Greg Pearce and others v Andrew Vickers and others [1995] IRCA 247

Greg Pearce and others v Andrew Vickers and others [1995] IRCA 247

Rule 15(iv) does not currently contravene s196(b) as it does not hinder observance of any award provisions binding on the applicants regarding working hours, nor does it prevent entering into written agreements under an award or order of the Commission. Considering the objects of the Act and purposes of registration, rule 15(iv) is not shown to be oppressive, unreasonable or unjust; such standards are commonly part of trade union rules and not prohibited unless shown to be excessive or unsupported by evidence.

Parties
Applicants: Greg Pearce and others; First Respondent: Andrew Vickers; Second Respondent: Peter Neilson; Third Respondent: Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union; Fourth Respondents: Andrew Vickers and others
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Registered Organisations, Union Rules, Oppressive or Unreasonable Rules, Industrial Awards, Interpretation of Industrial Relations Act 1988 S196
Industrial Law Employment Law Registered Organisations Union Rules Oppressive or Unreasonable Rules Industrial Awards Interpretation of Industrial Relations Act 1988 S196

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greg Pearce and others

Applicants

Andrew Vickers

First Respondent

Peter Neilson

Second Respondent

Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union

Third Respondent

Andrew Vickers and others

Fourth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Court Judgment on Appeal From a Single Judge Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rule 15(iv) of the Queensland District Branch of the United Mine Workers Division of the CFMEU contravenes s196 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988; specifically, whether it is oppressive, unreasonable or unjust, or prevents or hinders observance of the law or an award

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 15(iv) does not currently contravene s196(b) as it does not hinder observance of any award provisions binding on the applicants regarding working hours, nor does it prevent entering into written agreements under an award or order of the Commission. Considering the objects of the Act and purposes of registration, rule 15(iv) is not shown to be oppressive, unreasonable or unjust; such standards are commonly part of trade union rules and not prohibited unless shown to be excessive or unsupported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed