The courts Union dismissal challenged

Press, 9 March 1978, Page 5

The courts Union dismissal challenged

A former district organiser of the Post Office Association who was dismissed for allegedly obtaining a car b y fraudulent means from tne Public Service Garage for his own use is challenging his dismissal in the Supreme Court.

The former organiser, Peter Marinus Blik, aged 52, an insurance salesman, is seeking an injunction restraining the Post Office Association from treating him as dismissed, and payment of his salary, superannuation and other allowances since his summary dismissal on February 22, Mr Justice Roper is presiding over the hearing which is expected to take at least four days. Messrs S. G. Erber and G. Orchard appear for Mr Blik; Messrs J. D. Dalgety and B. W. F. Brown, of Wellington, for the Post Office Association, the first defendant; and Mr R. A. Dobson, of Wellington, for Messrs Charles Archibald McFarlane and George David Robson, both of Wellington, and Matthew Thomas Reedy, of Christchurch, all retired, who are cited as the second defendants. Mr Blik is also seeking declaration by the Court that his purported suspension of February 17, summary dismissal on February 22, and the decision of a sub-committee of the association on February 24 were in breach of the association’s rules and those of natural justice and were void. A declaration is also sought by Mr Blik that the second defendants, who were constituted an ad hoc appeal authority to hear his appeal against his dismissal on August 30, 1977, had no jurisdiction. The statement of claim alleges that the Post Office Association acted contrary to its rules, failed to give Mr Blik a hearing before dismissing him and took into account extraneous matters.

These allegations are denied in the statement of defence which says that on two occasions Mr Blik hired a car from the public Service Garage in circumstances which the Post Office Association alleges constituted wilful neglect or fraud which justified his summary dismissal under the rules. The defence also says that the second defendants were

properly constituted to hear the appeal and that their decision to uphold the dismissal of Mr Blik was correct in law and in fact. It is also alleged by the defence that by declining to continue with the hearing of the appeal before the second defendants on August 30 Mr Blik had waived any right he might have had to challenge his suspension and dismissal.

Opening his case, Mr Erber said that in December, 1972, Mr Blik, who was a faults supervisor with the Post Office, was appointed to the full-time job as an organiser for the Post Office Association, the union for Post Office workers. On December 24, 1976, Mr Blik took extended leave because he had worked for three years without a holiday. He was called back on January 17 and 18 to be consulted about an association matter and he was asked to hand over the association’s car to the person who was doing his job while he was on leave. He was allowed to make limited personal use of that car. On January 20, Blik took a car from the Public Service Garage by using the code number of the association. He used such cars when the association’s vehicle was being repaired or when other vehicles were needed . As Mr Blik intended this car to be used for his own personal use he would pay for its hire himself after the account was sent to the Post Office Association headquarters in Christchurch. The head of the Public Service

Garage concurred in his taking the car. After having the car for five days Mr Blik returned it and then took it out again at the end of January. When the car broke down it had to be returned to the garage for repair, said Mr Erber. On February 16 Mr Calder, the president ,)f the Post Office Association, learned that Mr Blik was using the car and ordered him to return it, and said that the matter would be reported to the general secretary, Mr 1. E. Reddish.

The car was returned on February 17 and on that day Mr Blik received a telephone call from Mr Reddish. The conversation became very heated. Mr Reddish said that he was dishonest, could not be trusted, was a liar and would be dismissed. When Mr Blik protested that if he lost his job it would be the same as throwing him on the scrap heap at his age, Mr Reddish replied that that was where he belonged. On February 17 Mr Blik received a letter from the association notifying him of his suspension because of wilful neglect and fraudulent use of the name of the association to obtain a vehicle tor his private use. Usually the executive committee met quarterly but it could not be discovered if it met or whether the matter was handled by a telephone conference. Although an order for discovery had been made no minutes were found but the previous night counsel had received minutes which referred to a con-

fidential report's being made by the general secretary. After a long discussion with Mr Reddish or> February 22, Mr Blik was told that he was dismissed and was handed a letter. When Mr Blik said that he intended to appeal to the executive committee about his dismissal, Mr Reddish replied that there was no provision in the rules for that. It now appeared that that was at variance with the minute which had just been discovered. On February 25 Mr Blik attended, on request, a special sub-committee meeting in Katipo House. Wellington. Present were Messrs Reddish, Nesbitt, McCabe, Thompson and Bradley, all members of the executive committee.

The matter relating to the car was discussed at some length and Mr Blik was asked if he realised that Mr Muldoon would come down on Mr Reddish “like a ton of bricks” if he found out about it. He was also asked about his failure to make payments on time for a loan from the Post Office Investment Society. He was questioned about an affair he was alleged to have been having with a member of the Association. His denial was accepted. After Mr Blik left the meeting, Mr Reddish, who had been present with his concurrence, remained and presumably discussed the matter with the sub-com-mittee. What was decided was not known. Presumably there was a full meeting of the executive committee because on March

2 Mr Blik received a letter which gave him the opportunity of tendering his resignation instead of being summarily dismissed. It said efforts would be made to facilitate his return to work for the Post Office. Mr Blik rejected those proposals in a letter on March 21. No minutes were found relating to that’ executive meeting. In a subsequent letter, Mr Blik asked to exercise his right of appeal because of the grave injustice he had been done. In reply he was told that it was the unanimous opinion that he had exhausted his right of appeal by the hearing of the sub-committee. After Mr Blik consulted his solicitor there were long negotiations and an ad hoc appeal tribunal was set up. He would have never agreed to that had he known that the executive committee had never met and dismissed him.

On receiving the terms of reference for the appeal tribunal Mr Blik considered them unfair and instructed his solicitor to terminate his authority for the hearing and to try to get a better deal for a hearing. The tribunal dismissed the appeal. Mr Blik had never been given an opportunity to state his case to a meeting of the full executive. It was contended that there was no proper meeting of the executive so that dismissal was void. The rules of natural justice were not observed. There were many shadowy areas in the case such as what part was played by Mr Reddish in the proceedings. If he did take part in the discussions there could be bias and improper attendance. The minutes failed to deal with those matters, Mr Erber said.