Hills, R.J. & Ors v. Higgins, V. & Ors [1982] FCA 11

Hills, R.J. & Ors v. Higgins, V. & Ors [1982] FCA 11

Branch Rule 35(a) does not itself provide for dismissal from office within the meaning of s.133(1)(f) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, as it operates only to expel or suspend from membership, with any loss of office resulting from other rules. Suspension under Rule 35(h) does not amount to dismissal from office as contemplated by s.133(1)(f); the power is properly one of temporary suspension, not removal. The impugned Branch Rules are not 'oppressive, unreasonable or unjust' within s.140(1)(c) when properly construed and read with implied natural justice requirements. However, charges 3-6 as formulated are insufficiently particularised or certain and cannot be proceeded with...

Parties
Applicant: Ralph John Hills; Applicant: John Lawrence Gallagher; Applicant: Paul Charles Wheelhouse; Applicant: Alan Richard Curry; Applicant: Warren Edward Small; Respondent: Vincent Higgins; Respondent: John Oborn; Respondent: Betty Spears; Respondent: Colin Hilder; Respondent: David Edge; Respondent: The Federated Clerks Union of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 1982
Procedural Posture
Application Under Statute / Return of Rule to Show Cause; Final Orders
Outcome
Application partly allowed
Legal Topics
Union Disciplinary Proceedings, Interpretation of Union Rules, Power to Suspend or Expel Members, Natural Justice in Union Processes, Validity of Union Rules Under Statute, Construction of Union and Branch Rules
Industrial Law Employment Law Union Disciplinary Proceedings Interpretation of Union Rules Power to Suspend or Expel Members Natural Justice in Union Processes Validity of Union Rules Under Statute Construction of Union and Branch 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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ralph John Hills

Applicant

John Lawrence Gallagher

Applicant

Paul Charles Wheelhouse

Applicant

Alan Richard Curry

Applicant

Warren Edward Small

Applicant

Vincent Higgins

Respondent

John Oborn

Respondent

Betty Spears

Respondent

Colin Hilder

Respondent

David Edge

Respondent

The Federated Clerks Union of Australia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Statute / Return of Rule to Show Cause; Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Branch Rule 35 of the New South Wales Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia is void due to inconsistency with s.133(1)(f) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
  2. 2 Whether certain charges laid against applicants under Rule 35 are authorised, sufficiently particularised, and validly formulated under the rules and the Act
  3. 3 Whether the rules or their application are oppressive, unreasonable or unjust within the meaning of s.140(1)(c) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Branch Rule 35(a) does not itself provide for dismissal from office within the meaning of s.133(1)(f) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, as it operates only to expel or suspend from membership, with any loss of office resulting from other rules. Suspension under Rule 35(h) does not amount to dismissal from office as contemplated by s.133(1)(f); the power is properly one of temporary suspension, not removal. The impugned Branch Rules are not 'oppressive, unreasonable or unjust' within s.140(1)(c) when properly construed and read with implied natural justice requirements. However, charges 3-6 as formulated are insufficiently particularised or certain and cannot be proceeded with...

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed

Orders

  • The respondents (other than the Federated Clerks Union of Australia) are ordered to perform and observe the rules of the New South Wales Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia by refraining from proceeding further to deal with each of the charges numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6 set out in the enclosure to the...
  • Save as aforesaid, the interlocutory orders pronounced herein by Evatt J are terminated and the Rule to Show Cause is discharged.