Lyons, Brian Deegan, V.J. & Ors [1978] FCA 43

Lyons, Brian Deegan, V.J. & Ors [1978] FCA 43

The plebiscite, having been held among only part of a 'group' (Lines Staff within Telecommunications Group) rather than the entirety as required by rule 21, and the improper inclusion of a partisan Executive recommendation in the voting envelope, meant the process breached union rules and was invalid as a plebiscite. However, the results may be regarded as a consultative survey to inform the Executive's decisions, not as binding under the rules.

Parties
Claimant: Brian Lyons; Respondent: V.J. Deegan; Respondent: P.T. Curley; Respondent: A. Jarman; Respondent: G. Slater; Respondent: R.J. Bisley; Respondent: J.R. Whitehead; Respondent: F.J. Bourke; Respondent: J.R. James; Respondent: R.M. Keen; Respondent: M.J. Anthony; Respondent: T.N. Lancaster; Respondent: M.A. Hawkins; Respondent: M.A. Field; Respondent: M. Whinfield
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 1978
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application Under Statute / Judgment on Originative Application for Orders (s 141 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904)
Outcome
Orders made for compliance with union rules; the impugned plebiscite treated as invalid as such, but votes may be used consultatively; interim injunction vacated.
Legal Topics
Union Rules, Validity of Plebiscite, Returning Officer's Duties, Influence Over Plebiscite, Interpretation of Union Rules
Industrial Law Union Rules Validity of Plebiscite Returning Officer's Duties Influence Over Plebiscite Interpretation of Union 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Lyons

Claimant

V.J. Deegan

Respondent

P.T. Curley

Respondent

A. Jarman

Respondent

G. Slater

Respondent

R.J. Bisley

Respondent

J.R. Whitehead

Respondent

F.J. Bourke

Respondent

J.R. James

Respondent

R.M. Keen

Respondent

M.J. Anthony

Respondent

T.N. Lancaster

Respondent

M.A. Hawkins

Respondent

M.A. Field

Respondent

M. Whinfield

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law Application Under Statute / Judgment on Originative Application for Orders (s 141 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plebiscite was validly conducted under union rule 21
  2. 2 Effect of inclusion of partisan material with voting papers
  3. 3 Proper scope of eligible electorate under rule 21

Ratio Decidendi

The plebiscite, having been held among only part of a 'group' (Lines Staff within Telecommunications Group) rather than the entirety as required by rule 21, and the improper inclusion of a partisan Executive recommendation in the voting envelope, meant the process breached union rules and was invalid as a plebiscite. However, the results may be regarded as a consultative survey to inform the Executive's decisions, not as binding under the rules.

Court Disposition

Orders made for compliance with union rules; the impugned plebiscite treated as invalid as such, but votes may be used consultatively; interim injunction vacated.

Orders

  • Respondents to obey union rules by treating the 1978 plebiscite as invalid as such under rule 21.
  • Votes to be treated as expressing only approval of the Executive's 'without prejudice' recommendation, not more.