Page 4 - Newsletter#13 2021

The rank & file newsletter focused on Qld branch and
national MUA policy & direction.
Edition #13 June 25 2021
National Council decides on member’s appeal
against charges laid by Qld Branch Secretary
National Council recently issued its decision concerning
Mike Barber’s appeal against an earlier majority
decision of the Qld Branch Executive to find him guilty
in respect of 5 of 8 charges laid against him by the Qld
Branch Secretary in December 2020.
National Council has not ruled on Mike’s appeal. It has
exercised a discretion purportedly given to it under Rule
15 to review the disputed matters afresh, set aside the
decision of the Branch Executive and replace that, with
its own.
National Council dismissed 2 of the remaining five
charges. As a result, 5 of the 8 charges laid by the
Branch Secretary have now been dismissed, with 3
being upheld. National Council also determined not to
impose any penalty, overturning the 3 months
suspension imposed by a majority of the Branch
Executive earlier.
These charges arose from various postings made to
Mike Barber’s Face Book page, which were said to
include baseless claims against the Branch Secretary or
branch officials generally and therefore Mike was guilty
of abusive and/or insulting conduct towards those
concerned, this being in breach of Rule 58 – Charges
and Discipline.
If found guilty on all charges, this could have affected
Mike’s employment rights, he could have been
suspended or expelled from the union or faced fines in
excess of $300. Importantly, there would have been
irreparable damage to his reputation from amongst MUA
members and other unionists across Australia. For
some, this would have meant nought. For Mike
however, it would have signified a total repudiation of a
lifetime’s political and industrial commitment to the
cause of labour.
We were first alerted to the forthcoming decision by this
attached outburst a day beforehand, from Assistant
Branch Secretary Paul Gallagher. We gather Mr
Gallagher wasn’t particularly impressed with National
Council’s decision.
Unfortunately, Mr Gallagher has a bad habit of opening
his mouth before putting his brain into gear. He should
discuss the matter with the National Legal Director, and
he will be informed the interests of himself, and Jason
Miners was actually protected by the decision of
National Council.
The alternative would have been to uphold the appeal,
in acknowledgement of the Branch Executive by
majority decision, acting unlawfully in finding Mike
Barber guilty thus adversely impacting on the good
name of the MUA.
The concern of National Council, (on the
recommendation of Padraig), was the primary
importance of preserving the good name of the
organisation, no different from the approach adopted by
the Catholic Church in dealing with paedophilia within its
ranks. Protecting the good name of the church was
more important than ensuring justice for its victims.
Nevertheless, the actions of the Branch Secretary in the
first instance and later, the majority opinion within the
Branch Executive has to a very large degree, been
repudiated by National Council. As a result, there’ll be
no further rush by any branch official to charge members
in the future nor will they be encouraged to do so.
Further, the conduct of Messrs Cumberlidge, Miners
and Gallagher in this matter has now been shown for
what it was, ill considered, incompetent, and at worst,
nothing less than an abuse of authority, although we
step back from describing it as a gross abuse of
authority, just! There’s still a question as to whether
National Council was lawfully entitled to act in the way it
has done in this matter.
While it does have a general discretion to settle
differences between branches and their members, or
set aside, or rescind decisions of a Branch Executive,
National Council may only deal with an appeal brought
pursuant to Rule 58 in accordance with the provisions
mandated (within that rule) and not otherwise.
Our view is that the Federal Court on review would
effectively set aside this decision of the National Council
and order the matter to be dealt with in accordance with
Rule 58 as described above. There is a strong, almost
compelling argument in favour of this view, and we have
no doubt Padraig at least, was advised of this by those
Page.1 who provided the legal opinion to him. No competent
legal practitioner could fail to say otherwise.