Wright, Stephen & Anor v McLeod, K & Ors [1983] FCA 351

Wright, Stephen & Anor v McLeod, K & Ors [1983] FCA 351

Rules 19(b), 23(a) and (b) and 57, which provide for Federal Council to amend union rules without direct participation of members or branches, do not contravene s.140(1)(a) or (c) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, nor do they fail to provide required control of committees by members. Given the representative structure, procedural safeguards, plebiscite provisions, and opportunities for review, the concentration of rule amendment power in the Federal Council is not shown to be oppressive, unreasonable or unjust in the circumstances of this Union.

Parties
Applicant: Stephen Wright; Applicant: Judith Mary Walker; Respondent: K. McLeod; Respondent: J. Angus; Respondent: P.K. Reynolds; Respondent: V. Winney; Respondent: B. Pendergast; Respondent: R. Thomas; Respondent: K. Davern; Respondent: I. Grant; Respondent: J. Easton; Respondent: I. West; Respondent: J. Booker; Respondent: G. Duncan; Respondent: J. Dwyer; Respondent: J. Convery; Respondent: I. Larcombe; Respondent: M. Clark; Respondent: J. Wilson; Respondent: G. Christie; Respondent: R. Purvis; Respondent: L. Aspinal; Respondent: J. Trousdale; Respondent: I. Thomas; Respondent: K. Hallam; Respondent: B. Dunn; Respondent: P. Brent; Respondent: P. Thompson; Respondent: The Australian Insurance Employees Union
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 1983
Procedural Posture
Application for Orders Under Industrial Legislation Pursuant to S.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 / Full Court Hearing; Return of Rule to Show Cause
Outcome
Application dismissed; interim orders vacated; rule to show cause discharged.
Legal Topics
Registered Organisations, Rule Amendment Procedures, Democratic Control of Unions, Participatory Democracy, Oppressive, Unreasonable or Unjust Rules
Industrial Law Registered Organisations Rule Amendment Procedures Democratic Control of Unions Participatory Democracy Oppressive, Unreasonable or Unjust 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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Wright

Applicant

Judith Mary Walker

Applicant

K. McLeod

Respondent

J. Angus

Respondent

P.K. Reynolds

Respondent

V. Winney

Respondent

B. Pendergast

Respondent

R. Thomas

Respondent

K. Davern

Respondent

I. Grant

Respondent

J. Easton

Respondent

I. West

Respondent

J. Booker

Respondent

G. Duncan

Respondent

J. Dwyer

Respondent

J. Convery

Respondent

I. Larcombe

Respondent

M. Clark

Respondent

J. Wilson

Respondent

G. Christie

Respondent

R. Purvis

Respondent

L. Aspinal

Respondent

J. Trousdale

Respondent

I. Thomas

Respondent

K. Hallam

Respondent

B. Dunn

Respondent

P. Brent

Respondent

P. Thompson

Respondent

The Australian Insurance Employees Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Orders Under Industrial Legislation Pursuant to S.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 / Full Court Hearing; Return of Rule to Show Cause

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rules permitting Federal Council to amend union rules without reference to branches or membership contravene s.140(1)(a) or (c) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
  2. 2 Whether the rules fail to provide for control of committees by members as required by reg.115(1)(d)(v)
  3. 3 Whether rule amendment procedures are oppressive, unreasonable or unjust

Ratio Decidendi

Rules 19(b), 23(a) and (b) and 57, which provide for Federal Council to amend union rules without direct participation of members or branches, do not contravene s.140(1)(a) or (c) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, nor do they fail to provide required control of committees by members. Given the representative structure, procedural safeguards, plebiscite provisions, and opportunities for review, the concentration of rule amendment power in the Federal Council is not shown to be oppressive, unreasonable or unjust in the circumstances of this Union.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; interim orders vacated; rule to show cause discharged.

Orders

  • The Interim Order of 11 February 1983 be vacated.
  • The Rule to Show Cause be discharged.