Statutory Declaration re Connor’s Conspiracies
I, Faruque Ahmed, President, Taxi Drivers' Section of the Transport workers union residing in 6/12 Woodbury street, Marrickville 2204 do solemnly and sincerely declare that the Transport Workers Union (NSW Branch) did not inform me at any time that the Taxi Industry Association has lodged an application under Part 4, contract Determination, of chapter 6, Public vehicles and carriers ($s.678 to 685), of the 1991 Industrial Relations Act for a variation of an Taxi industry (Contract Drivers) Contract Determination (Matter No IRC 1959 of 1996).
On Monday, 2 September at about 2.3O a-m. I found out of such application and at 10 a-m. appeared with other taxi drivers at the Industrial commission. The case went in front of commissioner Connor" Like all other occasions in front of commissioner Connor, I despite being a taxi driver, financial member of the TWU and elected by the taxi driver members of the TWU, Connor asked me to leave but allowed few other people to stay. On that time I officially identified myself and asked c.c. Connor to explain why he was doing so and reason for his discriminatory action, Instead of explaining anything in one stage he left the room.
A few people present in that room asked me to be quiet and expressed their dissatisfaction of my action. They also claimed that they were taxi driver members of the TWU. I never saw them before in any TWU meetings, I did not know actually that they were bailee taxi driver members of the TWU and none of them presented their union badge. I was not sure about their union membership, actual motive or their level of knowledge about the Determination or the industry itself.
At that time I approached to Adam Hatcher, the TWU lawyer and Robert Mayell who presented himself as TWU official despite the TWU taxi driver members' objection. I said, "Adam, I ask you as a lawyer because you are bound by some ethical responsibilities to conduct yourself in such a manner that does not prevent union members access to natural justice and force them to work in a harsh, unjust and oppressive conditions." Adam did not reply to my question. Instead he used some bully tactics and tried to provoke me but I remained calm and pressed for an answer again.
Adam left the room without answering me. In that point in time I approached to Robert Mayell and asked him, "Rob, who the hell you think you are, who gave you the power to sell bailee drivers right, left and across the centre, whom have you consulted before making any decision about the taxi drivers interest ?" I also said, "we are the taxi driver members of the TWU, we are elected by the taxi driver members of the TWU and how come you are keeping everything secret from us, aren't you in breach of law ?" As usual, the TWU official Robert Mayell looked helplessly but could not answer me anything. Then he said, "I spoke to Emil, Michael and Geoff". Few minutes later I questioned Mr Michael Hatrick and Emil Haraszti of such discussion with Robert Mayell but both of them denied of such discussion. Mr. Geoff Coates also denied of such discussion.
I, Also said to those people who claimed taxi driver member of the TWU, "I don't know how much you guys know about current TWU leadership or their actions but I know what they have done from 1984 to date. I already asked Steve Hutchins in writing on 22.07.1996 to confirm or deny about TIA claim regarding union agreement concerning 80/20% split of $1.00 flagfall rise business but he did not reply. You don't know what they have done on the 24.4.1996. The TWU's action on that day was contrary to the interest of taxi driver membership of the TWU, contrary to IRA 1991 s215 and today's action will be contrary to old IRA s275 which is new s105 also. Why don't you inform yourself about the reality, personality and history first before arguing with me."
After the recess CC Connor said next hearing will be on Monday 9.9.1996, however without my knowledge or consultation with the taxi driver membership of the TWU, they had two more earlier hearings instead of Monday the 9th and then cc Connor handed down his decision on 6.9.96.
At 2 p.m., Thursday, 5 September 1996 I rang Connor's Associate and ask her about the case. She replied "next date is Monday 9.9.1996". However, at about 2.3O am I was informed by Mr Michael Hatrick that the case will be on Friday 6.9.1996.
Friday I went to the Commission and during proceedings I Identified myself and asked Connor questions as set out in Annexure "A". Connor allowed me to read those points and made some positive comment regarding points I raised but he handed down the decision anyway.
Surprised, I approached to Connor's Associate on Monday, 9 July 1996 in person.
I asked her, "do you remember my phone call to you on Thursday 5.9.96 and question about determination case". She replied, "yes Mr Ahmed".
I asked again, "you said the case will be on Monday 9.9.96, that's correct"?
Her reply was, "yes",
I then said, "actually the case was on 6.9.96 not 9.9.96 and you failed to inform me upon my request even on 2.00 p.m. 5 September 1996?" She said then, "that's what written in the file".
I then said to her, "whatever the reason, the system mislead you and therefore you mislead me - is that correct?" Her response was, "you can say so",
I thanked her and left the building.
I make this solemn declaration by virtue of the statutory Declarations Act 1959 as amended and subject to the penalties provided by that Act for making of false statements in statutory declarations, conscientiously believing the statements contained in this declaration to be true in every particular.
Faruque Ahmed
Declared at Sydney
10/12/1996
before me
Signature JP
I, Faruque Ahmed, President, Taxi Drivers' Section of the Transport workers union residing in 6/12 Woodbury street, Marrickville 2204 do solemnly and sincerely declare that the Transport Workers Union (NSW Branch) did not inform me at any time that the Taxi Industry Association has lodged an application under Part 4, contract Determination, of chapter 6, Public vehicles and carriers ($s.678 to 685), of the 1991 Industrial Relations Act for a variation of an Taxi industry (Contract Drivers) Contract Determination (Matter No IRC 1959 of 1996).
On Monday, 2 September at about 2.3O a-m. I found out of such application and at 10 a-m. appeared with other taxi drivers at the Industrial commission. The case went in front of commissioner Connor" Like all other occasions in front of commissioner Connor, I despite being a taxi driver, financial member of the TWU and elected by the taxi driver members of the TWU, Connor asked me to leave but allowed few other people to stay. On that time I officially identified myself and asked c.c. Connor to explain why he was doing so and reason for his discriminatory action, Instead of explaining anything in one stage he left the room.
A few people present in that room asked me to be quiet and expressed their dissatisfaction of my action. They also claimed that they were taxi driver members of the TWU. I never saw them before in any TWU meetings, I did not know actually that they were bailee taxi driver members of the TWU and none of them presented their union badge. I was not sure about their union membership, actual motive or their level of knowledge about the Determination or the industry itself.
At that time I approached to Adam Hatcher, the TWU lawyer and Robert Mayell who presented himself as TWU official despite the TWU taxi driver members' objection. I said, "Adam, I ask you as a lawyer because you are bound by some ethical responsibilities to conduct yourself in such a manner that does not prevent union members access to natural justice and force them to work in a harsh, unjust and oppressive conditions." Adam did not reply to my question. Instead he used some bully tactics and tried to provoke me but I remained calm and pressed for an answer again.
Adam left the room without answering me. In that point in time I approached to Robert Mayell and asked him, "Rob, who the hell you think you are, who gave you the power to sell bailee drivers right, left and across the centre, whom have you consulted before making any decision about the taxi drivers interest ?" I also said, "we are the taxi driver members of the TWU, we are elected by the taxi driver members of the TWU and how come you are keeping everything secret from us, aren't you in breach of law ?" As usual, the TWU official Robert Mayell looked helplessly but could not answer me anything. Then he said, "I spoke to Emil, Michael and Geoff". Few minutes later I questioned Mr Michael Hatrick and Emil Haraszti of such discussion with Robert Mayell but both of them denied of such discussion. Mr. Geoff Coates also denied of such discussion.
I, Also said to those people who claimed taxi driver member of the TWU, "I don't know how much you guys know about current TWU leadership or their actions but I know what they have done from 1984 to date. I already asked Steve Hutchins in writing on 22.07.1996 to confirm or deny about TIA claim regarding union agreement concerning 80/20% split of $1.00 flagfall rise business but he did not reply. You don't know what they have done on the 24.4.1996. The TWU's action on that day was contrary to the interest of taxi driver membership of the TWU, contrary to IRA 1991 s215 and today's action will be contrary to old IRA s275 which is new s105 also. Why don't you inform yourself about the reality, personality and history first before arguing with me."
After the recess CC Connor said next hearing will be on Monday 9.9.1996, however without my knowledge or consultation with the taxi driver membership of the TWU, they had two more earlier hearings instead of Monday the 9th and then cc Connor handed down his decision on 6.9.96.
At 2 p.m., Thursday, 5 September 1996 I rang Connor's Associate and ask her about the case. She replied "next date is Monday 9.9.1996". However, at about 2.3O am I was informed by Mr Michael Hatrick that the case will be on Friday 6.9.1996.
Friday I went to the Commission and during proceedings I Identified myself and asked Connor questions as set out in Annexure "A". Connor allowed me to read those points and made some positive comment regarding points I raised but he handed down the decision anyway.
Surprised, I approached to Connor's Associate on Monday, 9 July 1996 in person.
I asked her, "do you remember my phone call to you on Thursday 5.9.96 and question about determination case". She replied, "yes Mr Ahmed".
I asked again, "you said the case will be on Monday 9.9.96, that's correct"?
Her reply was, "yes",
I then said, "actually the case was on 6.9.96 not 9.9.96 and you failed to inform me upon my request even on 2.00 p.m. 5 September 1996?" She said then, "that's what written in the file".
I then said to her, "whatever the reason, the system mislead you and therefore you mislead me - is that correct?" Her response was, "you can say so",
I thanked her and left the building.
I make this solemn declaration by virtue of the statutory Declarations Act 1959 as amended and subject to the penalties provided by that Act for making of false statements in statutory declarations, conscientiously believing the statements contained in this declaration to be true in every particular.
Faruque Ahmed
Declared at Sydney
10/12/1996
before me
Signature JP
