Taxi Industry Services Association of NSW
volume 29, No 4, March 1984 issue editorial, "we (the T.C. and NTIA) were placed in a position of being forced to a Determination rather than altering the previous Agreement because of a handful of owners who would not observe some aspects of that Agreement". In plain English the bailors continued their lawless ways despite getting their bailor/bailee relationship between owners and NOSETDs.
2.9.1. The Path to the new Determination went like this: after 1981 the bailors had to come up with new ways of carrying on their prel980 activities within the bailor/bailee system. So the fixed pay-in system made it's first appearance. The position in negotiations was reached when the bailors refused to agree to anything unless the TWU agreed to include fixed pay-ins in the new Contract Determination, The TWU, it's delegates, it's members and all taxi drivers refused to agree. The stalemate continued for nearly 12 months! The following events occurred and I make no comment on them, nor do I infer anything by them -
(i) One of the NOSETD delegates of the TWU, who helped to prepare the TWU's case
turned up at the hearing as a witness for the bailors. Subsequently he became a
"plate holder" and was elected to the Taxi Council board.
(ii) The Secretary of the TWIT Mr. E. McBeaty died in a boating accident.
(iii) The new secretary of the TWU Mr. H. F. Quinn ordered their legal representatives to agree to the bailers terms, fixed pay-ins and to wind up the case. They did so.
(iv) The Contract Determination 1984 came into effect 22.2.84.
2.9.2. The fact that fixed pay-ins got into the CD84, contrary to:
(i) All past practices,
(ii) All past recommendations of inquiries into the taxi industry,
(iii)All members of the TWU opposing it,
(iv) All taxi drivers opposing it
(v) The Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 to 1968 giving jurisdiction to the Commission to grant pay-ins only as a percentage of meter takings.
I leave for the Commissioner to ponder over and comment on.
2,9.3 The council representing the bailors was Mr. Callaghan. But it must be brought to the review's attention that Mr. R. Kermode played such an integral part of these proceedings that the Deputy President McMahon decided to
1. Refer Annexure “B” P153. 3. Refer Annexure "B" P125.
2. ,, ,, “A” 89 4. ,, ,, I.R.A.40-68 Sec. 91K.