“Tne” 0088 MINUTES OF THE BRANCH EXECUTIVE OF ‘THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS? UNION WEST AUSTRALIAN BRANCH HELD AT MOORE STREET, EAST PERTH ‘ON FRIDAY, 15 OCTOBER 1993 MEETING OPENED: 10:10am ‘The President declared the meeting in session. ROLL CALL: Glen Ivory + President Ralph Blewin = Branch Stephen Booth = Assistant Secretary Ray Delbridge = Mining Division President Mick Raker = Mining Division Secretary ‘Mike Llewelyn = Vice President Dave Holis > Vice President John Grenfell = Commitzemen Fred Shepheard = Commitcemen ‘Russell Fearon - —Commnitceman Doug Vyner = Commiteeman John Blaasch + Commiteeman Norm Dicks + Commiteeman Mike Weller > Commineeman ‘fogs MacQuarie - — Commiteman HOURS OF SITTING: Tae Hours of Sitting for the Branch Execitive meeting held on 15 October 1985 shall be 10:10am to close of business". ‘Moved: Stephen Booth Seconded: Norm Dicks CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ‘Minutes from the previous Branch Executive meeting were then read.“That this Branch Executive adopts the minutes from the mesting held oo 1 October 1993". Moved: Mike Weller ‘Seconded: Angus MacQuarrie CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ‘The President then stated that the reason for this meeting of the Branch Executive was to hear the charges laid against the Mining Division Secretary, Mick Baker, by the Branch Secretary, Ralph Blewitt. He requested that any member of the Branch Executive who could not hear the charges in a fair and unbiased manner should take fo part in the meeting, and that Ralph Blewitt and Mick Baker should not have a vote. He then asked Mick Baker if this was acceptable to him, Mick Baker replied by saying dat everyone at the meting should leave, a he has sireay been sacked one, thi this tne would not be any different, ad ht the Branch Executive was biased agaist him. He wanted bis recorded inthe Minites "This Branch Executive determines that ie will hear Mr Mick Baker ‘elation to the matters contained in Mr Blewit?s letter of 23 August 1993 to ‘Mr Mick Baker, and parsuast to the powers conferred on it by Rule 43 [¢} will make a finding as to whether or not Mr Mick Raker is, on the evidence before it, guilty of gress misbehaviour and gross neglect of duty, and if so ‘whether or not be should be removed from effice". Moved: Stephen Booth Seconded: Russell Frearson ‘CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ‘The time being 10:41am the meeting adjourned so to enable the Branch Executive to advise Mr Mick Baker of the abovementioned motion in writing. ‘The meeting reconvened at 10:50am, ‘Mr Baker was handed a letter advising him of the previous motion. ‘The President then stated that the only matters before the Branch Executive at this ‘meeting were those contained in Mr Blewitt’s leter to Mr Baker dated 23 August 1993, and that The Branch Executive will deal with these matters under Rule 43 (c), ‘ot under Rule 37. He then asked Mr Baker if he bad had the correspondence from ‘Mr Blewitt dated 23 August 1993 in his possession since that date. Mr Baker answered yes, ‘The President then asked Mr Baker if he had come to answer and deal with those Mena tg gaa ae ses Ne 2 nNMr Baker answered yes, and that he was ready and asked if the Executive was ‘meeting under the State or the Federal Rules. ‘The President replied that they were meeting under the Federal Rules. ‘The President then asked Mick Baker and Ralph Blewitt to leave the room while procedural matters are decided. ‘This Branch Executive hereby determines to conduct the hearing of the charges laid against Mr Mick Baker by Mr Ralph Blewitt in accordance with legal advice which we have recsived from Slater and Gordon, and that there vill be no Legal Counsel present for either side™. Moved: Mike Weller ‘Seconded: Fred Shepheard (CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ‘The President theo lavited Mick Baker and Ralph Blewitt back into the meeting. ‘The President then made the folowing statement: "As Chairman of this meeting itis my duty ask members of the Branch Executive o hear the submissions and evidence ofall partis in these mates, 10 ‘approach the mater with an open mind and to give Mr Boker and Mr Blewitt very astcance in presenting the facts you, 20 that you can justly deliberate ‘on the evidence before making a decsion on the appeal. All members of the Branch Executive have available to them a copy of the Raies of the Union. 1 lunge you to refer to the Rules at any time you consider i appropriate. Bach af ‘ou fas a copy ofthe charges. Each of you has a pad and pen, and J ask you to ‘make notes onthe material put before you to assist you in our deliberations. ask that you give Mr Baker the benefit of any doubt that might exist in your Imind if you are not fully convinced as 10 the accuracy af the charges that have been laid. ask each of you 10 consider whether you can bring a fair Impartial mind 10 the hearing and determination of the appeal Should you not be able to bring a fuir and impartial mind tothe determination of the appeal, you should not take part in the hearing determination ofthe appeal” g Russell Frearson then left the meesng ‘The President then called on Ralph Blewit wo present his oral and writen evidence in relation to the fist charge. Mr Baker then said that each charge should be heard individually and decided, on nites ad Oe wast mated wate oe .‘Stephen Booth explained that each charge will be dealt with separately and decided on separately. Mick Baker was happy with that. CHARGE [a]: That Michael Baker is guilty of grost misbehaviour and gross seplect of duty in that he did: On or about 20 June 1993, advise or induce the Convenor of the AWU at RGC Mineral Sands Limited at Narngula, Western Australia to threaten that members resign from the AWU, to take up membership with the MEWU unless a dispute detween Mr Ralph Blewitt, the Branch Secretary, and you was resolved to your satisfaction. Ralph Blewitt said that Mick Baler had induced Rob Taylor, Convenor at RGC Mineral Sands, Namgulu, to send the, documented facsimile calling for a Branch Executive ‘meeting, stating a vote of no confidence in Ralph Blewit, and threatening, to ask the Company to withdraw the payroll deductions for Union diss and to encourage the ‘members to join the, MEWU. The facsimile from Rob Taylor wes put into evidence “Mick Baker that the matter was purely hearsay and that he bad nothing to answer to. He invited the Branch Executive to go to a mass mecting of the members at RC Mineral ‘Sands, Namgulu to hear what the members had to say about it. Rob Taylor had seat the facsimile on his own volition, he did not induce him to sead it and the charge was ridiculous, Ralph Blewit said that he had not spoken directly to Rob Tayler about the issues thet he sed, Stephen Booth asked Mick Baker if he had spoken to Rob Taylor about these issues. Mick Baker replied by saying that he had spoken to Rob Taylor, but not about the issues ised in his facsimile. ‘Stephen Booth asked Mick Baker if he had spoken to Rob Taylor prior to him sending the ‘csimie, ‘Mick Baker replied no, he did not induce him to send it and that he refutes it absolutly. Stephen Booth asked Mick Baker if he had spoken to Rob Taylor about what was happening in the AWD. Mick Baker replied by saying of course, lots was happening. Raith Blewitt hed threatened to sack me and I felt it was my duty to inform the members of the fact that I might not be their Organiser for much longer. The workforce had faith and tust in me and made up their own minds. ‘ ~~He then said that he had joined in the AWU in 1976 and had been a menber ever since, and that they should not question his loyalty, 25 he had been a member # lot longer than anyone else here ‘The President then advised Mick Baker that at the end ofall the charges being heard he ‘would have a chance to sum up Mick Baker said you want 1o chop me off every time T open my moutt, T will not be ‘sagged unless the Branch Executive gags me. ‘The President advised Mick Baker that he had no intention of gagging him, but the summing up would be done after all the charges had been heard CHARGE [b]: That Michael Baker is guilty of gross misbehaviour and gross neglect of duty in that he did: ‘On or about 20 June 1993, advise or induce the AWU Site Convenor and Site Secretary at Tiwest Chandala site fo threaten or withhold membership contributions from the site to the AWU unless a dispute between Mr Ralph Biewitt, the Branch Secretary, and you was resolved to your satisfaction. Ralph Blewitt said that Mick Baker had induoed the AWU Convenor anf Seoretary at ‘Tiwest Chandala to threaten to withhold membership contibutions from the site. He said it was ot coincidence that the Union received almost identical correspondence on the same date from two [2] sites that Mick Baker covered. The facsimile was put into evidence, Mick Baker seid that he did not write the facsimile, they did. He requested to know how ‘many members resigned at RGC and Tiwest directly because ofthis.» Ralph Blewitt said that he would present those facts later. He then tabled a resignation from a Chris Hooper dated 18 August 1993, fe i Mick Baker asked if he could have & copy of all the relevant resignations. Ralph said he Would make them available to him, and that he had received forty six [46} from RGC. ‘Mick Baker wanted the resgnation/esignations tabled as evidence. ‘There was # general discussion and comments regarding the resignations, and whether they were relevant to a particular charge. ‘Mick Baker suid that he refute that he induced people to resign, Stephen Booth asked if he had spoken to the Convenor and Secretary about what was . m‘Mick Baker sad I have not induced them to resign. There is no evidence of this and you are acting on circumstantial evidence and the Branch Executive should reconsider the charge. Ralph Blewit threatened me with termination. 1 told them that and in tum they ‘ook this action. Yes {told them that I was going to be sacked, ‘Stephen Booth asked if he had told the members he was going to be sacked. ‘Mick Baker said absolutely, itis my responsibility o them to relate information like this back to them, as they might not have me as an Organiser for much longer. ‘The President then asked when Ralph Blewit threatened to sack him. ‘Mick Baker said that it was in a pkivate conversation between them both. ‘Mike Weller suid that he tad never seen the membership threaten to resign, or to have their contributions withheld, and asked Mick Baker if he had asked them to Send a letter in support of him. ‘Mick Baker said no, and the reason that the resignations did not come through was because I told them not to resign, I rang them and told them. Why would you want to shoot your own army. If told them to resiga then they would have, [old them not to. ‘Stephen Booth asked Mick Baker if he had told them what was going on inthe office Mick Baker said 1 told them I had been threatened withthe sac, Stephen Booth asked if he had told them that he had asked Ralph Blewit to reign at Branch Secretary, Mick Bakers that be was ws. He id yOu hve no evidence ad yet you cone ick me. Stephen Booth asked Ralph Blewit if he had spoken to anyone from Chandala about this Ralph Blewitt replied by saying that he had not and the only evidence was that before them. CHARGE [c]: That Michael Baker is guilty of gross misbehaviour and gross neglect of duty in that he did: On or about 20 June 1993, advise or induce six [6] members, including the Shop Steward and delegates at GC Mineral Sands Limited at Capel, Western Australia ‘to threaten that payroll deductions of membership subscriptions to the AWU will cease unless a dispute Detween Mr Ralph Blewitt and you was resolved to the satisfaction ofthe said members.‘Ralph Blewit refered tothe evidence before the Branch Executive by way of a facsimile, land asked Mick Baker if it was his hand writing. The facsimile was put into evidence. Mick Baker said I deny it, you make all accusations that you like, I did not write it. Ralph Blewitt then said are you sure that this is not your hand writing? Mick Baker said yes. Ralph Blewitt then put before the Branch Executive that Mick Baker had writen this facsimile out as a draft, and sent it off and it had come back to this office signed. ‘Mick Baker then invited the Branch Executive to a mass meeting. at RGC Mineral Sands, Capel. ‘Ralph Blewit then suid do you deny this is your handwriting and that you had no part in Mick Baker said how many time do have to tll you. “The President then said that he recalled at the Branch Executive meeting held on 21 June 1993 during debate between Mick Baker and himself, that this question was asked of ‘Mick Baker by Bruce Wilson and that you had confirmed it was your writing. ‘Mick Baker said 1 deny it. ‘Mike Lieweliyn asked Ralph Blewitt on what basis did he know it was his hand waiting, id he see him write it or is it ike his hand weiting. [Ralph Blewit sid that he has seen numerous documents with Mick Baker's hand writing ‘on tem, and that this was identical. It is his and he did admit it. Mick Baker said 1 id not admit it at al , Ralph Blewitt confirmed that there was no evidence of any resignation from this ste. “The meeting adjourned to obtained the relevant Minus of the Branch Executive held on 21 June 1993. Ralph Blewitt then presented the Branch Executive with an example of original hand ‘writing of Mick Bakers’ and asked them to come to their own conclusions. ‘The President then read the relevant page of the Minutes from the Branch Executive meeting beld on 21 June 1993, which read as follows: , owMr Wilson said he found it hart w believe that Mr Baker wanced 10 sort these ‘sues out within the Branch Execuive especially when before this meeting. was Sefore this meeting was even held Mr Wilson said that Mr Baker did nov even wale 4o See what the meeting was going to do about whether they were going 10 have the nine people atend, whether they were going to do something about some of he ‘ssues that were raised. Iniead Mr Baker had gone tothe members 10 resign. He said Mr Baker's reasoning and siory was the biggest load of bullshit he had heard fora good while. Mr Wilson said that Mr Baker had even drafted resolutions himself in his own handwriting, and had gor shop stewards 10 sign then. Not after the Branch Executive meeting, not after you might have had a knwck back from the Branch Executive. and not after vou have put all of the things on the table that in flrness yu should have asked the Bronch Execuive to make a decision on. Instead what 30u are doing is going out 10 the members, and then coming here and saying well ‘304 don't do what we want, here isthe gun at Your head = heaps of resignations Srom the AWD. [Mr Baker thin sid yes 1 dd, bal thot was intended wat in tems of proecion Mick Baker asked fora copy of the Minutes. ‘The President said no, your solicitors have sought a copy in proceadings in the WA ‘Commission, and will get them, Mick Baker said are you telling me that there is evidence tendered against me and I can't ‘have a copy. T want it recorded in the Minutes that I have been refused a copy. ‘The President then asked to have recorded in che Minutes that he had refused Mick Baker ‘copy of the Minutes, but that he had read the relevant section te him. CHARGE [d]: That Michael Baker is guilty of gross misbehaviour and gross neglect of duty in that he did: On or about 29 June 1993, advise or induce Mr Syd ‘Marchese to recommend to the membership of the AWU at Kambalda that Mr Ralph Blewitt be removed as Secretary of the Branch. Ralph then rang Syd Marchese at Kambalia and asked him about the phone call that he had had fom Mick Baker. The phone conversation from Syd Marchese was on loudspeaker phone.Ax Matebese suid thar he coulé not recall that, at it some months ago. He had writen Re Ratleton of the phone cll out immediaily, He war more Ceeenad mete members and didnot want to get involved in any internal fighting, ‘Mick Baker suid that he was surprised that he could not recall that vals ya YO Of Sonfidenc in Mick Baker. He advised Mick that any nach rece ae sant fo 80 before an oval menting and he was notin a portion w be eee that. Ralph Blewitt had a lot of support in Kambalda bat Reco Si Ne can" recall any work that Ralph Blewit ha done in Kanbaid, but he could remember what he had done. Per or id at Syd Marchese bad no knowledge of what was happening in the Perth ofice until Mick Baker had raised them with him Sv Marchese sd tat he i ot ae te ae an omen Mick Eker si yes yout, oud hat Sy Marchese dat he ad oen to Vie Bening aout Mit Ber te yd March fied nyt abut wa a on om Spd Mates i hecoud not emenber Mickle i at Vc had lt Sy Marchese bea Vie wa ar ft Sy Mathes sd at he i a et intrmation fom Vi Bering, se ult asked Syd Marchese If Mick Baker ad rung him and asked him rate these issues with the members, Se tate reniod by saying no, Mick Baker wanted a facsimile condemning Ralph pap ata Supporting Mick Bake. He wanted recommendation to tee wn gee te Brew na meee emenes #8 Branch Secrery. He could not Wo hs boca Rane wit hid the spp oh member fe ’ \ JAD‘Mike Llewellyn asked Syd Marchese if he had writen all of the facsimile, as the facsimile is part hand writen and part printed Syd Marchese said yes he had. He also pointed out that Mick Baker had done a lot of ‘Food things in Kambalda as well. He did not want to get involved in the internal politics. Mick Baker was good value and believes that today. ‘Mike Llewellyn asked Syd Marches who had asked him wo put iin writing, ‘yt sac the Boulder office ha Mick Baker said that Syd Marchese wanted the phone call kept private and to go no further, obviously he did ot respect thet. Stephen Booth asked Mick Baker-if he had asked Syd Marchese to keep things private so that his role would not be uncovered. “Mick Baker said that isabsurd, T asked him if he wanted it kept private Ralph Blewitt sad that Syd Marchese was not inthe position to take it any further unless an oval meeting was called, CHARGE [e}: That Michael Baker is guilty of gross misbehaviour and gross ‘neglect of duty in that he di: On or about 21 June 1993, advise or induce the delegates of the AWU at the Kalgoorlie Nickel Smelter to recommend to the membership of the AWU at. the Smelter that Mr Ralph Blewitt should be removed 25 Secretary of the Branch. Ray Delridge advised how the facsimile was received and sent to the Perth office and advised the meeting of the names of the delegates, which are Simon Kapel and Neville Langley. The facsimile was put into evidence. Mick Baber said that he had had a conversation with Neville Langley but could not ‘emember the contents of the conversation. I will not incriminate myself on the facsimile in question as it is not even signed, and if the Branch Executive accept this as evidence then they should take a look at themselves. ‘The President then suid that Mick Baker should make his views on the evidence known ‘but not abise the Branch Executive. Dave Hollis asked Mick Baker if he had made a phone call to the delegate to discuss the Mick Baler suid that he had spoken to Neville Langley but could not recall what was discussed, but spoke about Ralph Blewit threatening to sack me. \‘Stephen Booth asked if he spoke about the issues inthe fasimile, ‘Mick Baker said dismiss the evidence as secondhand information. Stephen Booth said forget the facsimile and answer the question directly. ‘Mick Baker id that there was no supporting evidence of this charge Stephen Booth asked Mick Baker if he was refusing to answer the question. (Mick Baker sti he was refusing to answers questions regarding the facsimile, Stephen Booth requested that Mick Baker's last comment be minuted. ‘Mick Baker requested that it be minuted that he refused to answers questions regarding the facsimile. He went on to say tht this was the biggest Kangaroo Court he had ever seen and it was what he had expected. ‘Mike Llewellyn asked Mick Baker if he had asked Neville Langley to advise the members atthe Smelter that Ralph Blewitt should be dismissed. Mick Baker sid no I did not, I refute that andthe charge should be dismissed, Ralph Blewitt said that the facsimiles received into evidence as charges [2], [bl [¢, (61 and {e) were almost identical. He asked Mick Baker whether he really expocted the Branch Execuve to believe that each of these work sits, without advice or indacement from him, independently decided to send almost identical facsimiles 0 the Union, all in the space or I or 2 days. ‘Mick Baker sid that they did it of their own volition. CHARGE [f: That Michael Baker is guilty of gross misbehaviour and gross neglect of duty in that he did: (On or about § August 1993, advise or induce members at Argyle Diamond Alluvial Plant to resiga from the AWU unless a dispute between Mr Ralph Blewitt, the State Secretary and you was resolved to your satisfaction, ‘The President advised the meeting that he had received a number a facsimiles addressed to himself concerning these issues. He had been up to Argyle and discussed it with the members. They had asked him to advise the mecting that in no way did Mick Baker ‘induce them tw send the facsimile, but had advised them of the sitiation at the Perth office, Ralph Elewit did not lead any evidence. \ \ \ WrstCHARGE (gl: That Michael Baker is guilty of gross misbehaviour and grass neglect of duty in that he did: Fail to attend to your duties as an Organiser as directed on Monday 9 August 1993, and fail to advise of your ‘whereabouts. CHARGE fal: Fail to respond to urgent pager messages from the Branch Secretary on Monday 9 August 1993 at 10:35am, 1:10pm, 2:00pm, 2:30pm, 3:00pm, 4:00pm, 4:30pm and 5:00pm. CHARGE [f: Fail to respond to pager messages from Mr Derek Forster, MEWU Offical, and Mr Peter Kelly of Tiwest on-Monday 9 August 1993. CHARGE Fail to respond to urgent payer messages from the West ‘Australian Branch Secretary on Tuesday 10 August 1993 at 9:00am, 10:00am, 11:00am, 11:30am, 12 noon and 12:30pm and fail to advise of your whereabouts at 9:00am (2:30pm CHARGE [i]: Fall to attend to your duties as an Organiser as directed on the morning of Tuesday 10 August 1953. CHARGE Ml: Fail to attend a meeting of approximately fifty (50) ‘members of the Union at RGC Mineral Sand Limited at Namngulu at 7:30am on Tuesday 10 August 1993 to provide advice to the membership regarding indiridual employment contracts. CHARGE (mj: Fail to advise the Branch Secretary of your unavailability or inability to attend 2 meding of members at RGC Mineral Sands at Narngulu at 7:30am on Tuesday 10 ‘August 1993 in order that the Branch Secretary could arrange for the attendance of another Official from the Branch CHARGE {a}: Fail to advise the Branch Secretary of meeting of approximately one hundred and thirty (130] members at GC Mineral Sands at Eneabta at 2:45pm on Tuesday 10 ‘August 1993 in order that the Branch Secretary could arrange for the attendance «f another Official of the Branch. > WARCHARGE [0}: Fail to properly regulate and protect the conditions of the Union at RGC Mineral Sands Limited at Narngulu, Eneabba and Capel by falling to advise the Branch Secretary of the existence of mass meetings of members fon Tuesday 10 August 1993 and Wednesday 11 August 11993 in order that the Branch Secretary could arrange for ‘another Organiser to provide advice to members of the ‘Union at those worksites. CHARGE [p}: Fall to oppose the introduction of employment contracts in RGC Mineral Sands Limited by failing to ensure that ‘the membership was properly advised in relation to employment contracts and by leaving the membership of the AWU unprotected against the pressure being placed ‘upon the membership by RGC Mineral Sands Limited to introduce contracts. ‘There was a general discussion and all agreed that charges G through to P should be heard as one as they were all closely related. ‘Ralph Blewitt advised the meeting that there was an Officials meeting beld on Thursday, 5 August 1993 where everyone was given their new duties and who they should directly epor to. On Friday, 6 August 1993 he roceived a message that Mick Baker had rong in tnd was taking a RDO. On Monday 9 August he had had no success in trying to contact ‘Mick Baker even though urgent messages had been placed on his pager, and he wondered why he did not respond, Mick Baker suid as you ae fully awaze you received a Doctor's Certificate on 10 August. Ralph asked Mick Baker why there had been no contact from him other then receiving & faccimile of a Doctor's Cerificate, which he did not get until Tuesday, 19 August 1993. ‘Mick Baker said that be had rung Sandra and advised her that he was off sick. He suid that at the RGC sites there was three [3] main Unions, the AWU, MEWU and AEEFEU land that the Organisers responsible for those sites had.an agreement that if one of the Officials from one of the ther Unions could noc aun meeting, then they would cover for each olher. He had 2 Statutory Declaration front Jim Davidson from the MEWU stating that and that he had covered those meetings. He then read the Statutory Declafaion. He said that he had informed the offce of his whereabouts and had made arrangements for the mestings to be covered. ‘Stephen Booth asked why Derek Forsier had been ringing and asking where he was. Mick Baker suid T don’t know. Stephen Booth asked Mick Baker if he knew what the Office's sick leave policy was. so rn, \ mMick Baker said that he had covered it himself withthe arrangements he made for other ‘well informed Officials to attend those mectings. He had informed the office that be was sick, Ralph Blowitt asked what had happened to hie pager. ‘Mick’ Baker suid Wat he lived in a two sory house and that his pager was nowhes near him when Ralph was paging him, it was in the car. Ralph Blewitt then run through the charges that were before the Branch Executive and said that you dow't let other Officials from other Unions represent our menbers, expecially at imporant meeting like these. He said that Mick Baker had failed the Union and the members by not telling him about the meetings so that he covld get someote else there, Mick Baker asked if Ralph had never done that, Ihave heard you do that. Every Union ‘and Organiser sometimes gets other Officials to look after meetings. Ralph Blewitt said that if we had known of Mick's whereabouts in time we would have ‘been able to send another Official to these meetings. Both himself and Tony Lovett ‘covered the Capel meeting. ‘Mick Baker said that Ralph Blewitt was an embarrassment to the AWU at the Capel meeting, as he raved on for about 1% hours about nothing. [Ralph Blewit said shat he recalled that he had let Jim Davidson do most ofthe taking. ‘Mick Baker wished to raise one more point. He said on 4 August 1995 he had submited 4 travel authorisaton form with a note on the botiom of it asking to be advised by 6 ‘August so he could make the appropriate arrangements. This had not been approved, Ralph Blewit sd for Mick Baker to travel to Capel was pot an overnight trip a Ie only lives 1% hours avay in Mandurah. The travel was approved but the overnight emenses vas not. i Mick Baker sai that on the Monday he would have teen in Geraldton and he could not be expected o drive from Geraldton to Capel for the meeting. Ralph Blewitt seid that he would have expected Mick Baker to drive from Geraldton to his home, and then to continue to Capel the next morning. He said that if this refesal to approve was going to stop Mick Baker from attending important Union meetings, be should have raised it with me. ‘The President askel Ralph Blewit if he was aware that Mick Baker was in Geraldton on the Monday. ‘ . \ Ralph Blewit repli no.Mick Baker said that Ralph Blewitt did know that he would be in Geraldton on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday's meeting a8 he submitted travel forms. CHARGE (q]: That Michael Baker is guilty of grass misbehaviour and gress neglect of duty in that be did ‘Threaten to assault the Branch Secretary on 23 August 1993. Ralph Blewitt tabled and then read a stitement from Doug Vyner. He wad his statement from the 23 August 1993 and a statement prepared by Gayle Chmiciewsi. Mick Baker asked what this had to do with the charge. Ralph Blewitt answered that it wag supporting evidence. Mick Baker said is this charge Q2 You have not told the truth again, After being off sick [ valked into the office and weat into the tchen where [ was fronted by you with the ‘words *Righto Baker, these are your duties". You proceeded to tell me that would have ho STD, no correspondence unless approved and to start on the Eitins project, and 1 n0 longer had an office and was to work from the Organisers room. This was spoken tO me in adverse terms which caused the reaction and you fed the reaction. { walked from the kitchen into the Organisers room and you followed me saying “You will do as you are a ‘You was swearing and yelling as loudly as { was, and for that reason I invited you to take the conversation outside to continue the argument. T refute the threatening to assault and the physical fight. Ralph Blewit ssi that he had kept his cool because he knew what Mick Baker would do, Mike Weller asked Doug Vyner whether the conversation was one sided or were they both going at each other. Doug Vyner said he could not hear what Ralph was saying as he was just speaking in his normal Voice. Mick's voice was raised. ‘Mick Baker asked if Ralph or anyone else swears in the office. Doug Vyner said yes but not as much as you, you even swear in front ofthe girs. Stephen Booth asked if he bad heard the “have a go", “sep outside Doug Vymer replied yes he had. ‘Mick Bakar asked if he had heard the word *fght™ Doug Vyner sid no, but why would you go ouside for a conversation. 6Mick Baker asked he had heard Ralph Blewit swearing and shouting. Doug Vyner sai no, Mick Baker if he had seen anyone ls i the building. Doug Vyner id no, as far ashe was avare he was the only one Mick Baker ase ifhe had seen Mick Days in the photoopy room. Dove Vyner sd he had not Mick Baker then tried ring Mick Dayes but reeived no answer. Gayle was not required to attend the meeting to verify her statement as there was 10 mention of asault in it. Mick Baker suid e agreed with Gayle’s statement. SUMMING UP Ralph Blewitt ‘You have heard what I have put before you today. In relation to charges A, B, C, D and E it seems too much of a coincidence that from the sites that Mick Baker covers, including RGC Namgulu and Capel, Tiwest Chandala, Kambalda, Kalgoorlie Nickel Smelter and Argyle members start to send in faxes. Thefe was even one in Mick's own handwriting. | have provided samples of Mick's handwriting and you can make up your ‘own min on that. “The content of these faxes wore almost identical If Mick Baker did not solicit them how within 48 hotrs did these members think of ths in almost the same terms. Mick Baker suggested it fo them and they did it T recived sone from other areas, only from the areas where Mick Baker was talking to members. When one also considers that he wrote Cone of the facsimiles it is clear that he is lying. (Charge F was set aside, but T have not dropped it. In relation te charges G through to P, I had no idea where Mick Baker was on the ‘Monday. I pat urgent messages on his pager but received no response. Peter Kelly and Derek Forster were also puting messages on his pager and got no response. They chasing a lift wo the meetings. It isa standard rule that Organisers keep their pagers with ‘hem at all tines. "7On the Tuesday f put messages on his pager up until I received hie Doctor's Certificate Shop Stewards at Namgulu and Eneabba had already sared to ring in asking why the ‘AWU hha not represenied their interests and why their was ao AWU Organiser atthe mass meetings. They were irte. The Union looked terible. It had let these men down, ‘The Shop Steward at Eneabba said members would resign. I did a ring around and 0 one had seen Mick at any of the sites, and members were asking who will represent them at these meetings. Both myself and Tony Lovet attended the Capel meeting ‘Mick Baker had a responsibilty wo advise us of his whereabouts. That did not happen. Mick disappeared until pm on the Tuesday. it was his duty to notify the Branch Secreary if he was unable to atend to his duties. Parlly as a result, most ofthe members a these sites have signed individual contacts and hhave resigned from the Union as they flt they were deserted by the AWU. Mick Baker failed t advise of his whereabouts $0 to enable arrangements to be made for someone else to attend to his duties In relation to charges Q and R I spoke to Mick Baker in the kitchen and the Organisers room advising him of what his duties were. [had some concerns over what had happened in the previous weeks, I was aot rude or arrogant. Mick Baker went off his brain and ranted and raved. I“wrote the statement, which { table as evidence, at 6:15am that ‘morning, immediately after it had happened | have also tabled supporting statements from Doug Vyner and Gayle Chiemelewski, 1 was very careful how I approached Mick Baker. He did not ike being told to work 25 diected by the Branch Secretary and I was threatened with physical violence. ‘Those are the facts as I recall them and tothe best of my knowledge are trve and correct. MICK BAKER, {have been a member of the AWU for slmost 20 years, and have held the positions of ‘Shop Steward and Convenor at various sites in the North West. When I was previously organising with the AWU T did this to the best of my ability. I questioned the way the Branch was then going and took the cowards way out and resigned for personal reasons, ‘Some years down the track I saw an ad in the paper forthe postion of an Organiser with the AWU. I had an interview with Bruce and besides being employed I was given a vision, T loved coming to work for the first 12 months or So, there was a feeling of camaraderie here and everybody worked hard, Unfortunately through a series of events Bruce Wilson went east and he put Ralph Blewitt in the Chair. We propped Ralph up for some time as that was what we were asked to do. Things got worse and worse, there was no democracy and an authoritarian leader. AS time went on more and more people become dissatisfied, which eventually caused a group to get together. We were unhappy with the direction the Branch was taking, and the ‘members were unhappy too, Ralph Blewit was a public embarrassment. SORSince 17 June 1993 the leadership had developed a case of paranoia. | was threatened with termination, I had a close working relationship with my members ‘01 informed them of the likelihood of me being sacked and they tok the action, To run 4 successful campaign against Ralph Blewitt would be no good without members, 1 tld them rot to resign. 1 refute charges A, B, C, D, E and F as there is no direct evidence of any resignations from these facsie 1 refue charges G, H, I, 1 K, I-and M. Being terminated while you are on sic leave is not on. 1 applied for travel authorisation for mass meeting in Bunbury and Cape. I is ‘common practice for Officials from other Unions to cover for each other. \We had an Agreement with the MEWU, and held meetings of Shop Stewards around the country telling them how this agreement would benefit all, and that we would cover for cach ater if one was unavailable. ‘With regard to the individual contracts, everyone received a copy of the RGC one as #000 fas had one, J informed the Industral Officers meetings and Kept them upto date, 1 beld fratcgy mectings ete. The individual contract gives them an extra $8,000 to $15,000 per year, how ean we compete with that. I should be the last person to be accused 10 filing to attend to their duties. In relation to charges Q and R, there is no evidence to support the treatoned assault oF the invitation to fight. Ths is an high pressure job and people creck under that pressure, resulting in the language. 1 was told that Iwas being directed to stat the Eins project Sit in the office. 1 made it quite clear a the last Branch Executive meeting which attended that I would not run around afer Ralph Blewit. There was no theatened assault Or invitation to fight. I will not tolerate being spoken to in 2 manner Ike that. Unforunately I could not attend the Executive Council where this charge was supposed to be heard. I feel that I would have been given a fairer go there. Refering to Ralph Blewit’s leter to me regarding my. suspension. My legal advise was that if] contacted any Shop Stewards whatsoever I could-have further charges Inid against ime, Therefore I could not get evidence or statements from them to table a this meeting. “The fact that Branch Executive sacked four (8) of the Dest peuple two weeks ago armasos ime. There are some people in this office who do nothing and they are stil ere. ‘You shoulé seriously think about your decisions. Russell Frearson was Honest and left, but there are a couple of other people, that will vote guilty, that should have left the meeting too. But those people can still abstain from voting, 1 was elected a8 spokesperson for the group of concemed Officials and have been charged fon trumped up charges. If you want to get rid of good people, $o be it sack me. \‘The time being 3:30pm the meeting adjourned for 10 minutes, ‘The time being 3:40pm the meeting was reconvened. be determined separately. The Branch Executive would firstly seek to determine whether Mar Baker had commited the act: alleged in the paticlars and/or had failed to act ad alleged in the particulars. Having determined whether Mr Baker had committed an act 28 alleged in the letter or hed failed to at a alleged in the letter, the Branch Executive. 8] Where it had determined that Mr Baker had not committed the act alleged ot failed to act'as alleged, dismiss the charges of gross misbehavigu and gross neglect of dity; b]_ Where it had determined that Mr Baker had committed the act alleged or fled to ‘act as alleged, determine whether the act amounted to gross ‘misbehaviour and/or gross misconduct; <] Where it had determined that Mr Baker was guilty of gross misbehaviour andlor gross neglect of duty determine whether or not to remove him from office. CHARGE {a} ‘The Branch Executive initally considered 7/3 with one abstention that Mr Baker was not guilty of committing the acts alleged. There was then further debate and discussion and the Branch Execative finally determined 6/5 that Mr Baker was guilty of commiting the CHARGE [b] The Branch Executive determined 6/5 that Mr Baker was guilty of commiting the act alleged and tat this amounted to grss misbehaviour. No finding was made regarding the charge of gross neglect of duty. CHARGE (¢} ‘The Branch Executive determined 11/0 that Mr Baker was guilty of committing the act alleged and that this amounted to gress misbehaviour. No finding was made regarding the ‘charge of gross neglect of duty. . YOCHARGE [a} ‘The Branch Executive initially considered 615 that Mr Baker was guilty of commiting the act alleged. There was then further debate and the Branch Executive finally determined 6/0 with 5 abstentions that Mr Baker was not gulty of omitting the act alleged and tht the charges of gross misbehaviour and gross neglect of duty be dismissed, CHARGE fe) ‘The Branch Executive determined 6/3 with 7 abstentions that Mr Baker was not guilty of commiting the act alleged and that the charges of gross misbehaviour and groct neglert of duty be dismissed, CHARGE In| ‘The Branch Executive determined 11/0 that Mr Baker was not guilty of commiting the act alleged and that the charges of gross misbehaviour anc gross neglect of duty be dismissed. CHARGE Ig) ‘The Branch Executive initially considered 8/3 that Mr Baker had falled to act as alleged, ‘There was funher debate and discussion, afer which the Branch Executive considered 6/5 that Mr Baker had not failed to act as alleged. There wat then further debate and Aiscussion until it was finally determined by the Branch Executive 9/2 that Mr Baker was guilty of failing to act as alleged and that this amounted to gross misbehaviour. No finding was made regarding the charge of gross neglect of dy. CHARGE [ht ‘The Branch Executive determined 7/4 that Mr Baker was gulty of filing to act as alleged and that this amounted to gross misbehaviour. No finding was made regarding the charge of gross neglect of duty CHARGE ff] : ‘The Branch Executive determined 11/0 that Mr Baker'was not guilty of filing to act alleged and that the charges of gross misbehaviour” and gross neglect of duty be dismissed. CHARGE 6) ‘The Branch Executive determined 7/4 that Mr Raker was eulty of failing to act as alleged ‘and that this amounted to gross misbehaviour. No finding was made regarding the charge of gross neglect of duty (CHARGE (kK) Qe 2 Ne S‘The Branch Executive determined 11/0 that Mr Baker was not guilty of ‘ailing to act as alleged and that the charges of gross misbehaviour and gross neglect of duty. be “ismissed. CHARGE 0 ‘The Branch Executive determined 10/1 that Mr Baker was aot guilty of tiling to act as alleed ‘and that the charges of gross misbehaviour and gross noglet of duly be Aisissed, CHARGE {m) ‘The Branch Executive determined 92 that Mr Beker was guily of filing to act as alleged and that this amounted to gross misbehaviour. No finding was made regarding to the charge of gros neglect of duty. * (CHARGE fn) } ‘he Branch Executive deterinined 9/2 that Mr Baker was guilty of filing to act 2s alleged -id that this amounted to gross misbehaviour. No finding was made regarding the charge of gross neglect of duty CHARGE (o} ‘The Branch Executive determined 8/1 with 2 abstentions that Mr Baker was not guilty of filing to act as alleged and thatthe charges of gross misbehaviour and gross neglect of duty 2 dismissed, CHARGE [p} ‘The Branch Executive determined 11/0 that Mr Baker was not guilty of failing to act as allege and that the charges of gross misbehaviour and gross neglect of duty be sisminsed. (CHARGE [a] ‘The Branch Executive initially considered 9/1 with 1 abstention that Mr Baier was guilty of conmitting the act as alleged. There was further debate and discussion afer which the Branch Executive finally determined 9/1 with 1 abstention that Mr Beker vas gulty of committing the act as alleged and that this amounted to gross misbehaviout. No finding was nade regarding the charge of gross neglect of duty. CHARGE fr] ‘The Branch Executive determined 9/1 with 1 abstention that Mr Baker was guilty of committing the act alleged and that this amounted to gross misbehaviour. No finding was mace regarding the charges of grose neglect of duty. 2Having made its determination on each charge there was then a discussion regarding what was the appropriate penalty, discussion generally occurred about the seriousness of each ofthe findings of guilt on each ofthe individual charges. “In accordance with Rule 43 {c) this Branch Executive finds Michael Baker ‘guilty of gross misbehaviour on charges fa), (6), [c}, [2], fo Us {e), fa, fa] And {r] based on the evidence brought before the Branch Executive today. It farther determines to dismiss Mr Baker forthwith from the office of Mining Division Secretary of The Australian Workers’ Union, West Australian Branch for gross misbehaviour on each of the charges found proved by the Branch Execative". Moved: Angus MacQuarrie Seconded: Fred Shepheard Proposed amendment: "In accordance with Rule 43 {c] this Branch Executive finds Michael Baker ‘ot guily of gross neglect of duty, but guilty of grost misbehaviour on charges {a}, (i, Tel, fe), tb], GI, fm, fn, (q) and [r] based on the evidence brought before the Branch Executive today. It further determines to dismiss Mr Baker forthwith from the office of Mining Division Secretary of The Australian Workers' Union, West Australian Branch for gross misbehaviour on each of the charges found proved by the Branch Executive, Moved: Mike Llewellyn ‘Amendment filed due wo the ack of a seconder. (Original motion then carried unanimously, ‘The time being 4:35pm the President declared the meeting closed.