Bourke, Michael Patrick & Ors v Mapstone, David John Garland & Ors [1984] FCA 100

Bourke, Michael Patrick & Ors v Mapstone, David John Garland & Ors [1984] FCA 100

The resolution of Branch Council dismissing the ten employees was valid; Rule 31(c) procedures were properly followed, Rule 31(c) does not contravene s.140(1) of the Act, and no requirement for natural justice applied to these employees.

Parties
Applicant: Michael Patrick Bourke; Applicant: Patrick Brophy; Applicant: John Fox; Applicant: Paul Griffiths; Applicant: Ted Kowalski; Applicant: David Lewis; Applicant: Vince McKenna; Applicant: Gordon McPherson; Applicant: John Nucifora; Applicant: Geoff Purcell; Applicant: Graham Treacy; Respondent: David John Garland Mapstone; Respondent: Margaret Linnane; Respondent: Callaghan; Respondent: Woods; Respondent: Russell Ford; Respondent: Bernadette Lorraine Andrew; Respondent: Gabrielle Mary Crawford; Respondent: Mary Antoinette Williams; Respondent: Gali Gopris; Respondent: Jeffrey Alan Muller; Respondent: Albert Anthony Parke; Respondent: Barry Trevor Linsket; Respondent: Kevin Bianchi; Respondent: David Siel Appleby; Respondent: Brian Francis Tooley; Respondent: Reginald Charles O'Brien; Respondent: Leslie John Bourke; Respondent: David Ross Grant Cossart; Respondent: Federated Clerks Union of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 1984
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under Conciliation and Arbitration Act S.141 / Final Judgment Rule Nisi Discharged
Outcome
Rule nisi discharged; no consequential orders made
Legal Topics
Dismissal of Employees, Union Rules, Natural Justice, Validity of Resolutions
Employment Law Industrial Law Dismissal of Employees Union Rules Natural Justice Validity of Resolutions

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Patrick Bourke

Applicant

Patrick Brophy

Applicant

John Fox

Applicant

Paul Griffiths

Applicant

Ted Kowalski

Applicant

David Lewis

Applicant

Vince McKenna

Applicant

Gordon McPherson

Applicant

John Nucifora

Applicant

Geoff Purcell

Applicant

Graham Treacy

Applicant

David John Garland Mapstone

Respondent

Margaret Linnane

Respondent

Callaghan

Respondent

Woods

Respondent

Russell Ford

Respondent

Bernadette Lorraine Andrew

Respondent

Gabrielle Mary Crawford

Respondent

Mary Antoinette Williams

Respondent

Gali Gopris

Respondent

Jeffrey Alan Muller

Respondent

Albert Anthony Parke

Respondent

Barry Trevor Linsket

Respondent

Kevin Bianchi

Respondent

David Siel Appleby

Respondent

Brian Francis Tooley

Respondent

Reginald Charles O'Brien

Respondent

Leslie John Bourke

Respondent

David Ross Grant Cossart

Respondent

Federated Clerks Union of Australia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Proceedings Under Conciliation and Arbitration Act S.141 / Final Judgment Rule Nisi Discharged

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the resolution dismissing ten employees by Branch Council was valid
  2. 2 Whether Branch Rule 31(c) contravenes subsection 140(1) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act
  3. 3 Whether requirements of Rule 31(c) were complied with in dismissals

Ratio Decidendi

The resolution of Branch Council dismissing the ten employees was valid; Rule 31(c) procedures were properly followed, Rule 31(c) does not contravene s.140(1) of the Act, and no requirement for natural justice applied to these employees.

Court Disposition

Rule nisi discharged; no consequential orders made

Orders

  • The rule nisi made herein on 1 June 1983 be discharged