In the matter of an application by Janet Irene Lacey for an inquiry into an electyion in the Federated Clerks Union of Australia, Victorian Branch [1984] FCA 157

amendment and of Industrial Registrar's suggested alteration

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JANET IRENE LACEY FOR AN

INQUIRY INTO AN ELECTION IN THE FEDERATED CLERKS' UNION OF

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY }) V 23 of 1984 INDUSTRIAL DIVISION )

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JANET IRENE LACEY EWR AN INQUIRY INTO AN ELECTIGN IN THE FEDERATED CLERKS" UNION OF AUSTRALIA, VICTORETAN BRANCH

This is an application under s.189 of the Conciliation

and Arbitration Act 1904 (the Act} for an inquiry by the Court

into an alleged irregulerity in or in connection with an election

for certain offices 1n the Victorian Brancm {the Branch) of the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia, which is an organization of employees registered under the Act. The "atfices" referred to are described in the application as those of "Cruncillors elected from the Sections". The application, dated 1L &pril, 1984, has been referred to the Court by the Industrial Registrar under s.159(4)

The returning officer, Mr. Gary Heil, an officer of the Australian Electoral Office, who was ceanducting the election pursuant to s.170 of the Act, decided that the period for nominations for the election should open on 5 March, 1984 and

close on 19 March, 1984. On that latter date Janet Irene Lacey

(the applicant) was a financial member of the union having paid her contributions on an annual basis in respect of the year ending 30 June, 1984. Her application for admission to membership was dated 24 March, 1983. On 16 March, 1984 she lodged with the returning officer a nomination form for tke office of Councillor from the Miscellaneous Section of the Branck, to which Section she was attached. The returning officer by teLegram sent on 23 March, 1984 rejected her nomination, saying that she had "not been a financial member for the period of twelve months immediately prior

Mr. Marshall appeared for the applicant, Mr. Turner for the returning officer and Mr. Macken for the Federated Clerks'

Union of Australia and for the officers of the Branch.

The irregularity specified in the aoplication is that her nomination should not have been rejected by the returning officer and two grounds were advanced in support of that contention. The parties were agreed that the Court should frst hear and determine evidence and argument as to the first ground as no further hearing would be necessary if the applicant succeeGed on that ground. In essence, the first ground was that rule Z28(c) of the certified rules of the Branch, properly construed, provided no basis for the

(a) Using the election of April 1979 as the starting point, an election shall be held in every third year for the purpose of electing the following office holders:

1. President,
2. Deputy President,
3. Vice-Presicent,
4. _.State Secretary,

• 5. Assistant State Secretary,

6. • Councillors required to be elected by "the whole of the membership.

{b) Comhencing in March 1978, am election shall "be held in every second year for the purpose of electing Councillors from Sections, and Conference delegates from Districts and Sections, excluding the Shipping Section. Elections for Councillors and Conference delegates from the Shipping Section shall be

(c) Any member of the Branch except, in the case of Councillors and Conference Delegates from the Sections and Districts, shall be eligible

• for nomination for election to any of the above positions if such member is financial at the date of closing of nominations and for the period of 12 months imme@iately prior to such date has been.continueously a financial member." :

It can fairly be said that the exception clause in rule 28(c) is not expressed as clearly as it sight be. All parties accept, correctly in my view, that the comma in the first line of the sub-rule is misplaced and that it is necessary to read the sub-rule as if the words "elections for" were inserted immediately

before the words "Councillors and Conference Delegates".

Reading sub-rule 28(c) in the light of those two matters

accepted by all parties, the applicant submitted that the sub-rule on its face plainly excepts from its operation elections for "Councillors and Conference Delegates from the Sections and Districts"; in other words, the sub-rule makes no provision whatever in respect of the election of those "Councillors and Conference Delegates". On this submission, the requirement in the sub-rule that a member must be "financial at the date of close of nominations and for the period of 12 months . immediately prior to such date" have been continuously a financiai member, applies only to eligibility for nomination for elections other than those for "Councillors and Conference Delegates from the Sections and

applicant's nomination by the returning officer, submitted that

sub-rule 28(c) should be construed as if it provided that "any

member of the Branch shail be eligible for nemination for election to any of the above positions, except the positions of Councillors and Conference Delegates from the Sections and Districts and in those cases only members from those Sections or Districts may be nominated, if such member is financial at the date of the closing of nominations and for the period of 12 months immediately prior to such date has been continuously a financial member". Mr. Macken's formulation of the meaning of the sub-clause was to the

It will be noted that the-submission involves inserting additional words and re-arranging the words used in the sub-rule to a considerably greater extent than does the construction of the sub-rule for which the applicant contends. Mr. Macken and Mr. Turner both placed considerable reliance upon the context of the Branch rules as a whole and submitted that the returning officer's construction of the sub-rule conformed with the Branch rules

In addition to his submissions as to the proper construction of 'sub-rule 28(c)_ in -its 'context, Mr. Macken submitted that that construction of the sub-rule was supported by its history as a certified rule. He also sought to rely upon the form of an alteration to that sub-rule which in November 1978 was submitted to but not certified by the Industrial Registrar in the form submitted. Mr. Marshall denied that there was any ambiguity in the rule put did not object to the affidavit material tendered by Mr. Macken. However, he made it clear that he did not concede

its relevance. . The evidence of the history of the certified rules of the Branch established that, as at 6 July, 1978, they contained the

(b) The Councillors required to be elected by the Sections shall be elected commencing as and

from the ist of March 1978 Kiennially at the same time and in the same manner as is

prescribed in the Sectiom Rules for the election of the Executive of the Section.

It is common ground that at that time the "Section Rules" referred to in that sub-rule, which were tendered in evidence, did not form part of the rules of the Branch as certified by the Industrial Registrar. In my opinion evidence of the form of the certified

rule in July £978 does not support the respondents' submissions.

As to the other materiel submitted by Mr. Macken, it established that on or about 13 Noveminer, 1978 the Branch Secretary forwarded to the Industrial 'Registrar particulars of alterations to the rules of the Branch, imcliuding rule 28, which had been adopted by the State Council of the Branch and by the Federal Executive. Those alterations includied the substitution of

a new rule 28 including sub-rule (c) whicik was in the following

"(c) Any member of the Branch or; in the case of Councillors and Conference Delegates from the Sections and Districts, any member of the appropriate Section or District, siall be eligible for nomination for election to eny of the above positions if such member is financial at the date of closing of nominations and for the period of 12 months immediately prior to such date has been continuously a financial member."

The minutes of a meeting of State CounciE on 28 November, 1978

record that the Branch Secretary, Mr. J.D. Cameron, reported that

"been submitted to the Industrial Registrar, and he now suggests that following alterations to those amendments to comply with the Act -

"(b) Add after 'Sections & Districts' the words 'excluding the shipping Section'.

"(c) Substitute 'except' for 'or' in first line. Delete the words 'any members of the appropriate Sections or District' .."

At that meeting State Council approveé those alterations,

suggested by the Industrial Registrar, tc tne amendments to the

By letter dated 14 February, 1979, the Industrial Registrar infoxmed the Branch Secretary that he had certified alterations to certain rules but had "not certified the other rules" (including Rule 28) for reasons set out by him which are

not presently material. The last paragraph of that letter from

the Industrial Registrar was in the following terms:-

"Finally, in view of recent devisions by the Federal Court of Australia about certain periods of membership being required as 2 qualification to become a candidate for an electian, this question will need to be examined. A related point is that the word "continuously" in the phrase "continuously a financial member" is now unaccepteble."

As a result of the certification on 6 Marck, 1979, of alterations

to the Branch rules, rule 28(c) of the Branch rules in its present

oo RN caper me we Neate enete newne on = oc me eee ee ee ee ee

form became a certified rule. It will be moted that that sub-rule is not in the form originally submitted to the Industrial Registrar on or about 13 November, 1978 as it incorporates the alterations made by the State Council om 28 November, 1978 in

accordance with the suggestions made by the Industrial Registrar.

Although material as to the history of the certified rule is admissible where, as here, the meaning Zs unclear, the material as to the form of the alterations submitted to the Industrial Registrar en 'or about 13 November, 1978 is in a different category. Et does not form part of the history of the rule as certified by the Industrial Registrar.- Wowever, I have given consideration to that material as no objection was taken to its reception - possibly because of the provisions of s.164(4) of the

It is clear that, if sub-rule 28(c) had been certified in the form in which it was submitted to the Endustrial Registrar on

or about 13 November, 1978 and had been im that form at the time when the applicant's nomination was rejected, the returning officer's rejection of the nomination would have been correct as a matter of law. Mr. Macken contends that sub-rule 28(c) in its present form has the same meaning, notwithstanding that it was altered to comply with the Industrial Registrar's suggestion of "the following alterations to those amendments to comply with the

construction of the returning officer expresses or conforms with the intention of the branch as

understood from the extrinsic facts which are in evidence before the court... What the branch intended to accomplish is known with absolute precision from the terms of (exhibit) MOS2 so far as consisting of the branch's formulation of 1

November 1978 ..... what it intended then ... was perfectly clear and what we draw from that is this: that unless there is some reason to think that something different was: intended either by the draughtsman of the alteration, namely, the Industrial Registrar or by the Victorian branch of the Federated Clerks Union which adopted the reformulated rule then by advertemce to what was sought to be achieved on 1 November 1978, one is assisted in seeing what was in fact achieved in the adumbratea@ and less than happy -reformulation of that rule, ultimately certified in March of 1979."

It is possible that the State Council in altering sub-rule 28(c) on 28 November, 1978, at the suggestion of the

Industrial Registrar, did not intend to aiter the meaning and

effect - as distinct from the wording - of the sub-rule from the meaning and effect of the sub-rule in the form submitted to the Industrial Registrar on or about 13 November, 1978. Mr. Cameron, the Branch Secretary both in 1978 and at the present time, gave oral evidence which lends some support for that view. Mr. Marshall made it clear that he did not criticize Mr. Cameron's evidence but he pointed out that it related to a meeting of State

Council held more than five years ago. In this connection the

• minutes record that the Industrial Registrar had suggested "the

following alterations to those amendments to comply with the Act" and Mr. Cameron frankly admitted that it was quite possible that tne Industrial Registrar had said to him that the suggested

alteration was required "in order to comply with the Act".

I have considered the form of sub-zule 28{c) as submitted

on or about 13 November 1978, together with the material as to the

Industrial Registrar's suggested alterations to that sub-rule, the

minutes of the State Council meeting of 28 November, 1978 and the

'oral evidence of Mr. Cameron, including his evidence that the

"policy" of the Branch for some years was: that there be

a 12 month qualifying period". The material does not persuade me that the alterations made by the State Council at the meeting on 28 November, 1978, were intended to retain the meaning and effect of the sub-rule in the form in which it was originally submitted to

. him for certification on or about 13 November, 1978. In reaching that conclusion I have assumed that it is permissible to have regard to that material in construing sub-rule 28(c). I have considerable doubts as to whether that course is permissible but,

as that question has not been fully argued, I shall not express a

After considering carefully the wording of rule 28(c) in its present certified form, its context including the rules referred to by Mr. Turner and Mr. Macken, E have decided that the construction advanced by Mr. Marshall on Eehalf of the applicant

is to be accepted and that the applicant was eligible to nominate

for the office of Councillor elected from the Miscellaneous

Accordingly, the returning officer erred in rejecting her

ee ne ae ra nt ee i -- - = wae =2 wee ee ee ee ee ee ne

nomination lodged on 16 March, 1984. That rejection constituted an irregularity in connection with the election. I am of the opinion that, having regard to that irregularity, the result of

the election may have been affected by the irregularity

(s-165(4)). Accordingly, it is appropriate "hat orders be made:-

1. Declaring that a step in connection with the election of the office of Councillor from the Miscellaneous Section of the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia, Victorian Branch, 'namely, the rejection by the returning officer of the nomination of Janet Irene Lacey, is void.

2. Directing the Industrial Registrar zo make .arrangements for the uncompleted steps in the election to be taken, namely, the conduct of a ballot for the office of Councillor from the Miscellaneous Section of the Federated Clerks' Union of Australie, Victorian Branch in which ballot the candidates are Johm Michael Cashman and