Anthony Ross Benson v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union and Stan Sharkey, John Sutton, Max Cordwell, Bobby Devine, Stephen Hevey, Dickie Post, Paul Ridgeway, Laurie Verrell, Ron Edwards, Gary Taylor and Roy Smedley [1995] IRCA 323

Anthony Ross Benson v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union and Stan Sharkey, John Sutton, Max Cordwell, Bobby Devine, Stephen Hevey, Dickie Post, Paul Ridgeway, Laurie Verrell, Ron Edwards, Gary Taylor and Roy Smedley [1995] IRCA 323

There was an implied limitation on the union's rule-making power during the transitional period such that amendment of rules to abolish the applicant's office before 2 January 1997 was invalid; the amendments were oppressive to OPDU members; and the amendments were null and void to the extent they purported to abolish the applicant's office during the transitional period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application / Return of Order Nisi for Final Orders
Outcome
Amendments to union rules held null and void; respondents ordered to perform and observe pre-amendment rules; applicant entitled to salary and emoluments of office.
Legal Topics
['registered Organisations' 'union Rules' 'amalgamation' 'abolition of Office' 'transitional Provisions' 'oppressive Conduct' 'unreasonable Amendments']
['industrial Law'] ['registered Organisations' 'union Rules' 'amalgamation' 'abolition of Office' 'transitional Provisions' 'oppressive Conduct' 'unreasonable Amendments']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law Application / Return of Order Nisi for Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether union rule amendments abolishing an office during the transitional period after amalgamation were valid' 'Whether amendments amounted to improper removal of an office holder' 'Whether the rules as amended were oppressive, unreasonable or unjust' 'Whether there was an implied limitation on the rule-amendment power during the transitional period']

Ratio Decidendi

There was an implied limitation on the union's rule-making power during the transitional period such that amendment of rules to abolish the applicant's office before 2 January 1997 was invalid; the amendments were oppressive to OPDU members; and the amendments were null and void to the extent they purported to abolish the applicant's office during the transitional period.

Court Disposition

Amendments to union rules held null and void; respondents ordered to perform and observe pre-amendment rules; applicant entitled to salary and emoluments of office.

Orders

  • ['Declaration that specific CFMEU rule amendments certified on 27 May 1994 are null and void.' 'Respondents other than CFMEU to permit the applicant to fully perform duties of Assistant Secretary as before the amendments.' 'Respondents to ensure the applicant is paid salary and emoluments of the office as under...