment to Painters & Dockers Union, N .S .U / Branch, re Glyfada Summer.
Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch.
Roster for week commencing 2D.5.74 re Glyfada Summer.
List of correct and assumed names provided by Mr. Galleghan, Vigilance Officer.
ACTU
Minutes of meeting of Unions 29.9.71 re cleaning and shore uork. 236
Exhibit ÎÏ â
Description
65 B
65 C
65 D
65 E
66 A
66 B
66 C
66 D
66 E
67 A
67 B
67 C
68
69 A
69 B
69 C
69 D
69 E
70
Minutes of Meeting of Unions 16.4.73 re members employed on overseas ships.
Circular 142 concerning resolutions of Executive re maritime unions' demands.
Extract from Financial Revieu 19.4.74.
File re notifications from Minister on permits issued.
MTIA.
Minutes of meeting 21.6.74 of Waterfront Section.
Letter to Australian Chamber of Shipping and reply 25.7.74.
Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
Receipt 8.2.74 from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch, re Safocean Albany.
Circular 21.2.74 from Painters & Dockers Union N.S.U. Branch, re claims to work.
Originals of documents in Ex.66 re Safocean Albany
Port Line (Australia) Pty. Ltd.,
Exhibits 67A-67C relate to Port Caroline.
Cheque 15.10.74 payable to General Fund, Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U.
Invoice 15.10.74 from Painters & Dockers.
Receipt 16.10.74 from Painters & Dockers.
R . V . H . Middlemass & Co. Pty. Ltd.
Correspondence with George Wills & Co and Ship wrights , N.S.U., re payment on Vishoa Mahima.
Merchant Service Guild
Circular 6.9.74 to N.S.U. members.
Newsletter.
Bulletin No.1 - 'Maritime Sea-Going Unions Cam paign against Foreign Permit Vessels'
Report on meeting 29.5.74.
Volume of Minutes of Committee of Management Meetings.
Marine Stewards Union
Letter 25.10.74 to Port Secretaries re special issue of SUA Journal.
237
Exhibit No. Description
71
72
72 A
72 B
72 C
72 D
72 E
73
74
74 A
74 B
74 C
74 D
74 E
74 F
PREI
Report of Meeting 21.5.74.
PERTH HEARINGS
Marine Industry Group
Letter 13.12.67 to Commonwealth Savings Bank re A/c No. 5772 and Statutory Declaration.
Letter 22.8.68 from Premier of U .A . re protest over Ootzee.
Documents from FPA re ship movements on 12/13.8.74,
Documents re Trades Hall Project and Bank State ment re Fremantle May Day Committee.
FPA Act and Regulations, Forms re Application for Registration as a Casual Worker, Notification of Allocation and Termination of Engagement of Labour, Ship Painters & Dockers Award.
Letters to and from AEUL re employment of crews on overseas vessels.
Patrick Agencies
Letter 15.11.74 to MUU re payment on Aegis Eland.
SYDNEY HEARINGS
SUA
Documents entitled 'Resolutions carried at the Joint Meeting of the Maritime Unions held on 10 September, 1974 1 .
Document entitled ' Payments through Seamen's Union for Combined Seagoing Unions re Permit Coastal Vessels'.
List jof single voyage permits relayed to SUA by ACTU and copy of telex to Caltex.
Dept, of Shipping & Transport - Australian Shipping & Shipbuilding Statistics, as at 30.6.63.
Resolution of ACTU Executive 2.5.63 re manning of ships.
ACTU advice re permit for Sea Progress.
Federal Office Report 19/1974, Item 19, re intro duction of permit ship on Gove run.
238
Exhibit No.
74 G
74 H.l
74 H. 2
74 H. 3
74 3
74 K
74 L
74 M
74 N
74.0
74 P
74 Q
74 R
74 S
74 T
74 U
74 V
74 U
74 X
74 Y
Description
Comparison of permits issued 1.1.73 to 20.9.73, based on EX2.
Figures relating to cargo discharged and shipped at principal Australian ports:
1970- 71
1971- 72
1972- 73
Figures taken from Seamen's Stabilisation System Report by Department of Transport.
Letter 16.9.74 from Minister for Transport to ACTU, foruarded to SUA.
Notes of discussions 7.5.73 uith Minister for Transport, ACTU and Maritime Unions re shipbuilding.
Extract Federal Office Report 17/1973 re Manchester Uiqour.
Documents from National President, Neu Zealand Seamen's Union.
Minutes of Branch Meetings held 27.11.73 re Manchester Uiqour.
Extract from Minutes of Meeting of Committee of Management 26/30.8.74 re issues.
Telegram 18.4.74 Hauke to Elliott re Nqpara.
Minutes stop-uork meetings September, 1974 - Fremantle, Port Adelaide, Newcastle, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney and Port Kembla, endorsing demands.
Extract Minutes of Meeting 7.12.71 of Noongah Disaster Committee.
Letter 1.11.73 from Mrs. Elliott to Solicitor and reply 25.1.74.
Letter 31.1.74 from Mr. Elliott to Mrs. Elliott re Noongah Disaster Fund.
Extract from Elliott's diary 13/14.9.73 re Noongah Disaster Fund.
Notes of Elliott of 29.5.74 meeting.
Document headed 'Prima Maersk and Possible Related Items'.
Minutes of ACTU Transport Group's Meeting 28.10.74 re demands.
Maritime Industry Seagoing Award, 1973.
239
74 Z
74 Afl
74 BB
74 CC
74 DD
75
75
76
76 A
76 B
76 C
76 D
77
77 A
78
79
79 B
79 C
80
81
82
Exhibit No.
Particulars of Japanese Wage rates.
Particulars on U.S. Jones Act forwarded by Sailors' Union of the Pacific.
Letter 19.9.74 from Bishop of Wild Avocet to SUA.
Correspondence re Sea Progress.
British Seamen's Union re levy of £15 per annum.
Department of Transport.
Records of unemployed seamen.
SUA
Comparison of seamen with above part of exhibit.
Department of Transport.
Letter 20.8.74 from Minister to Elliott re shipping policies.
Letter 20.3.74 Minister to ACTU and reply 3.4.74 re manning.
Correspondence re Gabriella.
Departmental rough notes of meeting 16.8.73.
Documents relating to Prima Maersk.
SUA
Federal Office Report 12/1974.
Federal Office Report 13/1974.
Department of Transport.
Report of Mr. Jones, Bureau of Transport Economics.
Patrick Agencies.
Cheque 20.2.74 and letter 20.3.74 re Îονοίvovsk and Master's Handbook.
Cheque 4.12.74 and documents re Benvorlich.
Cheque 13.8.73 and documents re Tai Sun.
Shipwrights
Receipt books and copies of correspondence.
Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd.
Statement of R.G. McLennan.
Merchant Service Guild.
Notes of meeting 29.5.74
Description
240
Exhibit No. Description
83
84
85
86
87
SUA
Telegrams re deferment of SUA Committee of Management's Meeting and correspondence with UUF re Membership of ITF.
Registered Rules and Constitution of Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia.
Merchant Service Guild
Entry 21.6.74, diary of M.E. Fleming.
Royal Commission.
Notes on Neu Zealand visit; material provided by U.S. Consul.
CSO A
Statement of 3.R. Peachey, Industrial Officer.
241
APPENDIX UI
LIST OF EXHIBITS
PART II
SYDNEY HEARINGS
Exhibit No . Description
Opal Maritime Agencies Pty. Ltd.
A Cheque, Letter 4.7.75 and attached Circular 21.2.74, A C T U resolution from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch, re Komsomolets Nakhodki
B
B2
B3
C
C2
C3
D
D2
F
H . C . Sleigh Ltd.
Account from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch, Document "Remuneration to Painters & Dockers Union", Cheque requisition; Letters 13.6.74 to China Union Lines Ltd. re Union East
Letters 10.11.71 from Shipwrights N.S.U. Branch re Joseph Conrad
Account from F.G. Strang Pty. Ltd. re Emilia Plater
Sofrana Unilines (Aust. ) Pty. Ltd.
Account and receipt from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch; Cheque requisition; Letter 23.4.75 to Painters & Dockers Union re Capitaine La Perouse
Cheque requisition re Capitaine Tasman
Letter 23.4.75 to Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch; and account 22.4.75 re Capitaine La Perouse
Interocean Suire Pty. Ltd.
Cheque requisition re Uoorne
Letter 1.4.75 to Holland Bulk Transport b.u ., receipt and cheque requisition re l/oorne
Patrick Operations Pty. Ltd.
Circular 21.2.74 from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch and document setting out rates of pay
Howard Smith Industries Ltd.
Account from Painters & Dockers Union N.S.U. Branch and receipt re Stolt Zeus
242
Exhibit Mo.
Î2
F3
G
G2
H
3
K
K2
K3
L
L2
L3
L4
L5
Description
Letter 1.11.74 from Shipwrights, N.S.U. Branch, re Neta
Requisition for cheque re Stolt Zeus
Bohn Manners & Co . (Aust.)Pty. Ltd .
Notice of Defective Cargo Gear, Telex; Account 3.1.75 from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch, receipt, Statement of Fact, Survey Report re Hoi Kunq
Firemen and Deckhands Union of N.S.U.
Statement of Fact and Invoice 16.7.75 re Lamant
Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
Telexes, cheque, letter 28.9.74 to Painters & Dockers Union, Newcastle Branch, and Receipt re Shirrabank
Patrick Stevedoring Co. Pty. Ltd.
Cheque; correspondence with Shipwrights N.S.U. Branch; Account re Rowanbank
P & 0 (Australia) Ltd.
Cheque and Account 17.10.74 from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch, re Morvada
Letter 11.7.75 from Shipwrights, N.S.U. Branch, re Morvada
Credit Note; Cheque; Letter; Receipt re Morvada
Australian Chamber of Shipping
Letter 8.11.74 to Royal Commission and List of Members as at 19.3.74
Letter 21.2.74 from Painters & Dockers Union and reply 27.2.74 re work claimed
Letter 27.6.74 from Metal Trades Industry Association and reply 25.7.74 re demands
Extract from Minutes of Meeting 6.9.74 of Technical Committee
Letter from K.N. Patrick, U .A . Chairman, 17.10.74 and reply 28.10.74 re appearance before Royal Commission
243
Description
Letter 14.8.75 from Secretary, Royal Commission re submissions
P & 0 (Australia) Ltd.
Extracts L.N. Dedman1s diary; Letter 2.7.75 Dedman to Master; Letter 2.7.75 Petterson & Co. Pty. Ltd. to M.U.U.; Cheque, Account from Petterson & Co., various telexes, re Chennai Perumai .....
McArthur Shipping & Agency Co. Pty. Ltd.
Letter 9.7.75 to Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch , and receipt re Nalanda
Account 15.7.75 and receipt from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch, Letter 14.7.75 from Master, Letter 15.7.75 to the Union, re Dordrecht
Account 22.4.75 from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch, Letter 28.4.75 to the Union re Michalis
Receipt from Painters & Dockers Union, Port Kembla, Sub-Branch to Union Bulkships 9.7.75 re Aqano Maru
Account 20.5.74 from Painters & Dockers Union, N S U. Branch, and receipt 28.6.74', Receipt from UUF re Astree
Star Shipping (Aust. ) Pty. Ltd.
Invoice 8.7.75; Receipt 9.7.75 from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch; Account 8.7.75 from the Union to Hetherington Kingsbury; Receipt from UUF 25.7.75; Letter 11.7.75 from UUF to Hetherington Kingsbury, Port Log, Telexes re Lone Star
Patrick Agencies
Te/ex to C.M. Los, London and Reply, re Anastassia
Transcript of proceedings before Australian Conciliation & Arbitration Commission, Commissioner Brack 11.8.75 and Commissioner Mansini 13.8.75, re Andros Hills
Exhibit .
Îη Description
Q Account 3.2.75 from Painters & Dockers Union,
N.S.U. Branch, and Receipt 5.2.75, re Northern Star
R
Mclluraith McEacharn Ltd.
Account 17.4.75 from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch; Cheque and Receipt, re Dona Amalia
S
Interocean Suire Pty. Ltd.
Account 7.5.75 from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch; Requisition for Cheque; Letter 8.5.75 to Nauru Pacific Line; Letter 8.5.75 to Master, re Lama
S2 Requisition for Cheque 10.12.73 payable Fireman & Deckhands re Safocean Albany
S3 Invoice from Consolidated Stevedores Pty. Ltd. Letter 25.11.74 from Shipurights, N.S.U. Branch ; Letter 29.11.74 to Consolidated Stevedores Pty. Ltd. re Coral Chief
U.A.l
PERTH HEARINGS
Maritime Workers' Union
Document entitled "Claims for Uork Made by Maritime Workers Union" and List of Payments
U.A.2
Union Bulkships Pty. Ltd.
Letter 10.7.75 from Fremantle Shipurighting Co Telexes", Cheque Request Voucher; Cheque; Receipt; Letter 18.7.75 from Scottish Ship Management Ltd. re Cape Urath
U.A.3 Letter 28.2.75 to Scottish Ship Management Ltd. and Invoice 26.2.75 from Petterson & Co. re Cape Grenville
U.A.4
Uigmores Ltd.
Telexes; Receipt," Cheque," Letter 4.8.75 to MUU statement nf Fact." Time Sheet re Graceous
U . A . 5 Report 7.8.75 to McArthur Shipping & Agency Co. Pty. Ltd.; Correspondence uith MUU re Graceous
24228/ 76â 9 245
Exhibit No .
U.fl.6
U.fl.7
U.A.8
U. A .9
U.A.9
U.A.10
U.A.ll
U.A.12
U.A.13
U.A.14
U.A.15
U.A.16
Description
Telexes; Report 30.10.74 to McArthur Shipping & Agency Co. Pty. Ltd.; Statement of Fact, Time Sheet, re Octavia
Invoice 25.10.74 from Petterson & Co.; Tuo Statements of Labour re Octavia
Lynn-Elder Pty. Ltd.
Letter 28.4.75 to FPA, ' Notification of Hours of Duty form; Telexes; Debit Note; Cheques; re Amstellaan
Patrick Agencies
Letter 6.8.75 to MUU requesting a meeting to discuss claims
Report 5.3.75 to Charterers; Invoice from Petterson & Co.; LayDay Statement; re Koryu Maru
Report 24.3.75 to Sims Consolidated Ltd.; Invoice from Petterson & Co.; LayDay Statement re Seizan Maru
Report 7.4.75 to Baltic Shipping Company; Invoice from Petterson & Co.; Statement of Fact/Time Sheet re Novolvovsk
Report 24.7.75 to China Ocean Shipping Co.; Invoice from Petterson & Co.,â Statement of Fact re Fuhai
Invoice from Petterson & Co. Pty. Ltd. re Parnassos
ACTA Pty. Ltd.
Bank Payment Voucher; Receipt; Invoice from Petterson & Co.; Letters from Captain and Chief Officer, re Malaysia
Cheque 26.5.75 Petterson & Co. to MUU; Invoices from Petterson & Co.; Statement of Labour re Malaysia
Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
Telex; Statement of Fact; Report 2.12.74 to The Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd.; Invoice from Petterson & Co.; Statement of Labour; Receipt," re Geiko Maru
246
Exhibit .
⢠I Description
W. A.17 Report 14.1.75 to The Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd.; Statement of Facts; Invoice from Petterson & Co.,* Receipt re Sea Crest U. A.18 Telex; Statement of Facts; Report 18.3.75
to The Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd.; Invoice from Petterson & Co.J Receipt re Asia Morality ...
W. A.19
A.P.T. Shipping Pty. Ltd.
Invoices from Petterson & Co. re Lloyd Bakke, Anna Bakke, Kristin Bakke, Emma Bakke, Raqna Bakke, Ellen Bakke, G.jertrud Bakke
U.A.20
Fremantle Port Authority
Report 31.7.75 from Personnel & Industrial Relations Officer to General Manager re · Registered Casual Workers
U.A ,21 Report pursuant to S.31A Fremantle Port Authority Act re Casual Workers, etc.
W. A.22 Application form for Registration as Casual Worker. Application form for Registration as Employer of Casual Workers
W.A.23 Requisition for Labour form
W.A.24 Documents re Employment of Labour
W. A.25 Service Charge Return form
W.A.26 Ship Painters & Dockers Annual Leave, Public Holiday, Sick Leave, Compassionate Leave and Payment of Accrued Sick Leave on Retirement Agreement 1974
U.A.27 Ship Painters & Dockers Guarantee of Earnings Agreement 1973
W.A.28
Patrick Agencies
Letter 4.7.73 to Kristian Jebsens Rederi re Baknes
U.A.29
Wesfarmers Co-operative
Invoice, Port Log and Statement of Fact re Oranqefield
U.A.30
Petterson & Co.
December '74 Return to FPA re Levies
247
Exhibit N o .
U.A.31
U.A.32
U .A . 33
U.A.34
U .A .35
U.A.36
U.A.37
U.A.38
U.A.39
U.A.40
U.A.41
U.A.42
U.A.43
U.A.44
Description
Copy of charge made by FPA, April/dune 1975
Statement of Labour; Notification of Hours of Duty ; Notification of Employment of Unregistered Labour re Geiko Maru
MUU
Receipt No. 7271 from Receipt Book No. 49, 16.3.72J Paragraph 9 of Page 4, Minutes of Meeting of Committee of Management
Patterson & Co.
Photostat copies of two invoices dated 6.3.75 re Breim
Receipt; Notification of Hours of Duty; Sum ary of Labour; Allocation Sheets; Letter to FPA, re Octavia
Debtors Ledger Sheet No. 9, Account No. U . 2, Uigmores Ltd., re Octavia
Sales Oournal page 19, Uigmores Ltd., re Octavia
Sundry Clearing Account No. A.6 re Octavia
Notification of hours of duty; Notification of employment of Unregistered Labour; October 174 Return for Levies
FPA documents re Koryu Maru, Lok Prabha, Cape York, Novolvovsk, Chennai Perumai, Naqara, Seizan Maru, Breim, Asia Morality Return to Commonwealth Taxation Office re Stevedoring Industry Charge
Confidential document re charge rates -
Burns Philp & Co. Ltd.
'copy Petterson's account, telexes, re Breim
George Uills & Co. Ltd.
Copy of Petterson's Account; Statement of Labour; Statement by George Uills & Co.; re .Lok Prabha
Marine Industry Group
Minutes of Meeting 4.9.75 re recommendation of Royal Commission to repay money demanded
248
Exhibit No.
U.A.45
U.A.46
U.A.47
U.A.48
U.A.49
U.A.50
U.A.51
U.A.52
U.A.53A.1
U.A.53A.2
U. A.53A.3
U.A.53A.4
U. A.53A . 5
U.A.54
U.A.55
U.A.56
U.A.57
W. A.58
W.A.59
Description
FPA
Requisition for Labour, Notification of Hours of Duty, Levies Return in respect of following:
Octavia
Geiko Maru
Koryu Maru
Breim, Asia Morality, Seizan Maru
Chennai Perumai
Fuhai
Cape Wrath
MUD
Page 86 of Cash Book, and Commonwealth Savings Bank Pass Book, Fremantle, Account No. 169168
Special Receipt Book containing receipt 4.8.75 re Graceous
Receipt No. 12486 dated 31.7.75 for $400 from Receipt Book No. 84
Page 29 of Cash Book for week ending 1.8.75 containing entry $4 for 'Casuals'
Receipt No. 12113 dated 17.4.75 for $112.67 from Receipt Book No. 81
Page 17 of Cash Book containing entry ' Casuals-$112.67'
Minutes of Meeting of Committee of Management 12.8.75
Five books of bank deposit slips for Account No. 900903
FPA
Requisition for Labour; Notification of Hours of Duty; Levies Return, re Orangefield
Report re James Stove
Document entitled ' Unregistered Levy '
Casual Workers Attendance Money Report for year ended 30.9.75
Annual Report on Registered Casual Workers Guarantee of Earnings Scheme for year 1973/74
24228 / 76â 10 249
Exhibit No .
Description
U.fl.60
U.A.61
U.fl.62
U.A.63
LJ.fl.64
LI. A . 65
U .A .66
U.fl.67
U.fl.68
U.A.69
U.fl.70
U.A.71
LJ.fl.72
U.A.73
LJ.fl.74
U.fl.75
Lf. A . 7 6
Report on Annual Leave, etc. for year ended 30.9.74
Statement re Attendance Money
Document entitled "Details of Service Charge; Leave Charge Levies and Guarantee of Earnings Levies from 1.9.1972 to 1.1.1975"
Petterson & Co.
Document entitled "Pay Rates"
Document re Cost Structure - CONFIDENTIAL
MUU
Bank Statements for Account No. 900903
Fremantle Shipurighting Co.
Document entitled "Î.V . Orangefield - Cash paid for work done by creu"
Statement of events re Orangefield
Time Sheets re Orangefield
Invoice dated 11.4.75 re Orangefield
List of Registered Members and names of men uho received payments and Receipts re Carl Trautuein
Documents re Eastern Merit
LJ.A. Industrial Commission
List of Officers and Members; Financial Returns relating to MLJU
FPfl
List entitled "Registered Casual Workers July, 1974 to June, 1975 - Gross Earnings"
Minutes of Meetings of Registered Employers and Union Secretary held 10.3.72 re payment of levy for unregistered casual workers
Bundle of documents re Guarantee of Earnings; Leave Account and Consolidated Pay Scheme
MUU
Receipt Book No. 85, 3 receipts 1.9.75, Page 31 of Cash Book - week ended 29.8.75
All books of account
250
ADELAIDE HEARINGS
Exhibit .
Mn Description
S.A.l
Painters & Dockers Union, Federal Office
Letter 23.1.75 to Port Adelaide Branch
S.A.2
AEUL, S .A . Branch
Letter 2.9.74 to Federal Office re Ptolemais, Apollodorus, Atlantic Maru, Capulet
S.A.3
Union Bulkships Pty. Ltd.
Account from A. McFarlane & Sons and Report to Bouring Steamship Co. Ltd. re Capulet
S.A.4
George Uills & Co. Ltd.
Letter 30.8.74 to AELJL, Port Adelaide re Ptolemais, Apollodorus, Atlantic Maru
Letter 15.4.75 to McArthur Shipping, Sydney re Neptune Cyprine, Toyoto Maru
S . A . 5 Accounts from various ship repairing firms, re Hourai Maru, Michalis, Neptune Cyprine, Bryn ie, Neptune Ruby, Neptune Sakura
S.A.6
Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd.
Receipt 13.9.72? Report to Scottish Ship Management Ltd.; Glasgow, re Cape Urath
S.A.7
Burns Philp Ltd.
Account from E.E. & T.C. Mathews & List of Men re Marsha
s .a .s
Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
Documents re Pedro de Alvarado
S.A.9
Painters & Dockers Union, Port Adelaide Branch
Receipt & Payments Statement as at 31.12.74
S.A.10
AEUL, S .A . Branch
Letter 3.9.74 to Federal Office
Î. A.11 Circular 26.8.74 re ACTU claims and replies
5. A.12 Circular 15.8.74 re ACTU claims and replies
251
SYDNEY HEARINGS
Exhibit No .
X
X.l
Y
Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
AG
AH
AS
AK
AL
Description
Burns Philp & Co. Ltd.
Cheque, Receipt and Invoice - July 1975 re Hyoqo Flaru
Invoice from Storey & Keers (Ship Repairs) Pty Ltd. 15.7.75, re Hyoqo Haru
Consolidated Stevedores Pty. Ltd. Letter 12.8.74 from Shipwrights, N.S.U Branch and reply 20.8.74,* Invoice re Anna Costa
Hetherington Kingsbury Pty. Ltd.
Photocopies of Credit Note, Bank Statement, Ledger Card and Cash Payment Book, re Port de F ranee
Photocopies of receipt, letter 10.12.74 to Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U Branch; Account 6.12.74,â Bank Statement; Ledger Card; Cash Pay ment Book re Uaqlan Island
Photocopies of receipt, letter 17.12.74 to UUF' , letter 9.12.74 from UUF; Credit Note,' Bank State ment; Ledger Card,' Cash Payment Book; re Uaqlan Island
Photocopies of receipts (2) from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U Branch; Bank Statement; Ledger Card; Cash Payment Book re Port de France
Letter 18.7.75 to Painters & Dockers Union and Circular Letter re Fuqo flaru and lie de Lumiere
Letter 9.1.75 from Shipwrights, N.S.U Branch re Isinq Yi Island
Photocopies of Bank Statements; Receipt; Credit Note; Invoice from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U Branch; Receipt; Credit Note; Letter 11.7.75 from UUF; Ledger Card; Cash Payment Book;
re Lone Star
Painters & Dockers Union, Newcastle Branch S4x photographs of premises
Cheque No. 685549 dated 11.11.74 for $3,138.00
Cheque No. 605536 dated 30.10.74 for-$1,236.73
Cheque No. 605533 dated 25.10.74 for $4,000.00
Deposit slip and eight cheques
252
1
Exhibit No. Description
AM(1)
AM (2)
AN
AO
AP
AQ
John Uingate & Sons
Receipt from Painters & Dockers Union, Port Kembla, re Jarl R Trapp
Painters & Dockers Union, Port Kembla Sub-Branch
Dockets from Starting Book, Nos. 17124 and 17125, re Agano Waru
Karlander Australia Pty. Ltd.
Telex and Account 27.8.75 from Painters & Dockers Union, re Gerda Bech
Firemen & Deckhands Association of N.S.U.
Receipt No. 3280 dated 23.6.75 re Goomi
Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch
Expenditure Book ? Income Book; Bank Deposit Books; Cheque Butts; Receipt Books
Shipwrights, N.S.U. Branch
Books of account as above and Minutes of meetings of Committee of Management
BRISBANE (HEARINGS IN SYDNEY)
Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
Q.l Letter 20.5.74 to Bank Line (A'sia) Pty. Ltd. re Roybank
Q . 2 Letter 18.10.71 to Empresa Arbana de Fletes re Nike
Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd.
Q.3 Invoice 6.10.75 from Brisbane Ship Repair Services re Shotai Maru
McArthur Shipping & Agency Co. Ltd.
Q . 4 Letter 12.9.75 and statement re Neptune Jasper
253
SYDNEY HEARINGS
Exhibit No.
AR
AS
AT
AU
AV
AU
AX
AY
V.l
V.2
V.3
Description
Shipwrights, Federal Office
Amalgamated Metal Uorkers Journal, article entitled - fACTU Policy as Adopted by Congress, 1975', pp.6-7 "
Painters & Dockers, Federal Office
Two demarcation agreements and N.S.U. Branch Rules
Royal Commission
Submission from The General Council of British Shipping, London, re shore labour
Australian Chamber of Shipping
Report by Mr. Pryce, Coopers & Lybrand, re cost of cleaning in port
Hourly rates supplied by Storey & Keers (Ship Repairs) Pty. Ltd.
Submission from The Baltic & International Maritime Conference, Copenhagen, re cleaning ships' holds
Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
Statement of Fact, Account & Receipt re Stolt Span
Royal Commission
Maritime Services Board Publication entitled Port Statistics, 1973-1974, and copies of Daily Commercial News
MELBOURNE HEARINGS * Uilliam Haughton & Co. Ltd.
Copy Account from T . J . Prest & Sons Pty. Ltd. re Mosor
Copy letter 15.5.72 from T.3. Prest to Painters & Dockers Union, Victorian Branch; copy Account, Uages Sheets re Mosor
Letter 17.2.72 from Shipwrights and letter to Shipwrights 21.2.72 rejecting claim re Natko Nodillo
254
Exhibit No.
V.4
V · 5
U.6
V.7
V.8
V.9
V.10
V.ll
V . 12
V . 13
V . 14
U . 15
V . 16
Description
Shipwrights, Federal Office
Circular 1.11.71 from ACTU re cleaning ships' holds and copy letter 17.9.74 from AEUL to ACTU re crews performing work of shore labour
P & 0 (Australia) Ltd.
Letter 15.3.72 from Shipwrights and letter 24.3.72 to Shipwrights rejecting claim re Uan Liu
Patrick Agencies
Telex 22.5.72, Account and cheque 23.5.72 re Ho Chi Minh
Letter 24.10.75 to Royal Commission re claim and receipt 5.3.73, re Aliki Iâ P .
Invoice and Receipt 13.3.73 re Yamasa flaru
Interocean Australia Services Pty. Ltd.
Photocopies of correspondence with Painters & Dockers Union, Victorian Branch; requisition for cheques for Straat Oohore, Straat Luanda, Straat Singapore
Correspondence re claims on abovenamed vessels
Burns Philp & Co. Ltd.
Correspondence with shipwrights; receipt 4.4.73 re Capitaine Cook
VJestralian Farmers Transport Pty. Ltd.
Documents re claim Moresby Express
Seabridge Australia Pty. Ltd.
Letter 22.8.74 to AEUL about demands re Uelsh T roubadour
Howard Smith Industries Pty. Ltd.
Letter 2.8.71 from Painters & Dockers Union, Victorian Branch and Shipwrights; and letter 10.8.71 to Zim Israel Navigation Co. Ltd. re demand on Beta
Shipowners' Employment Centre
Requisition Book; Labour Allocation Sheets
Sample of Labour Allocation Sheets
255
Exhibit No»
V.17
U.18
V.19
V. 20
V. 21
V. 22
V. 23
V . 24
V. 25
V. 26
V. 27
V. 28
V . 29
Description
Labour Allocation Sheets 1973, 1974 and 1975
Summary of Hours Uorked 1969-1974, prepared by Mr. McClenaghan
MTIA
Minutes of Meetings of Uaterfront Assn. & Unions re permanent employment for Shipwrights, 24.9.71 and 20.9.73
Shipowners' Employment Centre
Two files of documents containing invoices and number of hours uorked by Shipwrights and Painters & Dockers Union
Shipwrights, Victorian Branch
Bundle of documents containing group certificates, etc. showing money earned by members
List entitled 'Ships Caught doing Shipwrights' Work '
File entitled 'File l\lo 1 - ACTU Crews Working'
File entitled 'Report of Meeting with Mr. G. Campbell, Secretary, Victorian Branch, Federated Shipwrights and Ship Constructors' Association and document entitled '1974-75 Study of Wages of Casual Shipwrights Totally Dependent on Pick-up Earnings in Comparison with Present Day Wage Structure '
File No. 4 - Transcript of Proceedings before Mr. Justice Aird on 13 September 1972 - Shipwrights (Shore) Award 1968, Ship Painters and Dockers Award, 1969
Transcript of proceedings before Commissioner Broun, 9 May 1974 - Ship Carpenters and Joiners Award, 1965
Labour Returns to Department of Labour & Immi gration
AEWL
Minutes of Meeting of National Industrial Re lations Committee on 11 February 1975, re WUF claims
Minutes of Meeting of above body on 16 "September 1975, re WWF's rejection of employers' proposals
256
Exhibit No. Description
V.30 Minutes of Meeting ACTU and Maritime Unions with Overseas Shipping Interests and CSOA re cleaning of ships' holds
V.31 Circular 5.5.70 and letter from ACTU re cleaning ships' holds
U.32 Circular 8.6.70 and attached pro-forma re cleaning ships' holds
V. 33 Answers received in response to above pro-forma
U. 34 Letter 11 December, 1970, to ACTU together with summary of results of survey
V. 35 Letter 14 August, 1975, to Secretary, Royal Commission, declining to make submissions
Shipwrights
V . 36 File No. 2 - Indemnity Payments
V . 37 Copy letter 1.11.74 from ACTU to AEUL and
List of Ships where Shore Uork is Performed by Crews
V . 38 Books of Account and other Financial Records
Painters & Dockers Union, Victorian Branch
V. 39 Minutes of Committee of Management
U.40 Letter to Uestralian Farmers Transport re Moresby Express
V . 41 Books of Account
V . 42 Letter 13.6.75 to R.U. Miller & Co. re Amanda
Miller and Robert Miller; Letter 26.6.75 from R.U. Miller-and letter 30 June, 1975, to R.U. Miller re loading stores
U . 43 Returns to Department of Labour & Immigration re employment at pick-up
V. 44 Membership Book
SYDNEY HEARINGS
Australian Chamber of Shipping
AZ Submission by U.A. State Committee
AEUL
BA Documents produced by the Secretary, Mr. J.S. Ooblin
257
Exhibit N o .
BB
BC
BD
BE
BE
BG
BH
BJ
BK
BL
BM
BN
Description
Royal Commission
Minutes of Meetings of ships' agents in Fremantle re claims and demands of MUU
Six statutory declarations and letter 14 November, 1975, with tuo additional declara tions re receipt of money from flqano Maru from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch
Shipwrights, Federal Office
Proposed amendment to 5.45 of Navigation Act
MUU
Parliamentary Debate 1957; Minutes of Meeting of MUU 8 March, 1954; Report of Conference 25 October, 1963 at Dept, of Labor & National Service re cleaning bulk grain ships
Correspondence since 1948 about campaign to secure work
Casual Uorkers' Statistical Summary Report
Six photographs - Flying Bedsteads
Unregistered agreement between CSOA, (U.A. Branch) and Coastal, Dock, River and Harbour Uorkers Union, 30 October, 1945
Survey re lashing and securing cargo 1 January, 1970 to 1 February, 1974
Private arbitration between Transfield U.A. Pty. Ltd. and AMUU of U.A. and others, 14 August, 1974
Royal Commission
Letter from Peters Slip Pty. Ltd. 10 October, 1975, and attachment re gross earnings of painters and dockers - Brisbane
Details of employment of unregistered casual uorkers from FPA, 5 November, 1974; Statement by Miss P. Hilton 17 October, 1975, re receipt for $104 dated 1 September, 1975.
258
VICTORIAN BRANCH
A P P E N D I X V l l
Median Freq.Jobs/ Uorker/Yr
Mem- Non Over-
bers Mem- all
bers
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
AUARD-SHIP PAINTERS & DOCKERS
APPENDIX VII
6-SCOPE OF AWARD
Subject to the exceptions and exemptions prescribed by
this award, the work covered by this award is work usually
performed by ship painters and dockers and shall include,
inter alia:
Painting, coating with oils or composition, scrubbing, cleaning, chipping, scraping, washing paint work, lime-washing, cement washing or cementing on any vessel or sectional part thereof, or on any vessel during construction.
Sandblasting, shotblasting, flame scaling, metal spraying, cleaning, chipping, scraping, cementing, cement washing, lime washing, coating with paints, oils or compositions, lime work or cement work on constructional iron work, shops , sheds, machinery, cranes, sheerlegs, smoke-stacks, used in connection with the building repair and maintenance of ships in dockyards or shipyards or on buoys and moorings in dockyards and shipyards and all rough paint work.
Keeping docks or slips clean, repairing or otherwise working on docks or slips in connection with work being carried out by shipwrights or ship carpenters and joiners assisting in laying blocks, assisting shipwrights, assisting carpenters and joiners in the shipping trade, general labouring work on vessels, punts or floats, or in and about dockyards and shipyards.
Cleaning and painting masts and yards, booms, derricks, funnels, blacking down riggings, winch driving (except when working cargo), sailor gangs, trans porting shafts, propellers, rudders, rudder posts and machinery from wharf to wharf, laying, assembling or dismantling moorings, handling anchors or cables.
Work on vessels and about ballast tanks, fresh water tanks,Î"air-tight compartments , refrigerating chambers when operating, repairs to insulation, bunkers, up takes, under boilers, between boilers and ship's side, tunnels (except that portion of a tunnel used as a workshop), under tunnels, limbers, chain lockers, caissons, bricking furnaces, carrying ashes on ships, composition or cement flooring.
Rigging stages, lagging, docking and undocking vessels, shifting vessels and work performed by donkeymen.
260
SCOPE CLAUSE (Continued)
Erecting and dismantling all sheerlegs, derricks, flag- staffs, wireless masts in dockyards or shipyards, rigging gear for and hoisting and lowering sections of cranes, slinging boilers and machinery, masts, yards, booms, derricks, funnels, smoke boxes and upÂ
takes from shop to wharf or vessel, or from vessel to wharf or shop.
Rigging, fitting, making, dismantling and repairing all standing rigging and running gear and all palm and needle work incidental thereto, sailmaking, stepping and unstepping masts and crossing of yards, shipping
and unshipping booms and derricks on all vessels, overhauling, making, fitting, repairing and dis mantling all wires and ropes on all vessels lacing defence boom nets, rigging, fitting, repairing and
dismantling all wires and ropes required for naval and merchant service work, making and repairing all nets, puddings, fenders, mats and grummets, making wire or rope ladders, bending sails, overhauling
boat's gear and all ship's gear, rigging, fitting and repairing all wire or rope for any other purpose not included herein, leather work on davits. (All work usually done by waterside workers on cargo gears or stages excluded ).
261
APPENDIX IX
EXTRACTS FROM REPORT BY PRICE WATERHOUSE ASSOCIATES ON TRADE UNION ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
OBSERVATIONS REGARDING ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF ANALOGOUS BODIES IN AUSTRALIA AND OF TRADE
_________ UNIONS OVERSEAS
The provisions of several Australian statutes, with regard to
accounting reporting and related matters, have been examined by
us. Also ue have investigated in general the situation overÂ
seas regarding the regulatory control of trade unions by public
authorities.
By comparison uith the provisions of the Conciliation and
Arbitration Act, other statutes examined by us have the followÂ
ing features of interest.
Co-operation Act 1923 1974 (NSW)
(a) the form and content of accounting statements to be filed annually is clearly laid down.
(b) auditors reports cover a wider range of subjects, and include provision for an opinion as to whether the rules have been adhered to. This refers to members records, and administration of funds.
(c) the powers of the Registrar to investigate affairs are more extensive. They include access to all records and documents uith the right to question officers and call special meetings of members.
Friendly Societies*Act 1912-1975 (NSW)
(a) the Act requires separate accounting for each separate fund and benefit, and the provision of annual account ing statements accordingly.
(b) auditors statement includes an opinion as to whether the rules uith regard to funds have been observed.
(c) the powers of the Registrar to investigate affairs are more extensive.
262
Companies Act 1961-1975 (NSW) Appendix IX
Page 2
(a) the content of accounts is broadly defined in the ninth schedule of the Act.
(b) the appointment and rights of auditors is covered in detail, and auditors are required to provide a specific audit statement.
(c) the powers to have access to records, and investigate affairs is more extensive.
(d) disclosure of the interest of directors, and regulation of benefits which may be given directors is provided f or.
(e) there are controls over loans to directors, and also control of guarantees and securities on their behalf.
(f) directors are required to file a specific statement with regard to the accounts filed and other matters.
Industrial Relations Act 1971 U.K.
(a) the Act requires satisfactory systems of control to be maintained over "its accounting records, cash holdings, and all its receipts and remittances."
(b) an opinion as to whether satisfactory systems of control have been maintained, is required in the audit statement (the emphasis on control system pro vides direction to accountants and auditors, which
is not to be found in other statutes. This is a worthwhile feature).
Labour Management Reporting and Disclosure Act U.S.A.
(a) the Act has a strong emphasis on the control of officers, representatives and employees of labour organisations to minimise the possibilities of de falcations and the acceptance of bribes and other
benefits with regard to industrial relations matters.
(b ) the lodgement of returns annually with regard to interest benefits and income received is required.
(c) the Act gives little detail with regard to account ing matters and records. Apart from a requirement for audit provision in the constitution and bylaws, there is no other mention of the subject of audit.
The general situation in other countries is that there is
a wide variety of legislation with regard to legislative conÂ
trol of trade union administration. There tends to be greater
263
Appendix IX Page 3
control by underdeveloped countries where generally trade unions
are less experienced.
In most countries theie is q requirement to file financial
accounts, usually a balance sheet and income and expenditure
statement, and an auditors report must be included. When annual
returns are to be lodged the registrar generally has power to
demand further information on any matter which is not clear.
Stringent controls exist in many countries of South America -
for example in several countries unions, or their management
committees, are subject to direct supervision by the authorities.
In Brazil, the specific books of account to be kept are defined,
and a budget as well as financial accounts must be filed. BudÂ
gets must also be filed in some other countries.
In a few countries there is provision for authorities to
assume administrative duties of trade unions in particular cirÂ
cumstances. In Canada, following the report of a Royal ComÂ
mission , funds of the Maritime Transportation Union were placed
under the control of a board of public trustees, and the arrangeÂ
ment continued from 1963 to 1966.
/â
264
Appendix IX Page 4
TRADE UNION ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES
Our examination of the sample of trade union accounts filed uith
the Registrar indicated that generally accepted accounting
principles uere adhered to, uith the exception that, the accrual
principle uith regard to membership income uas not applied i.e
contributions from members uere brought to account on the basis
of cash received, and balance sheets did not shou contributions
due but not received as debtors. It uas also found in some cases
that provisions for depreciation on buildings, and for staff
annual leave uas not made.
The practice of accounting for membership income on a cash
basis clearly has a basis in the fact that to account on an
accrual basis formidable clerical uork load uould be imposed at
year end, to make accurate assessment of amounts due for conÂ
tributions. Furthermore because of the high turnover of memÂ
bers in many trade unions large doubtful debt provisions uould
need to be made, and the extent to uhich provisions may be
required uould be difficult to assess.
Unions have resisted changing to the accrual basis for conÂ
tributions, although some auditors have criticised or commented
on the current practice, on the basis that the extra cost of
determining total contribution debtors and relevant doubtful
debt provisions uould not be justifiable. Houever auditors have
in the vast majority of cases accepted accounting for contriÂ
butions on a cash basis, and this has also been the case in
regard to membership organisations other than trade unions.
Apparently members are satisfied uith union administration uith
regard to this matter, as long as the ratio of non financial to
financial members is kept uithin reasonable limits.
24228 / 76â 1 1 265
Appendix IX Page 5
Ue believe it to be acceptable for trade unions to account
on a cash basis as long as :
a) the principle adopted is reported to members in notes
accompanying the annual financial statements.
b) the annual report includes a membership reconciliation
statement shouing membership movements and indicating
the number of financial and non-financial members at
year end.
c) membership registers are maintained, including details
of payment history and the arrears situation for each
member.
It seems appropriate that trade unions should uork to
generally accepted accounting principles as is the case in other
fields of activity. Also it seems appropriate that trade
unions should uork to the Accounting Standards issued jointly by
the major Australian accounting bodies, and also those to be
issued in the future (to the extent that these matters apply to
trade unions e.g. income tax matters are clearly not applicable).
Until the accounting standards currently under consideration
have been issued union accountants and auditors could be guided
by the recommendations and guidelines jointly issued in past
years by the tuo major accounting bodies in Australia.
Although not Referred to in the Conciliation and Arbitration
Act, trade unions are apparently treating special fund accounts
on a trust account basis i.e. separate bank accounts are usually
maintained, and separate accounting reports are usually provided
shouing movement of the trust accounts. In the case of special
levies houever, trust account principles are not being applied
266
and it seems desirable that this should be done. It does not
appear necessary for this to apply for general levies i.e.
levies to supplement general fund income - usually needed until
a contribution increase is approved and implemented.
Appendix IX Page 6
Apart from accounting practices as referred to above there
are other routine accounting control practices which should be
considered. These are of particular importance with regard to
the collection of membership income, and the maintenance of
members records - two difficult areas of trade union accounting
where out of control situations are often to be found. Desirable
recording and control practices are as follows. The listing is
not intended to be definitive.
Receipts
. to register issue of receipt books (or equivalent
records) to delegates and others responsible for
collections.
. to ensure that a receipt (or a form of receipt) is
given to each member at time of collection.
. to account for the usage of receipts as copies are
received with remittances from delegates and others
responsible for collection of memberships income.
. to occasionally call up delegates copies of used
receipt books for internal audit, and ensure agreeÂ
ment with amounts remitted, and that remittances are
being made promptly.
. to ensure that remittances of deductions made by emÂ
ployers agree with schedules of amounts receivable.
267
Appendix IX Page 7
. to ensure that sources and income and nature is fully
and accurately described.
Expenditure
. to ensure approvals of expenditure and in particular
extraordinary expenditure is made in accordance with
rules.
. to ensure benefits payments are made in accordance with
rules and that appropriate checks with membership
register details are made to confirm eligibility.
. to ensure that cheques are signed strictly in accorÂ
dance with the rules.
. to ensure purpose and nature of expenditure is fully
and accurately described.
Members Registers (or Contribution Ledger) and OK cards
. to ensure that details of new members, resignations
and lapses of membership are entered promptly.
. to ensure that contributions due are entered promptly
on or about the due date (e .g . half yearly).
. to ensure collections received details are entered
promptly after recording of remittances received.
. to ensure prompt issue of 'OK' cards on confirmation
of financial membership.
. to ensure that waiving of contributions for unemployÂ
ment or other reasons are entered promptly after
appropriate approval.
. to write,, to a proportion of members with contributions
unpaid to facilitate collections and also to ensure
that amounts are in fact unpaid.
. to determine delegates and collectors with adverse
membership income collection performance, and follow
up to facilitate improvement.
. to ensure membership statistics and financial/non-
financial membership ratios, are reported to manageÂ
ment committees.
268
Special Fund and Lev/y Accounts
. to ensure that balances are confirmed regularly and
balanced uith bank balances and other assets.
. to ensure that movement in accounts are recorded
promptly and balances reported regularly to the
management committees.
. to ensure that payments from funds are made only for
intended purposes and on appropriate approval.
. to ensure that transfer of funds between accounts
are made only on approval of the membership or in
accordance uith rules.
. to ensure that after expenditure has been fully inÂ
curred for purposes of special levies that balances
are used for purposes approved by the membership or
in accordance uith rules.
. to ensure that bank and cash book balances are reconÂ
ciled regularly.
Other flatters
. to ensure that general fund bank balances are reconÂ
ciled uith cash book balances regularly.
. to ensure that salaries uages and allouances are
approved and paid only in accordance uith rules.
. to ensure that uhen changes in trustees occur, and
uhen any assets are registered in name of trustee
that appropriate changes are promptly made.
. to ensure that adequate provision is made for accrued
long service leave liabilities, staff annual leave,
and superannuation.
Recommendations
Ue recommend that :
1. The Accounting Standards promulgated jointly by the tuo
major Australian accountancy bodies should be accepted,
and also standards issued in the future. Generally
Appendix IX Page 8
269
accepted principles should be followed in cases where
standards are not available.
2. The accrual principle should apply, except that trade
unions should be allowed to account for membership
income on a cash basis, provided that :
. this is reported in notes to the accounts, and
. membership statistics showing membership movements
and the number of financial and non-financial members
are included in the annual report to members, and
. membership registers are maintained including details
of payment history and arrears of each member.
3. Special funds as provided for in rules and special
levies approved from time to time should be accounted
for on the basis that movements and balances should be
separately recorded and reported. Reports should
indicate the disposal of fund balances (i.e. the amounts
and description of bank accounts, investments and other
assets making up fund balances). They should also
include a reference to the specific approval for transÂ
fer of amounts from fund accounts, and the disposal of
balances of special levies.
4. Routine accounting control practices, such as those
listed on the previous pages should be followed by
trade unions.
The implementation of recommendations 2 and 3 above could be
achieved through changes in legislation. The implementations
of recommendations 1 and 4 would be more difficult and we beÂ
lieve that they could be satisfactorily achieved only by way
of a training mechanism. It is suggested that consideration
should be given at government level to the development of trainÂ
ing programmes on accounting principles and practices approv-
able to trade unions, and to promoting the presentation of
Appendix IX Page 9
270
Appendix IX Page 10
these within the trade union movement and by selected training
institutions. Courses on systems design would also be
desirable.
271
Appendix IX Page 11
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
Disclosure of financial information by trade unions is made to
members on the basis of financial statements prepared for preÂ
sentation to annual general meetings of members. The particular
financial statement provided usually consists of an income and
expenditure statement, and also a balance sheet including details
of both general and special fund assets. In addition most trade
unions include receipts and payments statements relating to
special fund bank accounts.
As there is no specific form of accounts prescribed as an
annual return, the financial statements for members are also
filed uith the registrar.
As a result of our examination of the financial statements
of trade unions, ue have concluded that although financial inÂ
formation disclosed varies in detail betueen particular trade
unions, there is in general a need for more informative disÂ
closure of information to members. This is necessary in order
that they may more readily evaluate the status of trade union
administration. The experience of the Royal Commission has also
indicated the need for better disclosure, as deficiencies in
income reporting have been evident and it appears to be in the
public interest that improvements should take place.
A
Ue have examined the various items contained in the income
and expenditure statements and balance sheets filed by trade
unions, and have given consideration to the nature and detail
of them. Ue believe that more detailed disclosure of the
follouing items is needed :
272
Appendix IX Page 3 2
Income
Donations and Grants
Special Levies and Collections
Sundry (other) income
Assets
Loans Receivable
Investments - other than Govt, and semi-Govt.
Assets representing the investment or other disposal of special levies and collections and special fund balances
Expenditure
Levies and Collections
Officers Salaries and Allowances
Donations
Commissions
Sundry (other) Expenditure
Liabilities and Funds
Loans Payable
Provisions for LSL Superannuation and Holiday Pay Accumulated general funds.
Special Levies and Collections Special Funds Contingent Liabilities
A problem which has become evident during the work of the
Royal Commission is in regard to the financial interests of
registered organisations which are held in non registered orÂ
ganisations such as industrial groups. In some cases it was
found that payments were made by commercial organisations
directly to such bodies on behalf of trade unions, and conÂ
sequently the particular transactions were not recorded in trade
union books. Ue believe the disclosure of such interests
should be made within a statement to be made by members of
management committees and included with the annual financial
statements.
The experience of the Royal Commission has also shown that
income paid by some shipping companies was not recorded correctÂ
ly in trade union books as to nature and source. This emphasiÂ
ses the importance of correct disclosure of income, and in
particular extraordinary items. There is a need for auditors
"to give particular attention to this area, and ue have recomÂ
mended later in this report that the audit report should include
a statement to be made on this matter.
273
Appendix IX Page 1.3
Ue have noted that in the U.S.A detailed disclosure is reÂ
quired of allowances and other benefits received, directly or
indirectly, by officers and employees. Also disclosure must
be made by employers regarding amounts paid or benefits given
to trade unions and their officers and employees.
Ue believe that in Australia disclosure of salaries and
allowances paid to officials should be made but ue have been
unable to find justification for salaries and allowances paid
to employees to be disclosed, unless this is done at the disÂ
cretion of trade union management committees or on request of
members. Ue suggest that the reed for disclosure by employers
of amounts paid or benefits given by them to trade unions and
their officers and employees should be considered further by
the Royal Commission.
In addition to the above, ue believe that a statement to be
provided by members of management committees and included with
annual financial statements, should include a clause with regard
to salaries allowances and other benefits paid or given to trade
union officials. Also ue believe that this statement should
include a clause regarding income received of an extraordinary
nature. Ue have provided for the inclusion of these matters
in management committee reports in our recommendations in the
following section of this report.
Recommendations
Ue recommend that :
1. detailed/.disclosure, in the form of notes attached and
referenced to annual financial statements, should be
made with regard to the income, expenditure,, asset
liability and fund items listed earlier in this
section.
2. financial interests of trade unions in other organiÂ
sations, and salaries allowances and other benefits paid or given by trade unions to their officials should
274
be disclosed uithin a statement to be made annually
by members of management committees and included
with the annual report and financial statements
for the membership.
3. an opinion with regard to correct disclosure of
the sources of income and the nature and purposes
of income and expenditure should be given by
auditors uithin a clause of an audit report to
be provided uith audited financial statements.
Appendix IX Page 14
275
Appendix IX Page 15
REPORTING AND AUDIT
The provision of annual income and expenditure statements and
balance sheets for the information of members and the Registrar
is an appropriate form of reporting, and a requirement for the
filing of these financial statements needs to be included in
the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.
Ue believe that it is desirable that :
1. forms to be used in the filing of financial information
with the Registrar annually should be specifically
defined, and that these should include particular inforÂ
mation to be summarised from audited financial stateÂ
ments.
2. audited financial statements accompanied by the auditors
report, and a statement to be signed by at least tuo
members of the trade unions management committee should
be presented to members at annual general meetings, and
copies made available to members.
3. auditors should receive copies of financial statements
and accompanying reports and should be entitled to attend
annual general meetings, and be heard in regard to
matters which may concern them or to amplify points
which may have been made in audit reports.
Exhibits 2 and 3, show the suggested format of forms which
we consider should be filed with the Registrar annually i.e. a
Statement of Income and Expenditure, and a Balance Sheet. These
forms contain schedule reference columns relating to those items
which ue recommended in a previous section as warranting deÂ
tailed disclosure of content.
The information indicated on Exhibits 2 and 3 including the
detailed disclosure of particular items would be a minimum
276
requirement in regard to the content of financial statements for
presentation to members. There are however two exceptions to
this :
1. ' Office and Administration Expenses' appearing on the
Income and Expenditure statement should always be shown
more fully in the statements presented to members -
according to trade unions particular cost structure and
interpretations of recording and reporting needs.
2. ' Property Income1 and 'Property Expenses' showing on
Income and Expenditure statements should be referenced
to statements which should also be provided, and which
should show surpluses or deficiencies for the main
income producing properties.
Ue list behind Exhibits 1 and 2 the type of information
uhich ue suggest should be shown in schedules as detailed disÂ
closure of relevant items.
Appendix IX Page 16
277
278
m x ÎÎ
CD
APPENDIX IX Page 17
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE SCHEDULES
Schedule No.
Appendix IX Page 18
1· Special Levies and Collections
Purpose of each levy or collection and amount received.
2. Donations and Grants
Source, purpose and amount of each donation or grant
received, in excess of $100.
3. Other Income
Source, purpose and amount of each category of other
income in excess of $100.
4. Levies and Collections Paid
Payee, purpose and amounts of each levy paid.
5. Officers' Salaries and Allouances
(a) Name and title of each officer
(b) Gross salary and allouances paid or payable
6. Commissions
(a) Name and title of each officer to whom commissions
uere paid or payable, the purpose and amounts
thereof.
(b) Categories and amounts of other commissions paid or
payable.
7. Donations
Payee, purpose, and amount of each donation over $100.
8. Other Expenditure
Description and amount of each category of expenditure
in excess of $100.
9. Transfers to or from Special Fund or Special Levy Account
Name of special fund or levy account, and amount transÂ
ferred to or from such accounts.
279
Appendix IX Page 19
10. Profit or Loss on Sale or Revaluation of Assets
(a) Asset category and description, whether sale or
revaluation, and amount of profit or loss.
(b ) Circumstances necessitating revaluation.
280
LIABILITIES
SCHEDULE REF NO .
I BEGINNING OF
REPORTING PERIOD
END OF j
REPORTING I PERIOD
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE |
LOANS PAYABLE 4 I
PROVISIONS FOR LONG SERVICE LEAVE
5
PROVISION FOR SUPERÂ ANNUATION 6
ACCRUED HOLIDAY PAY 7
OTHER ACCRUALS
OTHER LIABILITIES 8
ACCUMULATED GENERAL FUNDS 9
SPECIAL LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS (FUNDS) 10
SPECIAL FUNDS (PER RULES) 11 S $
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES 12 $ s
ASSETS
SCHEDULE REF NO.
CASH ON HAND
CASH AT BANKS
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
LOANS RECEIVABLE
PREPAYMENTS
1
INVESTMENTS - G ovt. B Sem i G ovt.
- O ther 2
FIXED ASSETS - R.eal Estate - O ther
OTHER ASSETS
SPECIAL LEVIES/ COLLECTION ASSETS
SPECIAL FUND ASSETS
3
10
11
..
$
BEGINNING OF REPORTING PERIOD
END OF REPOP,TING PERIOD
EXHIBIT 2
___________
APPENDIX IX Page 20
BALANCE SHEET SCHEDULES
Appendix IX Page 21
Schedule No.
1. Loans Receivable
(a) Name of officer, employee, member or entity who was
granted loan during the period, and amounts thereof.
(b) Details of purpose of loans, security, and repayÂ
ment arrangements.
2. Investments - Other
(a) Total cost, and total book value of 'other' investÂ
ments
(b) For each investment holding uhich exceeds $1000
book value, and uhich also exceeds 20)o of total
book value - a description of the investment, its
book value and quoted market value (if applicable)
at the close of the reporting period.
3. Other Assets
Description and book value of each item exceeding $1000.
4. Loans Payable
(a) Source of loans received above $1000 during the
period and amount thereof.
(b) Details of purposes of loans, security given, and
repayment arrangements.
5.6 Provision for Long Service Leave, Superannuation, and Accrued Holiday Pay
Basis of the provisions and accruals
8. Other Liabilities
Description and amount of each item exceeding $1,000.
282
9. Accumulated General Funds
Description and amounts of transfers to and from
Accumulated General Funds during the period.
10. Special Purposes Levies and Collections
(a) Purpose of special purpose levies and special
collection, opening balances and amounts received,
including transfers from other funds.
(b) Description and total amounts of payments made
from such funds for intended purposes.
(c) Description and amounts otherwise paid or transÂ
ferred out and reference to general meeting or
management meeting minute (as applicable) giving
authority for such payments or transfers.
(d ) Closing balances and how held in the form of assets.
11. Special Funds (per rules)
(a) Names and purposes of special funds required by
rules.
(b) Amounts of opening balances, receipts and transfers
from other fund accounts.
(c) Description and total amounts of payments made
from such funds for intended purposes.
(d) Description and amounts otherwise paid or transÂ
ferred out and reference to general meeting or
management meeting minute (as applicable) giving
authority for such payment or transfer.
(e) Closing balances and how held in the form of
assets.
Appendix IX Page 22
283
12. Contingent Liabilities
Appendix IX Page 23
Description and amount of contingent liabilities exceedÂ
ing $1,000.
Uith regard to Special Levies and Collections (Schedule 10),
Exhibit 3, ue show a suggested form to support the schedule,
and to provide an analysis of movements in special levy and
collection accounts. This form also provides for the entry
of dates of general or management committee meetings giving
approval for the use of residue funds.
f
284
N C)
XLLL'STRATION OF SCHEDULE
NAME OF LEVY OR
COLLECTION
PURPOSE OF LEVY OR
COLLECTION
BAMNCE AT BEGINNING/PERIOD
RECEIFâTS
' TRANSFER RIND9 FROM:
H
iRIB TOTALPAYMENTS FOR lNTENDm PURPOSESâ OTHER PAYMENTS: ' TRANS-IR [UT-'38 TO l PALAâQCE AT ".373 â13100
A§SEF DISPORZTICN Câx' iaALAAâiCES
â REFERENCE TO APPROVAL MINUTES GENERAL MELTNCS , MANAC EdiâAT MTGS.
l0 RE UIREMENT§
{>â
S
S
SPECXAL PURPOSE LEVIES
S
3
AND COLLECTIONS
In:
S
S
1 TOTAL
5 5
To éilât-i
\n'Lh Suu
S 5 cf Abe}
Liibihues
of As." ..
Lululum;
E LIGIHXH 868d XIONHddV VZ XI
Audit Statement
Appendix IX
Page 25
As has been stated earlier in this report, whilst there is proÂ
vision in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for audit, there
is no provision for a specific audit statement to be provided by
auditors of registered trade unions.
Having given consideration to the problems of trade union
accounting, reporting practices currently in general use, and
the requirements of other statutes, ue consider that audit
statements should in general be designed to provide an opinion
on the following :
(a) whether the auditor obtained all the information and
explanations that he required.
(b) whether satisfactory books of account and other accountÂ
ing records were kept, and whether the Balance Sheet and
Income and Expenditure statement were in agreement
therewith.
(c) whether the financial statements prepared from the books
of account are drawn up so as to give a true and fair
view -- of the state of the affairs of the organisation as
at the end of the financial year.
- of the income, expenditure and surplus or deficiency
for the financial year.
(d) whether a satisfactory system of control over and reÂ
cording of the collection of income from members, and
other income has been maintained.
(e) whether the^ources of income and the nature of income
and expenditure have been correctly disclosed.
-(f) whether a register of members has been maintained in
accordance with the requirements of the Act and the
Rules.
286
Appendix IX Page 26
(g) whether the register of members (or members debtor
accounts) includes evidence of amounts due, payment
of subscriptions and arrears of payment by each member.
In interpreting the above, a satisfactory system of control
over the collection of income from members, should not be conÂ
sidered by the auditors to exist unless the following facts are
confirmed by auditors on the basis of test checks :
. receipts (or forms of receipt) for membership income reÂ
ceived directly from members are issued.
. duplicate receipts or receipts summaries can be identified
with contributions due notifications, or members register
entries covering amounts due.
. amounts due but not received are shown in members reÂ
gisters (or separate number debtor accounts), after
allowances for amounts waived for unemployment or other
reasons.
. waivers of amounts due are appropriately approved.
. banking of funds can be identified with duplicate receipts
issued to members, or receipts summaries.
With regard to control over other income, a satisfactory
system of recording and control should not be considered to
exist unless :
. banking of funds can be identified with copies of receipts
issued or summaries of receipts.
. the nature, and details of sources of receipts are entered
in the accounting records.
. sufficient information is available to enable confirmation
whether income is for approved purposes according to rules
or committee of management decisions.
287
Appendix IX Page 27
Should auditors not be able to give an unqualified statement
on all of the above matters, then reservations should be inÂ
cluded in their report to.members.
Management Committee Members Statement
Ue suggested earlier in this report that members of management
committees of trade unions should be required to provide each
year, a statement to be submitted uith the financial statement
to members and for filing uith the Registrar. Ue consider that
such a statement should cover points of particular importance
to members in regard to both finance and administration and in
general should include the follouing :
(a) uhether, to the best of their knouledge and belief, the
audited balance sheet and statement of income and exÂ
penditure shous a true and fair vieu of the state of
unions affairs at the end of the financial year.
(b) uhether in accordance uith the Act and Rules
. membership meetings uere held, and information uas
provided to members as required.
. rule books uere made available to members, and accountÂ
ing records and membership records made available for
inspection.
. disbursements uere appropriately approved.
. special funds and special levies uere used for approved
purposes and movements and balances of accounts reÂ
ported to/ members.
. contributions from members uere properly recorded and
banked in approved bank accounts. .
. members registers uere maintained, including details
of payment history and arrears of each member.
. membership statistics, shouing membership movements
and number of financial and non-financial members uere
reported to members.
288
Appendix IX Page 28
(c) whether extra-ordinary items of income were received
during the financial year, whether they were received in
accordance uith union policy, and the nature, purpose
and amounts of them.
(d) whether, since the date of the last statement, any.
official of the trade union, has received any benefit,
loan or interest, other than authorised salary and/or
allowances,shown in schedules provided uith the Income
and Expenditure Statement, and the details of these.
(e) whether, moneys or property in which a union has a
financial interest are held by any other organisation,
including unregistered groups of unions, and if such
interests are not represented in the last audited
balance sheet, the details and amounts of those
interests.
Treasurers Statement
In addition to statements to be made by auditors and members of
management committee, we consider that it would also be approÂ
priate for the treasurers (or secretary/treasurers) of trade unions to provide a statement along similar lines to the stateÂ
ment by principal accounting officers required by the Companies
Act. An alternative to provision of such a statement by the
Treasurers of trade unions would be for the senior staff accounÂ
tant or bookkeeper to provide it. However we believe it to be
more appropriate for the treasurer (or secretary/treasurers) to
provide the statement, as the elected officer in charge of the
financial function. In many trade unions there is no formal
office of Treasurer, but we consider that the Act should require
such an appointment. In most cases the General Secretary,-who
is normally in charge of all administrative work would be
appointed formally as Treasurer also.
289
The required statement would indicate whether :
. after consideration of the financial requirements of the Act
and rules, the financial statements give a true and fair
view of the state of the unions affairs at the end of the
financial year.
Appendix IX Page 29
Recommendations
Ue recommend that :
1. Income and Expenditure statements and Balance Sheets
should be prepared annually, audited, and filed with the
Registrar as described in the first page of this section.
2. The content of forms to be filed annually with the
Registrar should be as shown on Exhibit 1 and 2 .
Additional information should be given as indicated
by schedule references.
3. Statements to be provided by auditors, members of
management committees and treasurers should be as desÂ
cribed in this section under relevant headings.
4. Auditors should be entitled to receive copies of
financial statements for presentation at annual general
meetings, to attend the meetings, and have the right to
be heard.
5. Income and Expenditure statements and balance sheets
of trade unions should contain as a minimum the inforÂ
mation indicated on Exhibits 1 and 2, with the exception /l"
that the items Office and Administration Expenses',
'Property Income' , and ' Property Expenditure' should be
reported in detail appropriate to the trade unions cost
structure and information needs.
290
REGISTRARS PDUERS AND DUTIES
Appendix IX Page 30
As has been stated earlier in this report, there is no proÂ
vision in the Act for inspection by the Registrar of trade
unions accounting records apart from members registers. Although
there is a requirement for filing of financial statements with
the Registrar, action can be taken by him on the basis of inforÂ
mation contained therein only by application to the Industrial
Court.
By comparison, the powers of investigation by registrars
in regard to many other statutes are much more extensive e.g.
the right of access to accounting records and to question perÂ
sons to the extent necessary to determine facts is given regisÂ
trars under the provisions of the Co-operation Act 1923-1974
(NSLJ), the Friendly Societies Act 1912-1975 (l\ISU), the IndusÂ
trial Relations Act 1971 - U .K. , and the Labour Management and
Disclosures Act U.S.A. In many cases rights to examine under
oath are also given.
Currently no examination of financial statements filed with
the Registrar, and no evaluation on the basis of their contents
is taking place. This is on the grounds that there is no
specific provisions in the Act to indicate such duties. In
our opinion this does not conform with the intent of the Act,
as a requirement to file financial statements would seem to
infer a requirement to ensure that financial statements have
been prepared in accordance with the Act and rules, and that
audit qualifications are investigated. Uith regard to audit
qualifications, we believe it to be of particular importance
that the Registrar has the right to call up and examine union
accounting records, and the right to question persons about
matters being examined.
If our earlier recommendations are implemented the Registrar
will receive annual information from each registered trade union
on prescribed forms (i.e. summary Income and Expenditure StateÂ
ment and Balance Sheet), and audited financial statements
2 9 1
Appendix IX Page 31
presented to members will be attached. Supporting the forms,
schedules will contain information in regard to items which
should be disclosed in detail. Statements by the auditor,
management committee members and the treasurers would also be
included as attachments to the financial statements.
In this situation the staff of the Registrars office would
be required to examine the information filed, to ensure that
forms have been correctly prepared, to determine whether audit
qualifications have been made and whether any adverse situation
is indicated by the information disclosed in detail, or in the
statements made by the auditor, members of management committee
or treasurer. Also it would be preferable for a brief check of
adherence to rules (rule books are also filed) to be made.
A further provision which seems necessary in the Act is for
financial statements to be filed within a prescribed period.
Currently some unions are very slow in filing their financial
statements. In some cases statements are not lodged for period
well in excess of one year from the end of the financial year.
In cases where out of control situations are found to exist
regarding financial matters, or other aspects of administration
it would seem appropriate that the Registrar should have the
power to initiate investigations. Also it would be considered
as to whether he should be able to call meetings of management
committees, and if necessary at the end of investigations also
call general meetings of members.
In initiating investigations, there are alternatives of
appointing inspectors from the Registrars staff, or appointing
external inspectors. The latter would have the advantage of
minimising the extent to which the Registrar may be seen to be
fulfilling a disciplinary function.
Recommendations
Ue recommend that :
292
Appendix IX Page 32
1. The Registrar shall have the right to call up and
examine accounting records of trade unions, and to
question persons in regard to matters under examination.
2. Financial statements should be filed by trade unions
uithin one month of annual general meetings. They should
be examined by the Registrar and action taken if an
adverse situation is indicated by the financial stateÂ
ment, supporting schedules or statements made by
auditors, management committee members or treasurers.
3. The Registrar should have the power to initiate investiÂ
gations regarding financial or other administrative
matters, and to appoint inspectors for the purpose of
such investigations.
24228/76 (R75/1285)â L
5