Andrew Bolt

As part of strike action against Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd, from Wednesday 9 November Baiada workers and their supporters set up a picket line to block access to Baiada’s Pipe Rd processing plant in Laverton. On Thursday 17 November the Supreme Court of Victoria issued an interim injunction against the ‘National Union of Workers [NUW] & Others’, the result of which listed parties were required not to block access to the Laverton plant. NUW employees and the listed ‘others’ left the picket line or were removed by police while Baiada workers and their allies who were not listed in the injunction continued to picket. Yesterday, Tuesday 22 November, the picket ended as management and workers reached an agreement on pay and conditions.

In defence of those who continued to hold the picket line, the NUW made the following argument.

1. There’s a Supreme Court interim injunction stopping persons {A, B and C} picketing at Baiada.
2. Such injunctions are only granted when there’s suspicion of illegal activity.
3. As a result of the injunction, police have the power to stop the suspected illegal activity.
4. However, Supreme Court injunctions only apply to listed defendants.
5. Therefore, although persons {A, B and C} could no longer picket at Baiada, any person not listed in the injunction, i.e. Baiada workers and their supporters, could continue to picket.

Yesterday, Andrew Bolt asked why the Victorian police didn’t clear away all protesters earlier. The Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI) parroted Bolt’s line on their own blog.

Bolt and VECCI seem to be running the following counterargument.

1. There’s a Supreme Court interim injunction stopping persons {A, B and C} picketing at Baiada.
2. Such injunctions are only granted when there’s suspicion of illegal activity.
3. As a result of the injunction, police have the power to stop the suspected illegal activity.
4. If police have the power to remove persons {A, B and C} from the picket because it is suspected that their activity is illegal, then it is fair to assume that persons {D, E, F, …} who are carrying out the same activity are also acting illegally.
5. Therefore, police were also warranted in removing persons {D, E, F, …} from the picket line.

But it is not immediately apparent that Bolt’s and VECCI’s counterargument holds. The integral question is on what grounds were those against whom the injunction was issued (as far as I understand, the NUW, its employees and some know union organisers) suspected of acting illegally?

Was the picket illegal, and the NUW and known union organisers listed simply because they were identifiable? If so, then Bolt and VECCI could be right.

Or were the NUW and Co listed because they were suspected of breaching industrial relations laws, which specifically limit the powers of unions on work sites? If so, then the NUW argument seems to be the right one: the injunction could only be interpreted as extending to union employees and, maybe, known union organisers because only they are in breach of workplace relations laws.

If the NUW’s argument is right then the illegality of the picket was not grounds for the Supreme Court injunction and therefore, contrary to Bolt’s and VECCI’s claim, not grounds for clearing all protesters.

Indeed, the facts that a general injunction against protesters was rejected in the Supreme Court late on Friday 18 November and that the police didn’t clear out the protesters who remained after the initial injunction was enforced lends weight to the NUW’s argument.

As always, I’m happy to be corrected.