Hodder, E.R. v. The Australian Workers Union [1985] FCA 445

Federal Court of Australia|1985-07-01

fas AAS IN THE PEDEPAL COURT OF AUSTSALTA ) QUEENSLAND DISTEICT ROSISTRY ' OLD wo af TIES INDUSTRIAL DIVISTCU ) BETWEEN - ERPOD PAYMOND HODDER ARoolicanr AND. THE AUSTRALTEN WORTERS' SION : respondent MIVUTES OF ORDES JUDGE MARKING ORDO: PrTPUS TL DATE OF ORDER: 6 Seotemner 14ch NPERE MADE: PRIS ANE THO CGURT GREERS THAT. the perceedings 2.1 be adtourred t2 a agate ©4 NOTE: Settlement ane antry of s dere is dealt with i. 'ede Gt the Fecerai Court Rules f a) 4 SCRA COURT cn i \ uP ALi Press

IN ThE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTPALIA ) QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY i OLD O08 af 14R5

AND: THE AVSTRALIZAN WOPVEPS' UNIAN Respordent PINCUS ¢. » SEFTSMBER 1985 Jur CME WT On @ Auvust 1285 $f gave rcasons for judyment ino cn

application made under 3.140 of the Goncrivatiom and A-ebitysticr

Ack 1904, a werlareatren fat ' *6 oF Tre rules af cra Australian Workers' Uninn concraveres s idGt life, oF the eb 1

expressed the view that che rule wis mot, an its then foem, 4 conformity with the requirerenrs of tat pravision but sade po declaration. Instead, I adazourned rne matter 49 enapio tne

Tre matter has been re-listed today and 1t proved that the rules have been aitersi in a vay which

alteration nuts an end ta che discantio.ticy between

rule and the requirements of s.i40'..(_). The alteracy

yet come into effeck, because 5.139:4.) produces the result that

it dces not have effect until particulars of it have keen filed

in the office of che Registrar and tur Revistrar ha

the old form of the rules docs not uppiv tu the new

that st has been che practrtes ree te Court ta ey mpinton of che efficacy cl tne crange, in circudstanc sort, ana chat appears te se so. Indeed, 1% has beer h

cT a cr, mh

St mM =a Li em a if cr i co pursuant bo 3.°%1l of the Faoderal Court of Austral's Act

alteration does not castravene the \sr' Mcbersh vo Fa 40 F.L R. 4€2. No Geclaration .s sought here, bar 1

agive further reascns in che case, witr t:espect to the

It 1.5 not necessary to encumoer these reasons witha full quotation £ the new provisions; tneir effecr, so Tar as reievant to the matter in issue, may be briefly stated. The /

leave the Executive Council composed as before, but change the

"card vote" awiving each member, other tnan the presidert ane the

general secreta-y, one vote for each 4,900 branch members oy part

ereof. The Victorian branch representatives. on the basis of membership as at 31 Tuly 19€5, will nawe Five votes each under the new rule, because there were at thar date 17,802 Victorian members. The Tasmanian reoresentatives wiil have only two votes each, because there were 4,280 Tasmanian members. Trt wiil he observed, of course, Chat the voting st.ength .* nor strictly proportional; althaugk there are more than fFreur trames a3 "ary Victottan members as Tasmanian, tue Victorian resresentatlives have two and a half tiees as ruch voting power Nevertholess, 11 seems to me clear teyond serious argument tha this change, 1Ff the etule comes into effect under s.139(4+) wouled dispuse of the

point taken by the applicant in tne cise, namely thar

It appears that othec alterations are toa he placed before the Registrar, dealing with matters of interpretatlon raised in my reasons of August and intended to cuiarify the operation of the rules. It is not necesjary to say anything of

these. However, it should be mentioned that in addition to the change in the voting power of the State representatives, referred tne

to above, the new r.36A would give eneral secretary

one-twelfth of the votes allocated to branch representatives, to preserve the voting power he presentiy has. it seens Lo me rather odd ina card voting system ta allocate multiple votes to amember who 1S not a Drancn cépresentative, but zs nationally elected; however, itis true, as Mr Johnston for the unian contended, that the general secretary's voting power is not

enhariced, as compared with his position unaer the old rule and I

do not think that provision is ccntrary to $.140(1)(c)}

T have made certain comments about what may be thought to be drafting errars in the new provisions, in the hope that they may be of assistance to the parties. However, those points are not such as to affect the view exvressed above, namely that

the new provisions would not conflict with s.140(1l)ic) of the

I understand 2t 18 intended, 1: the new provisions are

certified by the Registrar, to mention the matter so that the

Broceecings may oe dismissed. T adjourn them toa date to se

s certify that this and ihe piccecing pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of His tlonour

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (35 paragraphs)

cT a cr, mh

Cited By (2)