Lilley, Jeffrey v. Nauru Local Government Council [1979] FCA 124

Renata? Selb TRF ate at Ano tale

.

Se Ei a et rE i OS

rks

eet cee a etn ap ee ne et t

EKUM 'InANoGali f Or ORAL JUDGMENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

BETWEEN :

JEFFREY LILLEY

and

NAURU LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

21 November 1979

1979,

3 ONGY 1979 fa

FECERSL ¢ Uns UF PUS RL Prt cHPAL - trent'

Defendant

KEELY J.

This is an information laid by Jeffrey Lilley (the

informant) alleging that Nauru Local Government Council (the

defendant) being the employer of the informant, did on

27 October 1978:

"dismiss the said Jeffrey Lilley from his employment by reason of the circumstance that:

1. he was a member of an organization, namely, the

Australian Shipping Officers

' Association, an

organization of employees registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 and the Victorian branch thereof;

2. he was entitled to the benefit of an award, namely, the Shipping Officers Award 1977, expressed to be

binding upon, amongst other persons, the Nauru Pacific

Shipping Line and the Australian Shipping Officers' Association and the members thereof;

or both."

Miss Maureen Hickey of counsel appeared for the informant

and Mr Alan Stockdale of counsel appeared for the defendant.

ean

Ske se Leek nee aa te.

ft, a

ee

At the conclusion of the informant's case Mr Stockdale submitted that there was no case to answer. After hearing argument from both counsel on the various matters raised and considering written submissions from each, I rejected that submission and ruled that there was evidence upon which the Court could reach the conclusion that all of the elements of the alleged offence, other than the reason alleged in the charge as being the reason for the dismissal, had been proved.

The defendant called as its principal witness Mr Tamaiti Willie Star, who is both the Consul General in Australia for the Republic of Nauru and the representative in Australia of the defendant. Mr Star gave evidence that he both made the decision to dismiss the informant and in fact dismissed him, although he relied upon the defendant's Personnel Officer,