© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1985] FCA 445
Federal Court of Australia
1985-07-01
Original judgment source is linked above.
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
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