Union member labelled ‘scab and maggot’

Press, 10 December 1983, Page 6

Union member labelled ‘scab and maggot’

A driver who disputed the legality of a compulsory levy imposed by the oil tanker drivers’ section of the Canterbury Drivers’ Union was a scab and a maggot and the men had decided he should be treated as such, Mr Justice Roper and a jury were told in the High Court yesterday.

Evidence has been completed in the hearing of the claim for damages of ?66,000 against 11 members and former members of the Drivers’ Union.

Patrick Martin O’Boyle, an unemployed former tanker driver, alleges conspiracy and intimidation against all defendants and assault against some of them.

The trial began on December 5 and on Monday counsel for both parties will make their final addresses.

Cross-examined by Mr Willy, Ronald John Rogatski, a contract tanker driver, was asked if he accepted that the levy was illegal. “Well, I don’t really know the legality of the whole

thing. As far as I was concerned the thing was voted in at the union meeting and whether it was called a levy or welfare fund, strike fund or whatever you like, it was voted in by 63 tanker drivers,” Rogatski replied. If one was going to pay, all were because all the men got the advantage of the fund.

You knew didn’t you that according to the Industrial Relations Act you couldn’t force the men to pay it without a secret ballot? — I must admit that would be beyond me. Rogatski said that had Mr O’Boyle apologised for what he said in the Town Hall and paid the levy all would have been well. Liggett had never told him that Mr O’Boyle had written letters to him about what had happened at that meeting. Mr Willy then read a letter written by Mr O’Boyle which stated in part: “It has come to my attention that a letter written by my solicitors to the Drivers’ Union has been un-

derstood to contain an allegation that Mr Liggett had ‘misappropriated’ money. I deny that any such implication was intended but I unhesitatingly regret that any such reference might be taken.” What is that if it isn’t an apology? — The apology should have come from the floor of the meeting. It’s not an apology to me. We needed an apology to members.

Mr Liggett could have read the letter couldn’t he, and that would have defused the situation? — Patrick needed to attend the meeting and apologise. He criticised at a meeting and should apologise at a meeting.

He should grovel? — Yes, if you word it that way. Rogatski admitted that Liggett had not told him about the second letter of October 17 either, which read in part: “I would like to defuse a volatile situation. Regarding the letter my ; solicitor sent to Mr Liggett, I would like to say categorically that neither I

John Patrick O’Boyle, aged 46, an unemployed former tanker driver, is claiming $66,000 damages from 11 men, who are or were members of the Drivers’ Union, for allegedly conspiracy and intimidation against all, and for assault against some of them. All defendants deny, liability and are represented by Mr B. McClelland, Q.C., and P. H. B. Hall. Messrs A. A. P. Willy and

nor my solicitors intended to suggest that Mr Liggett misappropriated union funds. I regret that the letter was interpreted in that way.”

As a fair-minded man, you would accept it as an apology? — Yes, but the thing is that it wasn’t an apology from the floor.

Was it read out at the meeting? — I don’t know.

Who ever asked him to apologise to the men? — No-one. You couldn’t really talk to him. He had a rule for everything. He wanted things done properly? — Yes. Right or wrong he had to toe the line even if what you were doing was illegal? — Yes he had to toe the line.

So it wouldn’t have really mattered what he did, you wanted him out of Mobil? — No way, he was a good driver.

He couldn’t work, he couldn’t strike; his only alternative was to get out? — He had a job offered to him at Lyttelton. Rogatski said that he was not aware that there were assaults on Mr O’Boyle. Witness was the union delegate and he had heard of things happening to Mr O’Boyle but nothing really serious. Ken Johnson had called him in about somebody squirting water over Mr O’Boyle. Bill Lynn was supposed to have.

Mr Johnson had said: “Look Ron, we want the heat taken out of this one way or another.” He had never intervened on Mr O’Boyle’s behalf. He had never told the men to lay off.

Rogatski said that he thought Mr O’Boyle’s use of the tape recorder was very low. He agreed that Mr O’Boyle was out on his own. Do you imagine that any of the people concerned in this case would have admitted doing the things we have heard about if it hadn’t been for those tapes? — No. How else was Mr O’Boyle supposed to get the truth of what was happening to him before the Court? — I don’t think he should ever have brought it to Court. How else would he get the truth out in the open? — I don’t know.

In your experience as a driver involved in union affairs have you ever known of any occasion when one of the men has been subjected to this sort of persistent abuse? — No.

Murray Allan Rayner, aged 29, a contract driver with Shell Oil, was at the time that the case was concerned with, a member of the Canterbury Driver’s Union.

He was present at the meeting in the Town Hall when Mr O’Boyle accused Liggett of misappropriating funds. He then rephrased and used the word “misuse” of funds.

There was an outcry from members and he was one of the persons who objected verbally. The matter got into the press. There was a meeting in the McAlpine Lounge in Falsgrave Street on November 17. Mr O’Boyle alleged that witness had kicked him or kneed him in his thigh. “I cannot recall kicking or hitting him whatever. I find it hard to recall where I was positioned at any stage,” Rayner said. After the meeting he left in his car and it happened to stall at the lights in front of O’Boyle’s car. The gears jammed. It had happened previously. He indicated with his hand that Mr O’Boyle’s vehicle should go around his car. Mr and Mrs O’Boyle were in the car. He thought that there was room for them to go round.

“I got out and approached the car. Mrs O’Boyle wound up her window. I think that she thought that I was going to have a go at her or something like that. I couldn’t explain things to them. They never gave me an opportunity,” said Rayner. At the meeting of November 19 Mr O’Boyle alleged that witness had pulled his hair, and punched him on the jaw, splitting his lip. It was definitely not witness and that was what he told the Judge in the District Court. Nevertheless he was near Mr O’Boyle when the incident occurred. He did not see who delivered that blow.

Rayner said that he had heard the tape played in court in which he said that he had not only committed the assault but had Bed about it. He did not deny that statement.

“I|hadmit I told Mr O’Bojfe that I had actually i hit him but that is not true.

I. Brooks appear for Mr O’Boyle. 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.

I lied because my intentions were deliberately to try and provoke Mr O’Boyle in the hope that he would take a swing at me. I had a stomachful of the actions he and his wife were taking against my wife,” Rayner said. Before the assault case was heard in court they started to get telephone calls at home at night but when the phone was answered all they heard was deep breathing. His wife was very annoyed and upset. Her father was sick and Whenever the telephone rang late at night or in the early hours she thought the worst.

“On one occasion about 3 a.m. the phone went and I answered it. There was a person on the end of the phone when normally there was only deep breathing but this time it was a male and he said: ‘l’m going to get you Rayner.’ I was able to work out who that person was. I can only say that that person had an accent,” Rayner said. He had been critical of Mr O’Boyle to his face a number of times. He had sworn at him and considered him a scab.

Since they had obtained an unlisted telephone number there had been no more anonymous calls. He had never spoken to the Q’Boyle children and the only time he had spoken to Mrs O’Boyle was when his car had stalled.

“When I said things about his wife and family I didn’t intend to do anything to put into effect those threats. There was no intent involved at all.”

Rayner said he hoped to antagonise Mr O’Boyle to where he might approach him (Rayner) in a physical nature.

“That is what most of the conversations which have been taped were designed to do. But he didn’t retaliate and I never got the opportunity to vent my annoyance,” said Rayner. Asked by Mr Willy what it was about Mr O’Boyle’s conduct that so annoyed him, Rayner replied: “His harassment against my wife. I consider him a spineless type of person. He tried to get at me by getting through my wife.” Questioned about the evidence Rayner had about Mr O’Boyle doing anything to his wife, witness responded that he had the word of his wife and he believed her. It was his belief that Mr O’Boyle had made the telephone calls. In reply to a question by His Honour, Rayner said that the telephone calls intensified and became more threatening after he was found not guilty on the charge of assaulting Mr O’Boyle. Rayner conceded that the matter had received a good deal of publicity in the media and that a lot of persons had strong views on trade unions and how they should conduct themselves.

It could not be any number of persons who had taken exception to him after what they had seen in the newspaper.

Apart from costing him money Mr O’Boyle had affected him in personal and social ways and if he had not harassed his wife he would have let it die at that. You wouldn’t have carried on the campaign against him at work Mr Willy asked — That’s not true. I still treated him as a scab.

Asked how he treated someone as a scab, Rayner replied that he would ignore him and would certainly not help him in any way. He would not deny that he would abuse him in the foulest language.

Is it true that whenever you got the chance you would make life impossible for him? — In his working relationship with other men. What do you hope to achieve by it all? — Personally I hoped he would go down the road.

You succeeded didn’t you. He did go down the road? — Not on my own accord. You had help from the others? — No, he left voluntarily. Don’t you think the treatment by you and the others had anything to do with his leaving? — He brought it on himself. Witness said he had a personal vengeance against Mr O’Boyle. Rayner said that he was not disappointed when he heard that Mr O’Boyle had left Mobil. Speaking on his own account, he had got his way but he could not speak for the others. He agreed that some of the men talked to Mr O’Boyle and thjt he and the others had called

him "all sorts of things." Did you know what the others were doing to Mr O’Boyle? — Not personally. Did you talk about it among yourselves? — No. The general idea was that Mr O’Boyle was a scab and a maggot and was to be treated as such, but he could not recall any specific incidents when that was discussed generally among them.

It was thrown around generally? — I suppose you could say that. I remind you that you are on oath. Was it discussed among you? — You could say yes. Rayner denied that it had been agreed that they would abuse Mr O’Boyle whenever they got the chance. Initially it was agreed that they would not speak to him but some took stronger action. He certainly had a stronger dislike of Mr O’Boyle then some of the others.

Do you remember the

time you stopped on the steps in front of Mr O’Boyle to pull up your socks and Mr Lynn had a crack at him? — I did on one occasion pull up my socks. Mr Lynn pushed Mr O’Boyle into a metal stanchion? — I can’t recall actually seeing that. Were you looking the other way? — I possibly could have been.

It was just a coincidence that you were pulling up your socks and delaying Mr O’Boyle? — No, the steps make it easier to pull up your socks. I do it there quite frequently. Asked why he had used foul language to Mr and Mrs O’Boyle after his car had stalled in front of their vehicle, Rayner said that he had indicated to Mrs O’Boyle that she should drive around his car and she had made a rude gesture. Pressed as to what the rude gesture was, Rayner said it was an indicative sign and when asked what

he meant he replied, the V for victory sign. She gave you the fingers sign? — Yes, she did. It did not make him very angry but he was not impressed by it. W’hat did you do about it? — I got out of my car and walked up to hers, and she wound up the window as though she didn’t want to speak to me. I think I could have said something in abusive language like: “Well f... you, you ignorant bitch,” and walked over to the meeting to seek assistance.

At the meeting in the McAlpine Lounge from which the assault charge arose he was going through the foyer when a bit of a scuffle arose. He did not think it was significant and did not know who was involved.

“At meetings a lot of joking and fun play goes on. I can’t say where I was at that time in relation to Mr O’Boyle, who certainly was not in front of me. I have no idea where he was,” Rayner said.

When he got into the meeting it was “thrown around” that something had happened to Mr O’Boyle. Asked if he remembered saying during the court hearing that he did not know Mr O’Boyle had been involved in the scuffle, he said that would possiblby be true because he found it hard to recall what he had said more than two years ago.

Rayner said that he had lied when he told Mr O’Boyle that he had assaulted him to provoke Mr O’Boyle. On many occasions Mr O’Boyle had insisted that witness had assaulted him and he wanted him to believe what he chose. He had no time for Mr O’Boyle and was not going to explain anything.

It was also a lie when he told Mr O’Boyle that he (Mr O’Boyle) had taken the first swing at him that day. Then you said: “I grabbed you by the hair.” How did you know that was what happened if you did not see the incident? — I had a good knowledge of what Mr O’Boyle alleges and I wanted to sound very convincing to him.

It was correct that he had said as recorded on the tape to Mr O’Boyle: “Just between you and me, sure, I f... hit you.” No-one else was present. He lied to be provocative.

Then you said: “That’s why I planted one in your face” and somebody had

done just that, Mr Willy said.

That too was a lie, Rayner said, and so was the admission that he had grabbed Mr O’Boyle by the hair.

Rayner said that he was trying to get an admission out of Mr O’Boyle and if he had got it he would have had a go at him regardless of whether Mr O’Boyle had taken the first swing or not. What did you have to go through this pantomime for? You had him on his own and could have had a crack at him? — I wanted an admission.

Rayner admitted that he had said on the tape: “And I wouldn’t mind another go at you, you c...,” to Mr O’Boyle. I put it to you that you have lied twice on oath about this incident, in the District Court and now in this court? — I have not.

The explanation which you have given to this court today is a pack of lies? — No, it is not.

Mrs Joy Rayner, the wife of Murray Rayner, said that she worked as a supervisor at Stanmore Supervalue. She had seen Mr O’Boyle standing outside the shop where she worked for more than 10 minutes. Because she was upset and could not stand it any longer she had to get another worker to come and take her place.

On many occasions Mr O’Boyle had followed her home. She did not note the dates of the incidents. It upset her and she told her husband.

“I received a lot of telephone calls from Mr O’Boyle. The callers did not identify themselves. He didn’t say: ‘l’m Mr O’Boyle.’ The majority of the calls were between midnight and

4 a.m. Sometimes there was just silence and at other times a male voice,” Mrs Rayner said.

The caller made threats in general terms such as: “I’m going to get you. I'm going to rip your guts out. I’m going to rip your husband’s bloody guts out.” That frightened her. She did not know whose voice it was but she had her suspicions and contacted the police. After the court case at which her husband was acquitted the calls got worse.

Ultimately they got an unlisted number and the calls ceased until this week. She said she received a call on Tuesday about 6.45 a.m. When she answered a male voice, which she did not recognise, said: “We are going to get your husband no matter what or how much it costs.”

To Mr Willy, Mrs Rayner said that she could not recognise the voice. She did not know if it was the same voice as previously because it was a long time ago. She had heard Mr O’Boyle speaking at her husband’s court case. It was not her husband who had first mentioned to her that it might be Mr O’Boyle. She thought it was herself.

Charles Kenneth Taylor, an organiser for the Canterbury Drivers’ Union, said that he did not recall any remarks made by Mr O’Boyle at the meeting when the 25c levy was established. It was to help pay the cost of sending delegates to seminars, award proceedings and redundancy negotiations.

A proper welfare fund for the whole union was set up some time in 1980.