Carter, R.A. v Rock, A. & Ors [1987] FCA 460

Carter, R.A. v Rock, A. & Ors [1987] FCA 460

The management power conferred by rule 30 on the union executive did not authorise it to require the applicant to attend meetings or to explain his request for information concerning the secretary's personal expenses. No such power arises by implication from the rules, and the disciplinary charge based on refusal to comply with those resolutions was without foundation. The ultra vires resolutions are void and should be so treated; relief under s.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 is appropriate.

Parties
Applicant: Roy Arthur Edward Carter; Respondent: Arthur Rock; Respondent: Thomas Evers; Respondent: Charles Marks; Respondent: John King; Respondent: Michael Seboa; Respondent: David West; Respondent: Terrence Broad; Respondent: Arthur Shawyer; Respondent: Rodney Ulph; Respondent: John Moss; Respondent: Barry Hughes; Respondent: James Bennett; Respondent: Roger Gray; Respondent: Gareth Lewis; Respondent: Edward Luk; Respondent: J. Wheatley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 1987
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application / Final Judgment After Hearing at First Instance
Outcome
Application granted; relief ordered in favour of applicant.
Legal Topics
Union Rules, Ultra Vires Resolutions, Management Power of Union Executive, Disciplinary Powers
Industrial Law Union Rules Ultra Vires Resolutions Management Power of Union Executive Disciplinary Powers

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roy Arthur Edward Carter

Applicant

Arthur Rock

Respondent

Thomas Evers

Respondent

Charles Marks

Respondent

John King

Respondent

Michael Seboa

Respondent

David West

Respondent

Terrence Broad

Respondent

Arthur Shawyer

Respondent

Rodney Ulph

Respondent

John Moss

Respondent

Barry Hughes

Respondent

James Bennett

Respondent

Roger Gray

Respondent

Gareth Lewis

Respondent

Edward Luk

Respondent

J. Wheatley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law Application / Final Judgment After Hearing at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether resolutions requiring a member to attend executive meetings to explain a request for information were within the executive's management power or otherwise authorised by the rules
  2. 2 Whether the union executive had any express or implied power to compel attendance and explanation from a member otherwise than under a disciplinary rule
  3. 3 Whether the resolutions and intended disciplinary charge were ultra vires

Ratio Decidendi

The management power conferred by rule 30 on the union executive did not authorise it to require the applicant to attend meetings or to explain his request for information concerning the secretary's personal expenses. No such power arises by implication from the rules, and the disciplinary charge based on refusal to comply with those resolutions was without foundation. The ultra vires resolutions are void and should be so treated; relief under s.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application granted; relief ordered in favour of applicant.

Orders

  • The respondents are to perform and observe the rules by treating as ultra vires and void the resolutions of 14 August 1985, 18 September 1985, and 13 November 1985 concerning the applicant.
  • The respondents are restrained from proceeding to hear or determine any charge against the applicant based on failure to comply with the resolutions of 14 August 1985 and 18 September 1985.