Rayner v Riley [2020] FCA 587

Rayner v Riley [2020] FCA 587

Although the Divisional Executive and Divisional Conference Resolutions were validly made and the Branch committee was obliged under the CEPU Rules to comply, the court found it could not grant the relief sought under s 164 of the FW(RO) Act because the time for compliance with the payment directions had passed and no order could require compliance with an impracticable or impossible deadline.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Application Under Fair Work (registered Organisations) Act 2009 (cth) S 164 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['union Rules' 'performance or Observance of Union Rules' 'interpretation of Union Rules' 'enforcement of Union Rules' 'union Funds and Liabilities' 'redundancy Entitlements' 'ratification of Resolutions' 'powers of Decision Making Bodies Under Union Rules']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['union Rules' 'performance or Observance of Union Rules' 'interpretation of Union Rules' 'enforcement of Union Rules' 'union Funds and Liabilities' 'redundancy Entitlements' 'ratification of Resolutions' 'powers of Decision Making Bodies Under Union Rules']

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

Application Under Fair Work (registered Organisations) Act 2009 (cth) S 164 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Branch was obliged by the CEPU Rules to pay the Division an amount reimbursing redundancy entitlements paid to a former employee.' 'Whether the Divisional Executive Resolution was valid under the CEPU and Divisional Rules.' 'Whether the Divisional Conference Resolution was valid and effective.' 'Whether the court should decline relief on discretionary grounds due to passage of time or inability to perform.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Divisional Executive and Divisional Conference Resolutions were validly made and the Branch committee was obliged under the CEPU Rules to comply, the court found it could not grant the relief sought under s 164 of the FW(RO) Act because the time for compliance with the payment directions had passed and no order could require compliance with an impracticable or impossible deadline.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The amended originating application filed 13 December 2018 be discontinued as against the second, ninth, tenth, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth respondents.' 'Mr David Ketchion and Mr Andrew Young be joined in the matter as the fifteenth and sixteenth respondents respectively.' 'The amended originating...