Roger Copeland, Geoffrey Sutton and Nick Minoski v W.P. Ludwig & Ors [1994] IRCA 112

Roger Copeland, Geoffrey Sutton and Nick Minoski v W.P. Ludwig & Ors [1994] IRCA 112

The purported amendment to the union rules changing the offices of Sub-Branch Secretary and Organisers from 'full time' to 'honorary' was not authorised by the union's rules, as such amendment conflicted with rule 80, which expressly prevailed over other rules until 30 June 1997. Even if such power existed, its exercise in these circumstances would be contrary to s.196(c) of the Act as it would impose unreasonable and unjust restrictions upon members. Therefore, the removal or alteration of the applicants' offices and entitlements was invalid and any purported dismissals by reason of these amendments are void.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 1994
Procedural Posture
Application for Orders Under Union Rules/industrial Relations Act / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in substantial part; orders made for performance of union rules and payment of salaries and emoluments; purported dismissals and removals declared null and void.
Legal Topics
['trade Union Rules' 'amalgamation of Unions' 'remuneration of Union Office Holders' 'union Rule Changes' 'right to Represent and Enrol Members']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['trade Union Rules' 'amalgamation of Unions' 'remuneration of Union Office Holders' 'union Rule Changes' 'right to Represent and Enrol Members']

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 for Orders Under Union Rules/industrial Relations Act / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a rule change converting sub-branch offices from 'full time' to 'honorary' was authorised by the union's rules" 'Whether the rule change or abolition of the offices was contrary to the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth), particularly s.196(a) and (c)' 'Whether decisions to remove the applicants from office or their employment were valid or in good faith' "Whether the Industrial Relations Commission has the power to remove a union's right to enrol members under s.118A"]

Ratio Decidendi

The purported amendment to the union rules changing the offices of Sub-Branch Secretary and Organisers from 'full time' to 'honorary' was not authorised by the union's rules, as such amendment conflicted with rule 80, which expressly prevailed over other rules until 30 June 1997. Even if such power existed, its exercise in these circumstances would be contrary to s.196(c) of the Act as it would impose unreasonable and unjust restrictions upon members. Therefore, the removal or alteration of the applicants' offices and entitlements was invalid and any purported dismissals by reason of these amendments are void.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in substantial part; orders made for performance of union rules and payment of salaries and emoluments; purported dismissals and removals declared null and void.

Orders

  • ['Respondents (other than AWU-FIME Amalgamated Union) to ensure Secretary, Organisers and Executive of the Victorian Sub-Branch can perform their offices per union rules.' 'Respondents to ensure Roger Copeland is paid the salary and emoluments of Sub-Branch Secretary ($968.00 per week or any higher relevant amount)...