RENNIE v BUNN and ANDERSON and CONWAY and THE COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNION [1997] IRCA 93

RENNIE v BUNN and ANDERSON and CONWAY and THE COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNION [1997] IRCA 93

A Branch direction to Federal Councillors under SPSF Group Rule 25B is mandatory; votes cast contrary to such a direction are vitiated and the resultant resolution is void. Such a rule is not oppressive or contrary to s.196 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, as it supports democratic control. The purported increase in subscription fees by postal ballot was invalid due to invalid votes. Rule 44B(v), linking financial status to agreements between the federal body and Associated Bodies, was not oppressive or contrary to the Act. The inclusion of members on the electoral roll as unfinancial did not invalidate the election, as the 1995 fee resolution was void and most members were not...

Parties
Applicant: Gordon Andrew Rennie; First Respondent: David Bunn; Second Respondent: John Anderson; Second Respondent: Michael Conway; Third Respondent: CPSU, The Community and Public Sector Union; Applicant: David Bunn; Second Applicant: Greg Vines; Second Applicant: Jan McMahon; Second Applicant: David Robinson; Second Applicant: Karen Batt; First Respondent: Ronald A. Cook; Second Respondent: Brian Jardine; Second Respondent: Janet Good; Third Respondent: Anita Haenfler; Third Respondent: Michael Tandy; Applicant: Janet Pamela Good; Second Respondent: Sean Curley; Second Respondent: Leigh Delaney; Second Respondent: Peter Keogh; Second Respondent: Bob Teymant; Second Respondent: Sue Carlos; Second Respondent: Karen Batt; Second Respondent: Greg Vines; Second Respondent: Dave Robinson; Second Respondent: Jan McMahon; Third Respondent: Dave Robinson; Third Respondent: Sue Carlos; Third Respondent: G. Bartier; Third Respondent: S. Curley; Third Respondent: G. Rennie; Third Respondent: A. Snow; Third Respondent: C. Miles; Third Respondent: H. Borrodale; Third Respondent: P. Keogh; Third Respondent: M. Treseder; Third Respondent: D. Green; Third Respondent: S. Pinches; Third Respondent: J. Hadaway; Third Respondent: D. Robertson; Third Respondent: R. Teymant; Third Respondent: Graham Kelly; Third Respondent: Brian Ellis; Third Respondent: Leigh Delaney; Third Respondent: Neil Baker; Third Respondent: D. Abbott; Fourth Respondent: Wendy Caird; Fourth Respondent: Vicky Telfer; Fourth Respondent: Sue Mountford; Fourth Respondent: Mark Sexton; Fourth Respondent: Doug Lilly; Fourth Respondent: Sally O'Loughlin; Fifth Respondent: The Community and Public Sector Union
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 1997
Procedural Posture
Multiple Consolidated Union Administrative and Electoral Challenges / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Relief granted in part; orders made as to validity/invalidity of union resolutions and elections; some rules nisi made absolute, others discharged.
Legal Topics
Union Rules and Governance, Amalgamation of Unions, Validity of Union Election Processes, Member Financial Status and Voting Rights, Interpretation of Union Rules, Oppressiveness of Rules Under Statutory Criteria, Contractual Arrangements Between Unions
Industrial Law Administrative Law Trade Union Law Union Rules and Governance Amalgamation of Unions Validity of Union Election Processes Member Financial Status and Voting Rights Interpretation of Union Rules +2 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Andrew Rennie

Applicant

David Bunn

First Respondent

John Anderson

Second Respondent

Michael Conway

Second Respondent

CPSU, The Community and Public Sector Union

Third Respondent

David Bunn

Applicant

Greg Vines

Second Applicant

Jan McMahon

Second Applicant

David Robinson

Second Applicant

Karen Batt

Second Applicant

Ronald A. Cook

First Respondent

Brian Jardine

Second Respondent

Janet Good

Second Respondent

Anita Haenfler

Third Respondent

Michael Tandy

Third Respondent

Janet Pamela Good

Applicant

Sean Curley

Second Respondent

Leigh Delaney

Second Respondent

Peter Keogh

Second Respondent

Bob Teymant

Second Respondent

Sue Carlos

Second Respondent

Karen Batt

Second Respondent

Greg Vines

Second Respondent

Dave Robinson

Second Respondent

Jan McMahon

Second Respondent

Dave Robinson

Third Respondent

Sue Carlos

Third Respondent

G. Bartier

Third Respondent

S. Curley

Third Respondent

G. Rennie

Third Respondent

A. Snow

Third Respondent

C. Miles

Third Respondent

H. Borrodale

Third Respondent

P. Keogh

Third Respondent

M. Treseder

Third Respondent

D. Green

Third Respondent

S. Pinches

Third Respondent

J. Hadaway

Third Respondent

D. Robertson

Third Respondent

R. Teymant

Third Respondent

Graham Kelly

Third Respondent

Brian Ellis

Third Respondent

Leigh Delaney

Third Respondent

Neil Baker

Third Respondent

D. Abbott

Third Respondent

Wendy Caird

Fourth Respondent

Vicky Telfer

Fourth Respondent

Sue Mountford

Fourth Respondent

Mark Sexton

Fourth Respondent

Doug Lilly

Fourth Respondent

Sally O'Loughlin

Fourth Respondent

The Community and Public Sector Union

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Multiple Consolidated Union Administrative and Electoral Challenges / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rule 25B of SPSF Group Rules requiring Federal Councillors to comply with Branch direction is oppressive, unreasonable or unjust under s.196 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether votes cast contrary to Branch directions are invalid
  3. 3 Whether the result of the SPSF postal ballot increasing membership fees was vitiated by such votes

Ratio Decidendi

A Branch direction to Federal Councillors under SPSF Group Rule 25B is mandatory; votes cast contrary to such a direction are vitiated and the resultant resolution is void. Such a rule is not oppressive or contrary to s.196 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, as it supports democratic control. The purported increase in subscription fees by postal ballot was invalid due to invalid votes. Rule 44B(v), linking financial status to agreements between the federal body and Associated Bodies, was not oppressive or contrary to the Act. The inclusion of members on the electoral roll as unfinancial did not invalidate the election, as the 1995 fee resolution was void and most members were not...

Court Disposition

Relief granted in part; orders made as to validity/invalidity of union resolutions and elections; some rules nisi made absolute, others discharged.

Orders

  • Order that the rule nisi in Rennie v Bunn (QI 95/1422) be made absolute to the extent of ordering the first and second respondents to treat as null and void the resolution of the Federal Council of the SPSF Group declared on 16 November 1995.
  • Application in Good v Bunn (NI 96/2100) discharged; no orders invalidating rule 44B(v).