Richard Fraser v. Martin Kingham and others [1994] IRCA 92

Richard Fraser v. Martin Kingham and others [1994] IRCA 92

During the transitional period created by the union's amalgamation, the rules of the union and the statutory scheme prevent the abolition of the offices of the three organisers, and the general rule-making powers must be read as subject to this limitation. Any attempt to abolish these offices prior to 2 January 1997 is not authorised and would be contrary to the basis upon which members approved the amalgamation and potentially oppressive, unreasonable or unjust under s.196(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth).

Parties
Applicant: Richard Fraser; Respondent: Martin Kingham; Respondent: Vince Raffa; Respondent: Bill Oliver; Respondent: Ray Carter; Respondent: Derek Cafferty; Respondent: Peter Grundy; Respondent: Wayne Torpy; Respondent: Dirk Van Dam; Respondent: Victor Nicoli; Respondent: Bernard Giagnacova; Respondent: Gerard Lavery; Respondent: Roy Williams; Respondent: Frank O'Grady; Respondent: Malcolm Ratel; Respondent: John McPartlin; Respondent: Patrick Lennon; Respondent: David Noonan; Respondent: John Loh; Respondent: David Pillar; Respondent: John Canning; Respondent: Zelko Prazak; Respondent: Malcolm Newham; Respondent: K. Hughes; Respondent: M. Garcia; Respondent: P. Boyle; Respondent: M. Evans; Respondent: J. Sutton; Respondent: L. Fraser; Respondent: C. Bates; Respondent: T. Burke; Respondent: W. Trohear; Respondent: M. Cordwell; Respondent: B. Carslake; Respondent: G. Wason; Respondent: D. Matthews; Respondent: A. Rankin; Respondent: T. Carroll; Respondent: K. Reynolds; Respondent: A. Littler; Respondent: W. Ethell; Respondent: P. Waters; Respondent: V. Fitzgerald; Respondent: S. Sharkey; Respondent: J. Maitland; Respondent: T. Smith; Respondent: T. Maher; Respondent: C. Northover; Respondent: M. O'Connor; Respondent: F. Wilks; Respondent: F. Hawkins; Respondent: J. McGirr; Respondent: G. McArthur; Respondent: O. Cook; Respondent: G. Hillier; Respondent: G. Shaw; Respondent: S. Murphy; Respondent: R. Judd; Respondent: E. Butcher; Respondent: R. Land; Respondent: P. Neilson; Respondent: B. Watson; Respondent: L. Moore; Respondent: D. Bean; Respondent: G. Wood; Respondent: B. O'Neil; Respondent: G. Childs; Respondent: G. Betts; Respondent: J. Van Camp; Respondent: M. Grey; Respondent: G. Day; Respondent: D. McIntyre; Respondent: S. Wales; Respondent: V. Robertson; Respondent: D. Frater; Respondent: L. Kyriacou; Respondent: A. Finlay
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 1994
Procedural Posture
Application (rule to Show Cause) / Final Judgment on Preliminary Legal Issue
Outcome
Application (rule to show cause) made absolute in favour of the applicant. Orders granted against respondents (other than Mr D. Cafferty).
Legal Topics
Union Rules, Amalgamation of Unions, Transitional Arrangements, Alteration of Union Rules, Oppressive Conduct in Unions
Industrial Law Union Rules Amalgamation of Unions Transitional Arrangements Alteration of Union Rules Oppressive Conduct in Unions

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Fraser

Applicant

Martin Kingham

Respondent

Vince Raffa

Respondent

Bill Oliver

Respondent

Ray Carter

Respondent

Derek Cafferty

Respondent

Peter Grundy

Respondent

Wayne Torpy

Respondent

Dirk Van Dam

Respondent

Victor Nicoli

Respondent

Bernard Giagnacova

Respondent

Gerard Lavery

Respondent

Roy Williams

Respondent

Frank O'Grady

Respondent

Malcolm Ratel

Respondent

John McPartlin

Respondent

Patrick Lennon

Respondent

David Noonan

Respondent

John Loh

Respondent

David Pillar

Respondent

John Canning

Respondent

Zelko Prazak

Respondent

Malcolm Newham

Respondent

K. Hughes

Respondent

M. Garcia

Respondent

P. Boyle

Respondent

M. Evans

Respondent

J. Sutton

Respondent

L. Fraser

Respondent

C. Bates

Respondent

T. Burke

Respondent

W. Trohear

Respondent

M. Cordwell

Respondent

B. Carslake

Respondent

G. Wason

Respondent

D. Matthews

Respondent

A. Rankin

Respondent

T. Carroll

Respondent

K. Reynolds

Respondent

A. Littler

Respondent

W. Ethell

Respondent

P. Waters

Respondent

V. Fitzgerald

Respondent

S. Sharkey

Respondent

J. Maitland

Respondent

T. Smith

Respondent

T. Maher

Respondent

C. Northover

Respondent

M. O'Connor

Respondent

F. Wilks

Respondent

F. Hawkins

Respondent

J. McGirr

Respondent

G. McArthur

Respondent

O. Cook

Respondent

G. Hillier

Respondent

G. Shaw

Respondent

S. Murphy

Respondent

R. Judd

Respondent

E. Butcher

Respondent

R. Land

Respondent

P. Neilson

Respondent

B. Watson

Respondent

L. Moore

Respondent

D. Bean

Respondent

G. Wood

Respondent

B. O'Neil

Respondent

G. Childs

Respondent

G. Betts

Respondent

J. Van Camp

Respondent

M. Grey

Respondent

G. Day

Respondent

D. McIntyre

Respondent

S. Wales

Respondent

V. Robertson

Respondent

D. Frater

Respondent

L. Kyriacou

Respondent

A. Finlay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application (rule to Show Cause) / Final Judgment on Preliminary Legal Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rules of the union permitted the abolition of the offices of the three organisers during the transitional period
  2. 2 Whether the rule-making powers were subject to a limitation preventing abolition of certain offices during the transitional period
  3. 3 Whether such abolition would be oppressive, unreasonable, or unjust under s.196(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

During the transitional period created by the union's amalgamation, the rules of the union and the statutory scheme prevent the abolition of the offices of the three organisers, and the general rule-making powers must be read as subject to this limitation. Any attempt to abolish these offices prior to 2 January 1997 is not authorised and would be contrary to the basis upon which members approved the amalgamation and potentially oppressive, unreasonable or unjust under s.196(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Application (rule to show cause) made absolute in favour of the applicant. Orders granted against respondents (other than Mr D. Cafferty).

Orders

  • Respondents (other than Mr D. Cafferty) to permit applicant and two other organisers to fully perform their duties as organisers in accordance with the rules.
  • Respondents to ensure the union pays the three organisers their salary and emoluments at rates in accordance with rules and not less than the leading hand rate in the highest major award for carpenters in the building industry.