Noack v Cameron [1999] FCA 1466

Noack v Cameron [1999] FCA 1466

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not establish any arguable ground that the National Council resolutions made on 5 October 1999 were invalid or contrary to the Union rules. Rule 13 could be applied to the charge because it concerned procedure and present consequences of past conduct, not impermissible retrospectivity; any procedural defects before 23 September were cured by reconsideration on 5 October after the applicant had notice and an opportunity to respond; the National Council had a sufficient basis to conclude that South Australian organs of the Union could not fairly deal with the charge; the temporary direction not to perform duties was not a removal from...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application for a Rule to Show Cause Why an Order Should Not Be Made Under S 209 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Ex Tempore Interlocutory Reasons on Application for a Rule to Show Cause
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['union Disciplinary Proceedings' 'rule to Show Cause' 'removal From Union Office' 'retrospectivity' 'procedural Irregularity' 'procedural Fairness' 'ulterior Purpose' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 S 209']
['industrial Law' 'workplace Relations' 'trade Union Law'] ['union Disciplinary Proceedings' 'rule to Show Cause' 'removal From Union Office' 'retrospectivity' 'procedural Irregularity' 'procedural Fairness' 'ulterior Purpose' 'workplace Relations Act 1996 S 209']

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 for a Rule to Show Cause Why an Order Should Not Be Made Under S 209 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Ex Tempore Interlocutory Reasons on Application for a Rule to Show Cause

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether rule 13 of the Union rules was being applied retrospectively to conduct occurring before it took effect' 'Whether procedural requirements in rule 13.8 and rule 13.9 were complied with before the National Council acted on the charge' 'Whether there was a basis under rule 13.9(c) for the National Council to hear the charge rather than remitting it to a South Australian organ of the Union' 'Whether the direction under rule 13.14 that the applicant not perform duties was invalid or contrary to s 195(1)(c) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996' 'Whether the National Secretary or National Council acted for an ulterior purpose' 'Whether the proposed hearing procedures were unfair because they did not provide for a secret ballot' 'Whether the applicant established any arguable ground that the National Council resolutions were invalid or contrary to the Union rules']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not establish any arguable ground that the National Council resolutions made on 5 October 1999 were invalid or contrary to the Union rules. Rule 13 could be applied to the charge because it concerned procedure and present consequences of past conduct, not impermissible retrospectivity; any procedural defects before 23 September were cured by reconsideration on 5 October after the applicant had notice and an opportunity to respond; the National Council had a sufficient basis to conclude that South Australian organs of the Union could not fairly deal with the charge; the temporary direction not to perform duties was not a removal from...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for a rule to show cause be dismissed.']