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

Alleged payments to maritime unions Royal Commission - Final Report, April 1976 (Sweeney Report)

Parliamentary Paper No. 147/1976

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia


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 Ο 642 02120 1

F. D. Atkinson, Government Printer, Canberra



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


Chapter Para Page
















2.8.1 Painters and Dockers Union

2.8.2 Shipwrights 10

2.8.3 MUU

2.8.4 Summary



3.2 BEFORE 12





3.7 SAFETY 15


















3.22.1 More Meetings & Resolutions


3.22.2 More Disputes 24

3.23 THE 1968 ACTU DECISION 25





3.27.1 An Ultimatum

3.27.2 The 1971 Decision 28

3.27.3 The Effect


3.28.1 The 1975 ACTU Decision 29








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


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


4.7.1 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



4.9.1 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


4.10.1 Maria Rosa 59

4.10.2 Ho Chi Min


ι —1 > —1 ι


< 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


4.12.1 Work Situation

4.12.2 Demand

4.12.3 Shirrabank

4.12.4 Summary 70


4.13.1 Work Situation

4.13.2 Demands for Payment

4.13.3 Summary 73

















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



8.1.1 Involvement of FPA

8.1.2 Machinery of FPA 'Used1 in


8.1.3 Need for FPA to Exercise Powers 112




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




8.3.1 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








9.6.1 Work Situation

9.6.2 Demands 124

9.6.3 Summary


9.7.1 Work Situation

9.7.2 Demands 126

9.7.3 Melbourne

9.7.4 Geelong

9.7.5 Summary


10.1.1 Port de Franee

10.1.2 Astree 133

10.1.3 Uaqlan Island

10.1.4 Lone Star








Chapter 1 1

Para Pag e


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


11.2.1 Sydney

11.2.2 Melbourne

11.2.3 Geelong 144

11.3 UUF



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


12.3.1 Argentine

12.3.2 Canada

12.3.3 United States of America 155

12.3.4 Summary

12.3.5 Conclusion 156


12.4.1 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


12.5.1 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


Chapter Para Page

12(Contd) 12.7 SHIPWRIGHTS 166

12.8 WWF



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


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





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


14.2.1 Most Evidence Concerns ,


14.2.2 The Case in Opposition 188

14.2.3 Conclusions 190

14.2.4 Recommendations -

Painters and Dockers 192


14.3.1 Recommendations -

Shipwrights 195


14.4.1 MWU .

14.4.2 Painters and Dockers 197

14.4.3 Shipwrights







15.2.1 Interim Report

15.2.2 Second Stage of Inquiry 201

15.2.3 Conclusion



15.5 SUMMARY 204







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




16.7.1 Accounting Principles and 212


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


16.7.8 Filing of Financial Reports with

the Registrar 216

16.7.9 Powers and Duties of the



Chapter Para Page



























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.


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, New­

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 Inter­

national Shipping Federation Limited, the Australian Chamber of

Shipping, Western Australian Branch, and the Baltic and Inter­

national Maritime Conference of Copenhagen and were made avail­

able to the parties appearing. The Overseas Shipping Represen­

tatives' Association and the Australia Northbound Shipping Con­

ference were invited to make submissions and, in general, sup­

ported the submissions made by the Australian Chamber of Ship­



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'


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.


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.


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 pay­

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


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


In considering these matters, reference is also made to

circumstances of payments uhich appeared to involve evasion of


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 re­

cover any moneys paid.

The report next considers changes proper to be made in the

requirements of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and Re­

gulations concerning the accounting practices and financial

reporting of registered employer/employee organisations.


The evidence and addresses concluded touards the end of Novem­

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


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 ill­

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.





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 in­

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.


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


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.


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 ship­

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


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.


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.



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 com­

binations of work which may arise but those I have mentioned con­

stitute a big majority of the vessels where disputes have arisen.

Where a vessel comes in ballast and then loads cargo in Aus­

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


In the case of vessels which bring cargo to Australia and

after discharging that cargo load and take other cargo from Aus­

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 coun­

try, cleaning is usually done at sea on the voyage from Australia

By reason of the nature of the cleaning which may be in­

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 stan­

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 ex­

amined by Marine Surveyors. In cases such as this, even though

cleaning has been done at sea or in foreign ports, iurther clean­

ing may be necessary in Australian ports.


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 mem­

bers. In other ports, e.g. outside Fremantle in Western Aus­

tralia, the work is performed by waterside workers and in a

further series of ports, such as some of those in South Aus­

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 per­

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.


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 con­

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


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 per­

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



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 Aus­

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.


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 ship­

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 dis­

putes into perspective by tracing the history since the 1940's .


1 0



The history of the dispute goes back at least to 1946, when the

painters and dockers and shipwrights in Western Australia com­

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 Aus­

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 re­

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 trades­

man . The owners and operators of foreign ships coming to Aus­

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.


In the mid 1940's it appears that the practice had grown up

whereby fittings required to be erected in grain ships, parti­

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.


In the immediate postwar years as shipping became more com­

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


A number of disputes arose, but the practice of using crews con­

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.


Eventually, in April 1950, agreement was reached between the

Shipwrights and the OSRA concerning British ships. While re­

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,


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.


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 re­

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 dis­

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.



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.


From 1953 on, disputes over work done by creus occurred sporadi­

cally in Fremantle, Melbourne, Geelong and Adelaide, their in­

cidence no doubt resulting from periodic reductions in the

volume of the grain trade and increased unemployment among the


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.


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 unem­

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 in­

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


taking on a cargo of wheat at Geelong. On the advice of the

respective Federal Secretaries, that the matter had been re­

ferred to the ACTU and therefore should be left to the Federal

body, and also because of the threat of deregistration and can­

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.


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'


crews, uas apparently discussed for the first time at this meet­ ing .


During 1959/60 the information gathered by both parties uas pre­

sented progressively at meetings chaired by Mr. Whitehead with­

out any positive decision being reached. A meeting of the

ACTU Executive in February did not act decisively on the ques­

tion of terminating the agreement but merely endorsed the con­

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.


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 Wes­

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.



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 sup­

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.


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 con­

cerned, to be convened by the ACTU President. The first meet­

ing of the committee uas held the follouing ueek. The unanimous

decision of the meeting uas that a demand should be made for all


ships loading grain in Australia to be fitted out by Australian shore labour.


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.


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 com­

pleted the work and the fourteen men employed received an addi­

tional four hours' pay, as compensation for the work done by the

crew, apparently cleaning of holds.



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.


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 Decem­

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 Aus­

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 con­

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.



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 Fre­

mantle, discussed the cleaning problem at their Federal

Conference and sought unsuccessfully to be included with the

other unions in future discussions.


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 re­

fusing to recommend to his members that they go back to work. A

meeting of the Union after the hearing, passed resolutions ex­

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 / 76— 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, in­

dustrial action in support of the campaign appears to have eased

for a time.


In December 1965 the Star Billabonq arrived in Fremantle to

load grain. The ship was surveyed and found to require con­

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. How­

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.



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 Navi­

gation Act s .45(1) amended to give Australian shore labour ex­

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 pro­

blem became an agenda item at the biennial meeting of the ACTU

Transport Group in October 1966. At that meeting it uas re­

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



3.22.2 More Disputes

Late in November 1966 a claim uas made for $10.67 represen­

ting four hours uork for tuo men cleaning the holds of the

Australian Surf at Fremantle. The outcome of the claim is not


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 Wes­

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 Fre­

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.



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 sub­

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.


In the intervening period, the work situation in Fremantle had

deteriorated even further. For the first three weeks in Sept­

ember 1967 casual painters and dockers averaged 7 2% unemploy­

ment. Ships were being cleaned by crews on the coast and in


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.


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.


In the interval between the meetings there were periodic com­

plaints by the Unions to the ACTU and, in some cases, agree­

ments were entered into with individual shipowners or agents,


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.


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 Gee­

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.


3.27.2 The 1971 Decision

On 25 October 1971, the AEUL for the Australian represen­

tatives of the overseas shipowners, replied to the ACTU, ad­

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 corres­

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 Ues­

tern Australia (see Chapter 5.3 of the Interim Report for descri­

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 Fre­

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.



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


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.



I consider firstly the demands by and payments to the Federated

Ship Painters & Dockers' Union of Australia.


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 n­

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 represen­

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.


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 semi­

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


: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.


"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 un­

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 de­

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


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




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.




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.


A casual roster operates in Sydney with an average weekly atten­

dance of approximately sixty members. Provision is made for non­

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 inter­

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


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


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 de­

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 sur­

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 remain­

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 stop­

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


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



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.


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


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 bar­

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.


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 Vigi­

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 Deck­

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 justifi­

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


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 com­

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 represen­

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 conver­

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 de­

mands and Galleghan supplied the names of contracting firms through uhich labour would be available.


Shore Labour Engaged

The next day, the firm of Storey & Keers uas engaged for

the cleaning uork and commenced useing twelve men from their per­

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, rep­

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 be­

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


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 em­

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


for uhich they had been engaged when the accident occurred. The

ship sailed that night without experiencing further trouble.


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 con­

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 sub­

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.


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 Deck­

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


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 ■

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 water­

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


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 circum­

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.


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 illus­

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 con­

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,


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.


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 im­

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 in­

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 com­

pensation for the cleaning work which was to be done in Japan.


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



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


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



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.

/ ■


Agent/ Principal


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


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)


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 re­

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


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


Jan'75 Hoi Kung Crew stripped condemned cargo gear in Brisbane and Sydney

2139.10 plus re­ maining



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





Apr 1 75 Expectation Crew loaded stores by winch at bulk wheat terminal, Glebe Island

214.89 No


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




Jul'75 Kosei Maru Dismantling car decks, cleaning Demand for


Jul'75 lie de


Cargo runners pur­ chased from firm

not using Painters

and Dockers for splicing

Amount claimed

never speci­


5000.00 plus uork total cost

including uages $20,630.87


Agent to advise Masters in


UUF and Ship-



Agree­ ment to advise Masters



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


Payment Agent/ Principal

Patrick Agencies Pty Ltd

Patrick Agencies

Pty Ltd

464.18 Omni Traders &


Aqsnt/ Principal

McArthur Shipping

& Agency Co Pty Ltd

P & 0 (Australia) Ltd

Karlander (Aust) Pty Ltd


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 re­

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 evi­

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


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.


4.7.3 Agano Maru

The first demand concerned the Agano Maru. This is a Japan­

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 lines­

men had been ordered to allow the vessel to leave, but did not

arrive by the sailing time of 4.15 p.m.


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


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, with­

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 de­

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/ 76— 3


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




Membership of the Victorian Branch of the Union is approximately

380. The bulk, some 330 members, are in Melbourne uith the re­

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.


In Melbourne, of the total membership of 330, some 240 are em­

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


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 semi­

permanent labour force maintained by the ship repair and ser­

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 success­

ful and resulted in the payment of $531.05 to the Union. The

round amounts of $300, Beta, and $200, Josef Conrad, were ap­

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.


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 illus­

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 mid­

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 re­

quested time to contact his superiors in Sydney, and IMicholls


left the ship for the Union's office, leaving his telephone

number. Back at the Union's office, Nicholls apparently formu­

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 Shan­

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. ·


The nineteen or so painters and dockers in Geelong work as semi­

permanents or permanents for two firms in the port, and are


supplemented un occasions uith labour from the Melbourne pick­

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 in­

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 compen­

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 Coun­

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.



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


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 be­

come directly involved in the campaign, once the disputes were

advised to the Union by the Shipwrights. Evidence on the dis­

posal of the moneys obtained is lacking, because of the des­

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 cam­

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 employ­

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.


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 sub­

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 work­

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 non­

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



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 re­

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 re­

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).


They are not included in the 1973 accounts^ -- No that's right. ' ’

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? — 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.


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


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


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




Payment calctd on time actually

taken by creu


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)


Sept' 75


Moresby Express

Uork in Dispute Demand Payment

Crew lashed cargo in port






Oct' 70 Maria Rosa Crew burlapped


180 180

Flay '72 Ho Chi Min Crew fitted feeders

and bulkheads

500 500


cn -ο


Uestralian Farmers Trans­ port Pty Ltd

Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd

Patrick Operations Pty Ltd


The Newcastle Branch of the Union has a membership of approxi­

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 pick­

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 re­

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



4.12.3 Shirrabank

The demand was in respect of a British vessel, the Shirra­

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 Mel­

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

□ n 27 September however, painters and dockers were en­

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 con­

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 dis­

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


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 satis­

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 Secre­

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 em­

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


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




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 avail­

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 avail­

able. The claim that ships' creus should not do this uork ex­

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 re­

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


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.


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.


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.

■ 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 pro­

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 fund­


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.





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 neces­

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 retain­

ing those levies, thereby making financial gains in addition to-



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 en­

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


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.



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



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 fore­

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 Con­

troller, an officer of the FPA. The Authority also has disci­

plinary powers which can extend to the cancellation of regis­

tration .


Shipping agents arrange for the performance of any work required

through one of two ship repair firms - Petterson & Co. or Fre­

mantle Shipwrighting Co. These firms notify the Labour Con­

troller of their labour requirements and the men are then

obtained from the roster.


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 man­

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 avail­



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


are given of the vessels on which work was performed. An in­

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 prin­

cipal .


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.


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.


The men working off the roster are described as ' casual1 em­

ployees but they are casual in name only, because they receive

wages and conditions appropriate to permanent employees. More­

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 or­

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.


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 water­

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.



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 Com­

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.


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.


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.


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, com­

pared with 62,567 hours in 1973/74. During the hearings in

Perth, evidence was given that six new registrations were con­

templated in view of the labour shortages experienced in peak

periods during the year under review and estimated future re­

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. There­

fore, a larger number of casual workers offering for work re­

ceived work even though the average number on the roster had


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 de­

pleted in the near future. This claim is also not justified.


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 em­

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.


At the commencement of the resumed hearings in Perth, Uells pro­

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


The list omitted some ships, but the more important criti­

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 engage­

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


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.


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/ 76— 4


a) deposited in the General Fund;

b) paid to rostered, registered casual uorkers; and

c) deposited in a Special Account.


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 deli­

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.



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 :


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


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


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.


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


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




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 com­

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 in­

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 re­

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


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 cross­

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 re­

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 com­

mercial morality of these actions, Marshall said, "It is un­

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


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 per­

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 there­

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 /■

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


relating to the payment on this vessel reveals that again the

levies uere retained by the ship repair firm.


The Sea Crest arrived in Fremantle from Japan on Sun­

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 Petter­

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 re­

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


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 an­

nounced that this money had been refunded to Howard Smith In­

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 concen­

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. Al­

though the pilot, tugs and mooring gangs had been booked for

6.45 am. a messagjg was received from the FPA that these ser­

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



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 remove‘ 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, ‘iF you don't pay up, the ship can stop here until the bottom rusts out fi‘it’, As the charter :ate was $7,000 a day, it was cheaper

to accede to the demand than have the vessel delayed.’ However,

the origiflal demand was modified and, ultimately, the forty-tua men received payment of double time from 6280 pam to

L0 U")


midnight for uork not done and meal moneys in respect of meals

never taken nor intended to be taken. The total payment, in­

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 cal­

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 streng­

thens the vieu that receipt of money had assumed greater im­

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 cleaft’ ed the bilges in readiness for survey in­

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 compen­

sation for uork done by the creu, and that these fifteen men be


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 assist­

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 week­

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 wor­

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 en­

gaged through the Fremantle Shipwrighting Co. to wash, scale

and spray Nos. 1 and 2 holds and scale, sweep and remove re­

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


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


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 job“

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 Ship—

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?

—— OF course, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Uho was told that at Uesfarmers?—— The

ship‘s supervigor —. '

Uhat is his name?—— Mr. Camarda — he would discuss

with the agent and with the Master how they wanted it —

not how we wanted it. It means that we have to do

exactly what they tell us.

The ship’s agent with whom it was discussed was the

gentlemen :epreseflting Uesfarmers, Mr. Jarrett?——-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 €19ur98 given beFOre they we-e

V'ede This is always the procedure.

(U 1

It was Mr. Jarrett who aQProved 1t?—— He would have

333“: EU it also. He must have done. He was well aware

0‘ H sirim and he was well aware OF the amount of tng

‘13 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?— 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, be­

cause other items had been undercharged, his action uas justi­

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 dis­

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.



This vessel arrived in Fremantle in ballast on Sunday,

20 April 1975, from the Persian Gulf, where a cargo of Aus­

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 regis­

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 deli­

vered to the agent by hand by a clerk of the FPA, complete with

names and registration numbers of the men, even though a requi­

sition for labour had not been submitted to the Labour Con­

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


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 , follow­

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 dis­

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 re­

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 exami­

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, be­

cause it uas inequitable. It uas then decided that future pay­

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 con­

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 tele­

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 de­

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 in—

formed the Master that a more serious attitude would be taken

the next time the crew cleaned at sea. wells also stated thatr

the twenty—four 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 thirty—three men From 3.00 p.m to 10.00 p.m.

However, the amount which Patterson & CO. Charged D & U was


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 ‘uaived‘. In Fact, the account clearly shows a total

charge of $576.79 For equipment and cartage.

when Marshall was cross—examined 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 al—

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


: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:_0“ab ChaQQ wade,

u9:e 1‘ :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


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.

/ ·



Work in Dispute Payment

by Aqent i t


Can '71 Tersey Bridge Crew cleaned in port 784.56

Oct' 71 Kythnos Crew erected centre line

shifting boards


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


Apr '74 Castledore Crew cleaned at sea 1104.60

Sep ' 74 APT Priya Crew erected fittings at



Oct '74 Oc tavia Crew washed down between



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


Howard Smith In­ dustries Ltd

APT Shipping

















Sea Crest

Nella Dan

Cape York

Lek Prabha


Koryu Maru


Asia Morality

Seizan Maru


Quing Hai



TABLE 3 (Contd) work in Dis ute

Crew cleaned in port —

advised shore labour not


Lashing of cargo demanded

- intention to use shore


Crew to clean between


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


Crew Cleaned between


Crew cleaned at sea

P311922 by Agent



















Howard Smith In—

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 C0— operative

Lynn Elder Pty


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


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


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




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


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.



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' instruc­

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


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 un­

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 re­

cent years been exercised so far as painters and dockers are


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 wit­

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.


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 diffi­

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 deregis­

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


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.


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 reim­

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 equiv­

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


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 re­

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 com­

petitor , Fremantle SHipurighting Co; and

c) the need to retain Henderson's co-operation.

In reference to Marshall’s concern about refusing the re­

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


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 un­

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


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 con­

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 vir­

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 explan­

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.


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


24228/ 76— 5



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 member­

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


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 /■

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


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 pay­

ments uere deposited in Union funds, the balance being paid to

registered casual workers or to the special account for distri­

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


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.




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 dis­

cussed in Chapter 6.6.


Between 100-200 of the members are permanent seagoing ship­

wrights and some 200-250 are involved in seagoing work overall.

This portion of the membership is not the concern of this


The shore-based shipwrights are employed as casuals, per­

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


655 members


made in the allocation of uork, to equalise the earnings of

those obtaining uork through the pick-up.


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 de­

crease in the amount and changes in the methods of ship con­

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 in­

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.


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 re­

leasing cargo, such as tomming and shoring, lashing and unlash­

ing , etc. ·

The Union's claim for cargo related uork, effectively ex­

tends to prevent creus doing this uork betueen ports, it being

maintained that, for safety reasons, holds should not be pre­

pared, and cargo should be secure, uhen the ship is moving.


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.


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.


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


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 semi­

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 — permanents, the actual num­

ber appearing at the roster is relatively small. Any unemploy­

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


Management on the amount of overtime worked by individual mem­

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 Cir­

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.


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.


The Victorian Branch has a membership of some 180-200. The

bulk of about 120 work around the Port of Melbourne, the re­

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 con­

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 indivi­

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/□ loading as compensation for

annual leave, sick leave, non payment for public holidays and

lost time, and the other conditions of permanent employment.


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 work­

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 Mel­

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 re­

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.


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


The cessation of demands in 1973 coincides with the retire­

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 re­

served for shore-based shipwrights.




Karlander (Aust) Pty Ltd


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





Date Sh'g work in Die ute DeTand Agent


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.


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


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


9.8123 able


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% $











Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd

Patrick Operations Pty Ltd


In all Australian ports, the UUF has members engaged in steve­

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



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 re­

suming work the following day, the uaterside worker;-, noticed that


this uork had been done and the delegate made a demand for pay­

ment, as compensation for the work lost. A payment of $216.58

uas made to the Union branch. The work uas clearly that of uater­

side uorkers, but if the evidence of the circumstances is

accepted, the action of the Master should not have led to dis­

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


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)


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 em­

ployed on the vessel threatened to ualk off the job, a payment

of $411.16 uas made to uaterside uorkers on the job.


One instance only of payment and demand relevant to the Com­

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 be­

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.



On 14 August 1974, a refrigerated vessel the Golar Freeze uas

proceeding betueen Uyndham-Broome-Daruin to load meat. Refrig­

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 evi­

dence uas scanty and entirely hearsay and on it I do not feel

able to record any finding.


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 dis­

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 cir­

cumstances, uith a vessel knoun as the Golden City. The amount

involved uas $42.



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 re­

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 vir­

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 re­

spect of the Capulet on 2 April 1973. After a cargo of sulphur


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.


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


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


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 de­

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 steve­

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 com­

pleting the evidence and arrangements had been made for the


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, al­

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.



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 circum­

stances in ports differ, each port and Union is dealt with



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 trans­

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 child­

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.


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 com­

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 Sub­

branch, Mr. Uoodbury, uas distributed betueen the fifteen men


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


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


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 distri­

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 deposi­

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 distri­

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


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.








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


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.


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.







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




Glyfada Summer

$1035.40 uas distributed to thirty-tuo

men uho stopped uork when the fatal

accident occurred - allocated in accor­

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.




Ship Amount Paid

by Agent $

Amount Received $


Kythnos 400.00 400.00

Appollonian 292.80 292.80


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


Aegis Eland 4667.00 4667.00

Cape Wrath 1474.98 1474.98

Graceous 3603.60 3603.60

Chennai Perumai 2550.24 2396.28


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


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


Cape York 66.25 66.25

Orangefield 46.67 46.67



42718.68 36341.73




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.


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 / 76— 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 mem­

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 illus­

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 re­

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 perform­

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


applies to persons performing the work of cleaning holds uhen

employed by respondents bound by the Award. None of the over­

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 en­

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


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, per­

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 Sea­

men's Union of Australia. In speaking of the Maritime Industry

Seagoing Award and the duties there set out of seamen, which in­

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.


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 ship­

wright or ship's carpenter uhose training and skills are vir­

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 per­

form the uork by reason of demarcation principles. I think the

officials never really believed there uas, but the claim uas


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.


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 per­

formed by shore labour and foreign crews, both at sea and in


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 prac­

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 Inter­

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


cleaning holds, to longshoremen. If certain conditions exist,

and at the option of the vessel, crew members may undertake such duties.


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


Article 1.09(b) contemplates ships' crews being employed to

wash and clean cargo holds, clean large tanks by means of chemi­

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 per­

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


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.


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.


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' accommo­

dation and the like could also be performed by shore labour.


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 else­

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 /■

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 :


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 ack­

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 evi­

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


and no evidence led or submission made on its behalf. This uas

obviously a matter on uhich the ACTU uas entitled to take what­

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 re­

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 mem­

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 in­

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.



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 in­

volved in the payment. It uas clearly to the short term com­

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 accen­

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


demanded. This changed back to a demand for payment to the

casual painters and dockers and then changed back again to pay­

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


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, un­

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 guaran­

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.


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 be­

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


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 dis­

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 en­

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


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 de­

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


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 re­

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 use­

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 Com­

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 con­

gress 1975' and 'provided the meeting uith a copy of the document

setting out such policy'. I do not regard this as having dis­

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


'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 indivi­

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 evi­

dence that he had been asked on one occasion by Uells to pay

painters and dockers directly without deducting tax, but had



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


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 re­

ceived payments directly frohi Woodbury, and this, in my vieu, uas

partly for the purpose of evading taxation.


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 con­

cerned regarded the claim for compensation as one legitimately

made and one where a genuine and fair settlement had been


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.



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.


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 con­


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 furni­

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 pro­

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


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 evi­

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 sub­

sequent proceedings against him.

In these circumstances, it would seem to be inappropriate to

report specifically on whether specific acts in relation to spe­

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 re­

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 con­

siderable further amount of evidence would be necessary and much

more time occupied and the ultimate result may well be entirely


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 ille­

gality has been committed by an individual person or body. Never­

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


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 re­

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 anti­

cipated, feared or threatened. In some cases, although a ship was

held up, there uas no obstruction because no cargo uas being


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.


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 con­

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 prin­

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 com­

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 for­

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 em­

ployed, the object of the person charged and other relevant

factors. f ‘

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 con­

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


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 mari­

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 cul­

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


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


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


There seems no question that convictions for criminal con­

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 de­

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 ■

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:


... 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 pro­

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


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 diffi­

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, parti­

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 pro­

posed in Chapter 15.



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 im­

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 reluct­

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 origi­

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.


Method of Enforcing Payments

The method adopted of enforcing payments uas not dis­

similar to that used in the case of the maritime unions, dealt

uith in the Interim Report. It uas the threat, express or im­

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 in­

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 dis­

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.


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



Demands and payments were being made with a minimum of pub­

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 satis­

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


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 con­

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.


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 pay­

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 criti­

cised these payments was an endorsement of them.

This is really an argument of desperation and merits no

further discussion.


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. ■

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


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, pay­

ments uere made when there was a clear breach of the practice

uhich had been reached by 1970 in respect to the erection of


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 care­

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 in­

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 compen­

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 diffi­

culties uould arise in bringing proceedings and having them heard

and a penalty imposed uhile the vessel uas in port.


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 pro­

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.

/ ·



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 Con­

ciliation & Arbitration Act and thirdly, action appropriate to

be taken concerning accounting practices and financial reporting


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 legis­

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/ 76— 7




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 re­

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.


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 examin­

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 per­

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 pro­

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.


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 be­

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


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 pre­

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 de­

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.


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 Water­

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 -


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 con­

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 num­

ber of registered casual workers was seventy-four. This in­

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 . . Λ

falling off in the hours of work available to casual painters

and dockers. This is due to a number of factors to which refer­

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


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 car­

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 rea­

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.


The MUU first sought that creus of foreign vessels be pre­

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 evi­

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 treat­

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 con­

cern for the safety of the crew. I have dealt elsewhere with

the claim that there is some industrial right based on the prin­

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.


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


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 prefer­

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


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 escal­

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


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


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 re­

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 / ■ 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


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 inevit­

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


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 pro­

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 -


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


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 evi­

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 arrange­

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


payments leads me to conclude that this port should not be pre­

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 un­

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 confiden­

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.


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


Uhen the Minister is satisfied that the criteria are met,

consideration should be given to a prescription of this port.


The Shipwrights Union is an even smaller union uith about 1,200

members Australia wide of whom some 200-250 are involved in sea­

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


Port Kembla Sydney Newcastle Brisbane

The evidence obtained by the Commission leads to the con­

clusion that the Shipwrights have almost achieved in practice

uhat they are now seeking to have recognised in law and, gen­

erally , that their claims are not disputed by the shipping


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 un­

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


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.


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.


In considering whether particular areas of work should be re­

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


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 finan­

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 parti­

cipating in this scheme is about seventy-nine. A roster

operates and men are allocated to jobs substantially in turn.


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 em­

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 intro­

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 en­

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 accom­

panied by provisions for registration, suspension or cancel­

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 In­

dustrial Relations had also embarked on a study of the

Shipwrights' position with a view to introducing such a scheme.


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 nego­

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 differ­

ent from that elsewhere and other ports may well have important

factors, which are different.




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 pro­

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 parti­

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


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.


In the hearing which led to the making of the Interim Report, I

was asked by all parties, including the Unions, to make recom­

mendations for the disposal of the moneys which had been received.

I did so, and the recommendations appear in Chapter 31.9 of that


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


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, appear­

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 Com­

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 Com­

mission and its findings was sufficient. This appears to have


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.


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.


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


An appeal should lie from any other court in which proceed­

ings are brought to the Australian Industrial Court.

I think there is good reason for giving this some retros­

pective operation and it should operate so as to apply to pay­

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.


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



to be dealt uith by arbitration tribunals. Houeuer, where the

Firemen and Deckhands Union in Port Kembla or the MUU in Fre­

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.


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.





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 defi­

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 con­

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 activi­

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 num­

ber of them for organisations with some similar characteristics

to unions, including clubs, building societies, professional in­

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 know­

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.


In an attempt to ascertain the breadth of the problem, the

books of account of a number of unions not involved in the In­

quiry were, with the agreement of the officials concerned,

obtained for examination.

The ACTU was advised that the question of accounting pro­

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



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 pro­

fesses conscientious objection, to become a union member.

Similar considerations apply in the case of employer organi­

sations where the realities of industrial life make membership

necessary for employers. Even in the case of many purely volun­

tary bodies such as clubs and co-operatives, statutes prescribe

accounting requirements in some detail.


The Conciliation and Arbitration Act (referred to in this Chapter

as 1 the Act') recognises this need and, in conformity with its



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.


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 accoun­

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 or­

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 aware­

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.



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 per­

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' contri­

butions are made to the N.S.U. Branch in bulk at varying inter­

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 ex­

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 ex­

penditure is maintained other than that provided on cheque butts

and bank statements. Books kept such as they are, are not re­

garded as part of the books of account of the N.S.U. Branch and

are not subject to audit.


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 de­

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 head­

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


payments. In one case at least, information recorded on cheque

butts, the only record of expenditure, uas deliberately



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


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.


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 in­

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


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 amend­

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 pro­

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 require­

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



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.


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 organis­

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 organ­

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 evi­

dent in the financial reports examined. It is essential in the


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 them­

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


16.7.4 Financial Reports

At pages 15-24 of Appendix IX, the consultants addressed

themselves to the problem of insufficient disclosure. They devel­

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 incor­

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 / 76— 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 or­

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 /■

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 pre­

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



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 desir­

able that the general membership be regularly acquainted with

these details and able to express its views. In some organis­

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, con­

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 organis­

ation and its financial dealings can serve no useful purpose and

in view of the findings of this Commission the prompt presen­

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 infor­

mation. In the majority of cases unions have journals which are

distributed to members and in which copies of the financial re­

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 assoc­

iated statements which will be required to be filed.


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 Regi­

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 finan­

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 con­

sidered that the financial reports should be filed uith the

Registrar uithin a prescribed period after the closing of


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 Λ even required to examine the accounts filed. This situation

falls short of providing adequate protection for the public in­

terest. This objective uill not be achieved merely by filing

documents uith a public body uithout any requirement for


On the other hand, I do not favour the idea that the Regi­

strar should become a second auditor and routinely examine the

records filed. Apart from duplication of effort, such an


arrangement would tend to produce a situation of shared responsi­

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 infor­

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


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 re­

quired. If appropriate staff cannot be provided, then these

requirements of the Registrar to examine and investigate must be



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,:


a) the financial records to be maintained by


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


g) the duties of the Registrar in respect of

receipt and examination of financial docu­

ments , the investigation of anomalies and

the initiation of full investigations and

of legal action where appropriate.


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.




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


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





ACTU Australian Council of Trade Unions

AEWL Association of Employers of LJaterside


CSOA Commonwealth Steamship Owners


MWU Maritime Workers' Union of Western


OSRA Overseas Shipowners' Representatives


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


The Act Conciliation and Arbitration Act

1904-1972 (Chapter 16 only)


2 2 0





Mr. T.B. Gordon

Mr. 0. Nicholls


Mr. Campbell Mr. 0. Murray Mr. R.H. Gay



P & 0 (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED Mr. K. Carruthers


H. C. SLEIGH LTD. Mr. A . J . Ray




Mr. R.3.M. Anderson


Mr. D.E. Clayton


Mr. D. Worrall














B E V A N , R . H .












CORK, R.M. / ,






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.




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.















KEI*1P, J.H.











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.




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.












QUICK, 0.R ·














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.



















WOOD, G.3.





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.






Exhibit No. Description









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.


Exhibit No.


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 &


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.


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 ANΠ 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


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


Exhibit No.


18 K

18 L

18 ΓΊ

18 N


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 Γ Ί

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.


Exhibit No .


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 Γ 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.



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.


Patrick Agencies

Documents and receipt re Games Stove.

29 Receipt for payment re Castledore.

30 Tuo receipts for payment re APJ Priya.


Exhibit No.



33 A

33 B



35 A

35 B





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


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


Exhibit No .


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


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.


Dalgety Australia Limited.

Documents re payment to UUF for Fleer Drecht.

44 As above, for Petrel.


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.


Union Bulkships Pty. Limited.

Documents in relation to payments on Capulet and Jersey Bridge.


Uigmores Limited.

Documents re dispute on Uienertor.


APT Shipping Limited.

Documents re payment on Emma Bakke.

51 Documents re payment on Golar Freeze.


Petterson & Co. Pty. Limited.

Wages* Sheets for 9 and 24.5.74.

53 Service and leave charge returns re James Stove.


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.


Exhibit No.

Five receipt books.




60 A

60 B

60 C



62 B

62 C

62 D

63 A

63 B

63 C

63 D

63 E

63 F

63 G

63 H


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 ■ 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.


Exhibit No.


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 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.


Minutes of meeting of Unions 29.9.71 re cleaning and shore uork. 236

Exhibit Μρ ■


65 B

65 C

65 D

65 E

66 A

66 B

66 C

66 D

66 E

67 A

67 B

67 C


69 A

69 B

69 C

69 D

69 E


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.


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.


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.


Exhibit No. Description



72 A

72 B

72 C

72 D

72 E



74 A

74 B

74 C

74 D

74 E

74 F


Report of Meeting 21.5.74.


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.



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.


Exhibit No.

74 G

74 H.l

74 H. 2

74 H. 3

74 3

74 K

74 L

74 M

74 N


74 P

74 Q

74 R

74 S

74 T

74 U

74 V

74 U

74 X

74 Y


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.


74 Z

74 Afl

74 BB

74 CC

74 DD




76 A

76 B

76 C

76 D


77 A



79 B

79 C




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.


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.


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 Νονοίvovsk and Master's Handbook.

Cheque 4.12.74 and documents re Benvorlich.

Cheque 13.8.73 and documents re Tai Sun.


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



Exhibit No. Description







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.


Statement of 3.R. Peachey, Industrial Officer.






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










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


Exhibit Mo.
















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



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 .

Μη Description

Q Account 3.2.75 from Painters & Dockers Union,

N.S.U. Branch, and Receipt 5.2.75, re Northern Star


Mclluraith McEacharn Ltd.

Account 17.4.75 from Painters & Dockers Union, N.S.U. Branch; Cheque and Receipt, re Dona Amalia


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



Maritime Workers' Union

Document entitled "Claims for Uork Made by Maritime Workers Union" and List of Payments


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


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/ 76— 9 245

Exhibit No .




U. A .9










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.,’ 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


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


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


Patrick Agencies

Letter 4.7.73 to Kristian Jebsens Rederi re Baknes


Wesfarmers Co-operative

Invoice, Port Log and Statement of Fact re Oranqefield


Petterson & Co.

December '74 Return to FPA re Levies


Exhibit N o .



U .A . 33


U .A .35











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


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


Exhibit No.











U. A.53A.3


U. A.53A . 5





W. A.58




Requisition for Labour, Notification of Hours of Duty, Levies Return in respect of following:


Geiko Maru

Koryu Maru

Breim, Asia Morality, Seizan Maru

Chennai Perumai


Cape Wrath


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


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 / 76— 10 249

Exhibit No .







LI. A . 65

U .A .66










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


Bank Statements for Account No. 900903

Fremantle Shipurighting Co.

Document entitled "Μ.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


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


Receipt Book No. 85, 3 receipts 1.9.75, Page 31 of Cash Book - week ended 29.8.75

All books of account



Exhibit .

Mn Description


Painters & Dockers Union, Federal Office

Letter 23.1.75 to Port Adelaide Branch


AEUL, S .A . Branch

Letter 2.9.74 to Federal Office re Ptolemais, Apollodorus, Atlantic Maru, Capulet


Union Bulkships Pty. Ltd.

Account from A. McFarlane & Sons and Report to Bouring Steamship Co. Ltd. re Capulet


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


Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd.

Receipt 13.9.72? Report to Scottish Ship Management Ltd.; Glasgow, re Cape Urath


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


Painters & Dockers Union, Port Adelaide Branch

Receipt & Payments Statement as at 31.12.74


AEUL, S .A . Branch

Letter 3.9.74 to Federal Office

Ξ. A.11 Circular 26.8.74 re ACTU claims and replies

5. A.12 Circular 15.8.74 re ACTU claims and replies



Exhibit No .

















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,’ 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



Exhibit No. Description


AM (2)





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


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



Exhibit No.













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


Exhibit No.


V · 5







V . 12

V . 13

V . 14

U . 15

V . 16


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 I■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


Exhibit No»




V. 20

V. 21

V. 22

V. 23

V . 24

V. 25

V. 26

V. 27

V. 28

V . 29


Labour Allocation Sheets 1973, 1974 and 1975

Summary of Hours Uorked 1969-1974, prepared by Mr. McClenaghan


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


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


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


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


Australian Chamber of Shipping

AZ Submission by U.A. State Committee


BA Documents produced by the Secretary, Mr. J.S. Ooblin


Exhibit N o .














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


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.



A P P E N D I X V l l

Median Freq.Jobs/ Uorker/Yr

Mem- Non Over-

bers Mem- all














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,Λ"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.


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 up­

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 ).






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 over­

seas regarding the regulatory control of trade unions by public


By comparison uith the provisions of the Conciliation and

Arbitration Act, other statutes examined by us have the follow­

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.


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 con­

trol of trade union administration. There tends to be greater


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. Bud­

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 cir­

cumstances. In Canada, following the report of a Royal Com­

mission , funds of the Maritime Transportation Union were placed

under the control of a board of public trustees, and the arrange­

ment continued from 1963 to 1966.



Appendix IX Page 4


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 con­

tributions. Furthermore because of the high turnover of mem­

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 con­

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 contri­

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 / 76— 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


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


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.


. to register issue of receipt books (or equivalent

records) to delegates and others responsible for


. 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 agree­

ment with amounts remitted, and that remittances are

being made promptly.

. to ensure that remittances of deductions made by em­

ployers agree with schedules of amounts receivable.


Appendix IX Page 7

. to ensure that sources and income and nature is fully

and accurately described.


. to ensure approvals of expenditure and in particular

extraordinary expenditure is made in accordance with


. 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 accor­

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 unemploy­

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 manage­

ment committees.


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 in­

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 recon­

ciled regularly.

Other flatters

. to ensure that general fund bank balances are recon­

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.


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


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 trans­

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 be­

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 train­

ing programmes on accounting principles and practices approv-

able to trade unions, and to promoting the presentation of

Appendix IX Page 9


Appendix IX Page 10

these within the trade union movement and by selected training

institutions. Courses on systems design would also be



Appendix IX Page 11


Disclosure of financial information by trade unions is made to

members on the basis of financial statements prepared for pre­

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 in­

formation disclosed varies in detail betueen particular trade

unions, there is in general a need for more informative dis­

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.


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 :


Appendix IX Page 3 2


Donations and Grants

Special Levies and Collections

Sundry (other) income


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


Levies and Collections

Officers Salaries and Allowances



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 or­

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 con­

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


The experience of the Royal Commission has also shown that

income paid by some shipping companies was not recorded correct­

ly in trade union books as to nature and source. This emphasi­

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 recom­

mended later in this report that the audit report should include

a statement to be made on this matter.


Appendix IX Page 1.3

Ue have noted that in the U.S.A detailed disclosure is re­

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 dis­

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.


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


2. financial interests of trade unions in other organi­

sations, and salaries allowances and other benefits paid or given by trade unions to their officials should


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


Appendix IX Page 15


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 infor­

mation to be summarised from audited financial state­


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 de­

tailed disclosure of content.

The information indicated on Exhibits 2 and 3 including the

detailed disclosure of particular items would be a minimum


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 dis­

closure of relevant items.

Appendix IX Page 16



m x ΞΠ




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


(b) Categories and amounts of other commissions paid or


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 trans­

ferred to or from such accounts.


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.




























INVESTMENTS - G ovt. B Sem i G ovt.

- O ther 2

FIXED ASSETS - R.eal Estate - O ther















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 repay­

ment arrangements.

2. Investments - Other

(a) Total cost, and total book value of 'other' invest­


(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.


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 trans­

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


(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 trans­

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


Appendix IX Page 22


12. Contingent Liabilities

Appendix IX Page 23

Description and amount of contingent liabilities exceed­

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.



N C)

























5 5

To éil‘t-i

\n'Lh Suu

S 5 cf Abe}


of As." ..



Audit Statement

Appendix IX

Page 25

As has been stated earlier in this report, whilst there is pro­

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 account­

ing records were kept, and whether the Balance Sheet and

Income and Expenditure statement were in agreement


(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 re­

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



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 con­

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 re­

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 re­

gisters (or separate number debtor accounts), after

allowances for amounts waived for unemployment or other


. 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.


Appendix IX Page 27

Should auditors not be able to give an unqualified statement

on all of the above matters, then reservations should be in­

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 ex­

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 account­

ing records and membership records made available for


. disbursements uere appropriately approved.

. special funds and special levies uere used for approved

purposes and movements and balances of accounts re­

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.


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


Treasurers Statement

In addition to statements to be made by auditors and members of

management committee, we consider that it would also be appro­

priate for the treasurers (or secretary/treasurers) of trade unions to provide a statement along similar lines to the state­

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 accoun­

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.


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


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 des­

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 infor­

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.



Appendix IX Page 30

As has been stated earlier in this report, there is no pro­

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 infor­

mation contained therein only by application to the Industrial


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 per­

sons to the extent necessary to determine facts is given regis­

trars under the provisions of the Co-operation Act 1923-1974

(NSLJ), the Friendly Societies Act 1912-1975 (l\ISU), the Indus­

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 State­

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.


Ue recommend that :


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 state­

ment, supporting schedules or statements made by

auditors, management committee members or treasurers.

3. The Registrar should have the power to initiate investi­

gations regarding financial or other administrative

matters, and to appoint inspectors for the purpose of

such investigations.

24228/76 (R75/1285)— L