Former driver alleges intimidation, harassment by union members

Press, 6 December 1983, Page 17

Former driver alleges intimidation, harassment by union members

Because tie objected to illegal payments from a union welfare fund for delegates’ travelling expenses, an oil tanker driver was subjected to an orchestrated campaign of intimidation, harassment and assaults, Mr Justice Roper and a jury were told in the High Court yesterday. A total of $148,000 is being claimed by a former oil company tanker driver from 11 men who are or were members of the Drivers’ Union, which deny liability. Patrick Martin O’Boyle alleges conspiracy and intimidation against all defendants and assault against some of them.

Messrs A. P. Willy and I. Brooks appear for Mr O’Boyle and Messrs B. McClelland, Q.C., and P. H. B. Hall for the defendants. Mr McClelland exercised all his 66 jury challenges, 38 of which were against women. The last woman, and only enpanelled, was elected forewoman. Mr Willy challenged one man.

The defendants are: Peter Reginald Liggett, secretary of the Canterbury and Westland Drivers’ Union, Daryl Collins, former president of the union, Rodney Kennedy Root, Ronald John Rogatski, Murray Allan Rayner, Kevin Maxwell Penn, Roger Frank Carson, Brian Richard Bennison, Robert William Michael Taylor,

William Douglas Lynn and George Edward Robert Bloomfield.

The trial is expected to take about two weeks.

In opening, Mr Willy said that the case involved a very important and fundamental freedom: the right or obligation to speak out when a person knew something wrong was being done. When Mr O’Boyle did just that and tried to get the matter put right but failed, he suffered grave consequences.

The proceedings against the defendants were issued in August, 1981, soon after the events, about which evidence would be given, had occurred.

Conspiracy, intimidation and various assaults were alleged by Mr O’Boyle. He says that the defendants got together and planned to force him to pay what was undoubtedly an illegal levy which some of the union organisers wanted to impose on the men. Mr O’Boyle said that the defendants tried to deprive him of his right to attend union meetings and to keep him out of job meetings, and to deprive him of his job as a Mobil oil-tanker driver.

The defendants had intimidated Mr O’Boyle, used “stand-over tactics” against him, brow-beaten him and wore him down until he had lost the will to resist. He

had been subjected tc physical assaults, constant harassment and abuse to both himself and his family, his truck had been tampered with and he had been hosed down.

Mr O’Boyle had been subjected to intimidation not for just a few days or weeks but for years. The defendants had banded together as a pack to break him down.

“I must warn you that you will hear some of the most foul language you have ever heard during the course of the evidence. You’ll get sick to death of hearing a certain expletive which was used to him over and over again,” Mr Willy said.

The defendant’s response to all that was just a blanket denial that they did any of the things alleged. Mr O’Boyle began working as a driver for Mobil about August, 1978. Like most disputes the matter started in a very small way in 1979 when there was a discussion among 63 of the tanker drivers about setting up a welfare fund. It was to be used to help drivers who were sick or injured, who had fallen on hard times, and to possibly help out with families of members. Mr O’Boyle regarded it as a highly laudable proposal and fully supported it. But he made his view know that it should be

used for the welfare of members and not be paid into general funds — a perfectly reasonable proposition. Along with other tanker drivers, Mr O’Boyle paid in his 25c a week. It was suggested that Mr Liggett, and Mr Daryl Collins be appointed interim trustees until permanent ones could be appointed (but that was never done). At a meeting of oil tanker drivers in August, 1980, Mr O’Boyle obtained a statement on expenditure from the welfare fund which showed that $642 had been collected but that and more had been spent on travelling expenses for union delegates. The statement was not audited.

It was recognised immediately by Mr O’Boyle that none of the money had been spent on welfare as it had all gone on delegates’ expenses. Because that was not the reason why the fund had been set up, Mr O’Boyle was very cross. He objected strongly and argued that other members should not pay into the fund, which was being abused. Mr O’Boyle failed to persuade the meeting that the levy was illegal and he stopped paying it. Mr Rogatski telephoned Mrs O’Boyle and told her that her husband was being difficult and told her to tell him to pay it. He paid it under protest.

The levy was increased to 95c a week.

Mr O’Boyle obtained a ruling from the Registrar of

Unions which stated categorically that the levy was illegal and he thought that that would be the end of the matter.

Mr O’Boyle told the group of oil tanker drivers within the Drivers’ Union to operate the fund the right way or scrap it. The group had no legal standing. ■ But instead of operating the fund the right way Mr Liggett, the secretary, and Mr Collins, the president, incited members of the tanker drivers’ group “to get stuck into Mr O’Boyle,” Mr Willy said. Mr O’Boyle was subjected to the most foul language, threats against himself, his wife and family, and to assaults. That was the response by 11 members of the group of 63.

This was not a case against a trade union but one against 11 persons who happened to be members of a union. Mr O’Boyle was very much in favour of unions.

Messrs Liggett and Collins not only did nothing to stop what was happened to Mr O’Boyle, but instead actively encouraged it. They were the guiding hands keeping the pot stirred. At a meeting in the McAlpine Lounge Mr O’Boyle was assaulted by Mr Rayner and the police were called, which led to court proceedings against Mr Rayner in which Messrs Carson and Lynn gave evidence on oath that Mr Rayner had not grabbed and punched Mr O’Boyle. The District Court judge

preferred the evidence of the three men and the charge was dismissed. The jury would hear evidence from Mr Rayner that he lied about what had actually happened and that he had grabbed and punched Mr O’Boyle. Members of the jury might think that was a very crucial part of the evidence, Mr Willy said.

At the time the proceedings were issued Mr O’Boyle still had his job with Mobil but he had been shunted down to Lyttelton as a sort of stores clerk for reasons of industrial peace.

After he was told that he could not attend union meetings, Mr O’Boyle raised the matter with Mr Liggett, who acknowledged in writing that he could attend such meetings but not job site meetings. The harassment of Mr O’Boyle continued at Lyttelton and on June 9, 1982, he was unable to take any more and he resigned. He had made numerous applications for jobs but had been unable to get work, Mr Willy said. Dealing with the claims, Mr Willy said that the sums sought were modest ones and would not compensate Mr O’Boyle for what he had been through and had lost.

The case was not an attack on trade unions, and indeed Mr O’Boyle sought to vindicate the lawful exercise of trade union powers. It had nothing to do with the merits of compulsory or voluntary unionism, said Mr Willy.