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

union rules for holding a valid plebiscite - Nature of

Returning Officer's function - Duty of Returning Officer

to act independently - Partisan material included with voting paper issued in plebiscite

IN THE MATTER of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904 as amended

AND _ IN THE MATTER of an application under Section 141 of the said Act.

BETWEEN: BRIAN LYONS Claimant AND: V.J. DEEGAN, P.T. CURLEY, A. JARMAN,

M.A. FIELD, M. WHINFIELD Respondents JUDGES MAKING ORDER: SMITHERS, J.B. SWEENEY and EVATT JJ. DATE OF ORDER: 22nd June 1978 WHERE MADE: Sydney ORDERS OF THE COURT:

(a) That the respondents and each of them obey the rules of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union,

by treating as invalid, as such, the plebiscite of members it purported to conduct pursuant to r.21 of the rules of the Union during the months of March and April 1978; and

by treating the first question submitted to the lines staff in the conduct of such alleged plebiscite as if it had been expressed in the following terms, namely .... Do you approve of the recommendation of :'the Executive that the union should accept the new lines staff structure proposed by Telecom on a 'without prejudice' basis": and

by treating any affirmative votes cast by members of the lines staff in,respect of the first question as expressing approval by them only of the recommendation of the Executive in the terms set out above and not otherwise; and

by treating an affirmative vote in respect of the second question submitted to members of the lines staff in the conduct of such alleged plebiscite as an expression of opinion of members of the lines staff only and not otherwise: ahd

by treating the votes cast in respect of the first question and the second question submitted in the conduct of the alleged plebiscite as being part of a consultative survey which may be used, only

as to the acceptance or rejection of the new lines staff structure referred to in the first question and the proposal referred to in the

That the interim order of this Court made herein on 23rd May, 1978 be and the same is hereby vacated.

IN THE MATTER of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904 as amended

AND IN THE MATTER of an application under Section 141 of the said Act.

AND: V.J0. DEEGAN

• ~ P.T. CURLEY A_JARMAN G. SLATER R. J. BISLEY WHITEHEAD BOURKE JAMES KEEN ANTHONY LANCASTER HAWKINS
• FIELD M. WHINFIELD

This is a return of an order nisi granted pursuant to s.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act

1904 (the Act) wherein the claimant a member of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union an organization

of employees registered under the Act (the Union) seeks orders that the respondents and each of them perform and

observe the rules of the Union in certain specified respects.

The respondents other than the 1lth and 12th named respondents constitute the Federal Executive of the Union. The 11th named respondent, Mr M.A. Field, is the General Returning Officer appointed pursuant to the rules whilst the 12th named respondent Mr Whinfield is the Deputy Returning Officer for the New South Wales Branch

1. That the respondents and each of them perform and observe the rules of the Union by ceasing to recognize as valid any acts done pursuant to or consequential upon a decision of the Federal Executive of the Union on or about 29/3/1978

of members of the Union, being Lines Staff employed by the Australian Telecommunications Commission (Telecom Australia) upon certain questions set out later herein.

2. That the respondent Field perform and observe the rules of the Union by taking no further steps to conduct continue or complete the plebiscite

of members of the Union being Lines Staff employed by Telecom Australia, upon the said questions.

3. That the respondent Whinfield perform and observe the rules of the Union by taking no further steps to conduct continue or complete the plebiscite of members of the Union, being Lines Staff employed by Telecom Australia, upon the said questions.

4. That the respondents and each of them perform and observe the Rules by treating as null and void .all acts done in connection with the conducting of a plebiscite of members of the Union being Lines

(a) Conference or the Federal Executive, when either of them deems fit or when so directed by three Branches shall take the opinion of members upon any question or

when the question concerns any particular group, the opinion of members of that group,

by submitting same to a plebiscite to be taken within three months of the receipt of the requisite direction.

(b) The General, Returning Officer shall conduct all plebiscite ballots. He shall appoint a Deputy Returning Officer for each Branch, with the exception of the Branch at the seat of government, where he shall conduct the ballot himself.

(c) The Deputy Returning Officer appointed shall conduct the ballot of the membership of the Branch allotted to him, and he shall be subject to such directions and instructions as are issued by the General Returning Officer.

(ad) All members of the union or when the question concerns any particular group, all members of that group, who are financial on the date on which it was resolved that the plebiscite be taken, shall have the right to vote in that plebiscite and

the General Secretary-Treasurer shall, upon request of the General Returning Officer, supply him with

(e) The General Returning Officer shall cause to be posted to each Deputy Returning Officer a sufficient number of ballot papers (each of which shall be initialled by the General Returning Officer) and officially addressed envelopes to supply members entitled to a vote or votes within the Branch allotted to him, together with such directions

(f£) All ballot papers returned to a Returning Officer shall be deposited by such Returning Officer in a receptacle which shall be locked and sealed and not opened till 9 a.m. on the day following the date on which the ballot is declared closed.

(h) All votes recorded that clearly express the intention of the voter for or against shall be accepted.

(i) To ensure that the secrecy of the ballot shall not be violated, the Returning Officer shall open

all ballot paper envelopes in the presénce of the scrutineers before proceeding with tte counting

(3) As soon as the result of the ballot is ascertained the same shall. be communicated

to the General Returning Officer, who shall communicate same to the General Secretary- Treasurer, together with a full report of

the whole proceedings, who shall communicate the final result of the ballot as a whole to each Branch with as little delay as possible.

(k) If the question (or questions) submitted to a plebiscite is or are carried in the affirmative, such action shall be immediately taken by the Federal Executive as is necessary to give effect to such decision.

The underlining in r.2l(a) and (d) is made for reference

The members of the union shall be classified and constituted into two groups in the following manner :

1. Telecommunications Group - All members employed by the Australian Telecommunications Commission.

2. Postal Group - All members employed by the Australian Postal Commission.

Staff employed by the union as Research Officers , and Industrial Officers shall be classified as belonging to the Postal Group, unless immediately before accepting employment in these positions they were employees of the Australian Telecommunica- tions Commission.

The claimant was at all material times employed as.a Clerical Assistant, Grade 4 by Telecom Australia so that he was classified pursuant to r.32 as a member of the Tele-

Within the Telecommunications Group of the Union are members who carry out various duties. The bulk of the membership in this group comprises the Lines Staff. The evidence is that the Union consists of some 45,000 members attached to Branches in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland,

South Australia, West Australia and Tasmania. Of this

membership approximately 25,000 belong to the Telecommunications Group. Of this group of 25,000 members a percentage said to

be about 92% are Lines Staff and the balance are members carrying out clerical, cleaning, canteen and other duties. Alternatively, members within the Telecommunications Group carrying out duties other than Lines Staff duties total approximately 2,000 whilst those' carrying out Lines Staff

Prior to 1 July, 1975, the registered name of the organization was the Australian Postal Workers Union. Its members were employed by the Postmaster-General's

On 1 July 1975 the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the Australian Postal Commission came into existence. Both Commissions are separate legal entities and the members of the former organization then became employees of either one or other of the two Commissions. At this time the former organization, pursuant to the Act, changed its registered name to the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union and also amended its rules so as to meet the new restructuring of the Postmaster-General's Department and the creation of the two Commissions.

For many years commencing even before, the establishment of the Australian Telecommunications Commission the Union and either the Postmaster-General's Department or Telecom Australia as employer had been negotiating a new Line Staff structure which involved (inter alia) questions of reclassification of Line Staff employees and new bases on which salaries were to be fixed. From time to time articles dealing with these negotiations were published in the Union journal. Such articles indicated that before the implementation of any new Line Staff structure by the employer, the employer was insisting that the views of the

Line Staff employees as to any new structure be taken.

Such articles indicated that such view would be taken

Rule 21 as set out above has been in that form since 1969. Prior thereto the rule did not include

(a) Conference or the Federal Executive, when either of them deems fit and/or when so directed by three Branches, shall take the opinion of members upon any question by submitting the

same to a plebiscite to be taken within three months of the receipt of the requisite direction.

Further, from 1969 up until 1 July 1975 when the two Commissions came into existence r.32 provided that the members in the New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland Branches shall be classified and constituted into four groups namely, (1) Linesmen Group; (2) Mail Officers Group; (3) Postal Group; and (4) General Group. Each of the above four groups were made up of many various classifications. The General Group consisted of Licence Inspectors, Clerical Assistants, Garage Attendants, Motor Drivers, Cleaners, Workmen, Kitchenmen, Cooks etc.. During this time r.32 further provided that the members in the South Australian, Western Australian and Tasmanian Branches may by a decision of a General Meeting adopt four groups as referred to above, otherwise there was to be three groups namely,

(1) Linesmen Group; (2) Mail Officers Group; and (3)

In the interpretation of these Rules the following definitions shall be taken as a guide:

(e) "Group" means the members of the Union classified and constituted by Rule 32.

(£) "Group Representative" means a representative 'elected from the members comprising a Group by the means provided for in Rule 31, 37 or 372A. a

(g) "Plebiscite" means the sense of the membership of the Union ascertained on appeal to such members

of a Branch ascertained on appeal to such members as provided by Rule 41.

above set out/in the present r.21 were inserted in 1969 to avoid

On 28 February 1978 a telephonic vote of 1 Executive of the Union was taken on the following

motion proposed by the General Secretary/Treasurer (G. Slater)

a plebiscite of all members involved in the Lines Staff Re-Structure be conducted in order to obtain a decision on the proposals of Telecom Australia,

the plebiscite paper also provide the opportunity to members to vote in favour or against the promotion and higher duties policy set out in paragraph 20 of the final response from Telecom Australia; and

the motion as set out above was carried on 28 February 1978.

The Federal Executive of the Union met in on 6 and 7 March 1978. The minutes of the

on progress on the Lines Staff Restructure and outstanding matters, e.g. Lineman (pepot),

; "METHOD OF VOTING - place « a cross (x) '(according to your choice) in ONE of 'thet two.

• squares opposite each question. .

Should the union accept the proposed new lines staff structure? © --rf1 See

The proposal of Telecom Australia provides that selection for promotion in the new structure will be on the basis of "the more or most efficient

officer." In the event of equality of efficiency the senior officer shail be selected.

This will also apply to temporary transfers involving higher duties.

_ All promotions shall be open to appeal. ; . LO YES LI

Should the union accept the above promotion conditions? NO - [|

When you have exercised your vote, fold the plebiscite paper and insert it in the addressed envelope provided and post it. No postage is required.

The Plebiscite closes at noon on Tuesday, 23/5/1978. /;

Radio Linemen, Technical Instructors, training courses, Cable Assigners duties

and Drafting Structure, the Federal Executive decision to conduct plebiscite and the . composition of the plebiscite paper, and

to recommend acceptance on a "without prejudice" basis, and the updating of

A Special Meeting of the Federal Executive of the Union was held in Melbourne on 29 March 1978. The

"That action proceed on the plebiscite for the Lines Staff Structure and that the plebiscite close at 12 noon, Tuesday, 23rd May 1978."

The form of the questions in and the layout of the plebiscite paper was approved at this Special Executive

Oral evidence was given by the Federal General Secretary/Treasurer of the Union, Mr George Slater. He stated that at this special meeting he read a type-written draft of the proposed recommendation referred to in the third part of the resolution carried by the Executive on 28 February 1978. He further stated that he raised the question at the Special Executive Meeting whether a two-sided paper should be issued with a "Yes" case and a "No" case published therm but after discussion the matter was not pursued further as "it would be silly for the Executive to issue a "No" case pamphlet when in fact it was recommending a "Yes" vote to the proposed question No.1] in the plebiscite." Mr Slater further stated that at that meeting of the Federal Executive the representative of the South Australian Branch (Mr Roe) indicated that South Australia would be opposing the acceptance of the new structure and that that Branch Executive would

In a publication dated April 1978 comprising some 52 pages and headed Staff Information Bulletin issued by Telecom Australia and addressed to all Lines Staff was information concerning "New Lines Structure - Latest Position". The distribution of this bulletin was stated to be addressed "To all Lines Staff". Distribution: All Line Depots (One to each party or work-site), All Lines Schools (One to each Supervisor for circulation), Lines Supervisors, Line Inspectors, Engineering Section Managers, Senior Engineers (External Plant), Sectional Administrative Officers, District Telecommunications Managers, External Plant Managers, Administration Managers, State Establishments Sections.

"Since the issue of the Staff Information Bulletin Gated 1 July 1977, a number of variations to the proposed structure have been made following further negotiations with the APTU. The APTU's position has always been that the final decision on the

acceptance of the structure would be one for its members to take. The Union's Federal Executive is now sufficiently satisfied with the overall concept and key features of the structure to recommend its acceptance at a plebiscite to be held shortly.

Many of you may now no longer have a copy of the last Bulletin and in any case some of that information is out of date. This issue is a completely updated version which is to ensure that you are all fully informed upon the Structure as now proposed. "

By 1 May 1978 Mr Field the General Returning Officer had forwarded to the Deputy Returning Officers of each of the Branches other than the New South Wales Branch sealed envelopes addressed to "members eligible to vote in the plebiscite". Mr Whinfield the Deputy Returning Officer of the New South Wales Branch received the sealed envelopes addressed to the members of that Branch from Mr Field on or about 4 May 1978. Each Deputy Returning Officer was to make arrangements to have such sealed envelopes received by him posted. The envelopes addressed to those members of the New South Wales Branch were posted on 5 May 1978.

An order nisi dated 28 April 1978 was first granted herein. Such order nisi sought the orders 1,2 and 3

On 5 May 1978 the Federal Executive having noted the Court proceedings and that an amount of $13,000 of members funds had by then been spent on the plebiscite, resolved that the plebiscite proceed in any event as a consultative one without

prejudice to the question of its validity under r.21.

Some time after 5 May 1978 the New South Wales Deputy Returning Officer ascertained that each of the sealed envelopes forwarded by him to those members of the New South Wales Branch contained :- (1) a reply-paid envelope addressed to

the Deputy Returning Officer at a post office box number in Sydney.

(2) a plebiscite ballot paper in the form set'out above.

Lines Staff members of the APTU will decide in this plebiscite whether the union accepts or rejects the proposed restructure, The Federal Executive of the union recommends 2 ES" vote bearing in mind that acceptance of the new structure and salaries would be on

It means that the APTU has made it clear to Telecom Australia that there are certain features in the proposed restructure on which |, the union intends to continue to fight for improvements. Members will have noted, for "exarnple, that in the Newsletter from the

"eneral Secretary (Issue: February 1978) Telecom Ausiralia's final Response was published wid it stated, in paragraph 18, that "Telecom is prepared to implement the saiaries without

'ejudice to the APTU arguing salaries before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission." So far as salaries are concerned members have our assurance that the union will use wnatever powers are available, subject only to the endorsement by the members themselves, to correct any and all injustices. If this necessitates industrial action, presentation of a case to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, or both, such actions will be taken.

'But it is not salaries alone, important as they are, on which the struggle for improve- ments will continue if and when the restructure is implemented. Although significant gains have been won, we are still far from satisfied with some specific features. These, to name a few, include the future for Drafting Assistants, the final decision on Radio Linemen, further . efforts to upgrade ell Depot Clerks to LS2, satisfactory integration into the structure of Instructors, strict policing of the functions of Cable Assigner and a proper adherence to the

agreernent on permanent appointment for temporaries. The union will also seek to have designated functions inserted in the Award. ;

As stated earlier, the Federal Executive recommends a "YES" vote to the question : velether the proposed Lines Staff Structure should be accepted. Telecom Australia has : i reached its final point and refuses to move any further, On balance, we believe the proposal : should be accepted ''without prejudice" to the union continuing its efforts to gain improve- ments subsequent to implementation.

The second question in the plebiscite is whether members accept the decision of Telecom Australia that promotions and higher duties shall be based on "the relative efficiency of officers.' If the "YES" vote is carried this will, in effect, change the union policy as it affects Lines Staff members from promotion by seniority to promotion by efficiency. : :

• The Federal Executive has not made a recommendation on the second question as there are clearly two schools of thought, each having valid and logical reasons in support of ;

On 17 May 1978 the claimant herein made application pursuant to s.141(2) seeking interim orders. This application came on for hearing on 22 May and 23 May 1978 when the Court stated :-

of the document in the sealed envelope containing the ballot paper. We further take the view

The effect of that would be that in New South Wales and Victoria the ballot papers would be held unopened in the custody of a bank until further order of the court. In other branches the deputy returning officers would be entitled to proceed to open the ballot papers, count the results and advise the genmral returning officer of those results. He would not, however, communicate those results to the general secretary until further order of the court."

During the hearing of the substantive matter on 14 June 1978 Mr Field stated that the General-Secretary Treasurer Mr Slater had discussed with him the distribution of the pamphlet setting out the Federal Executive's recommendations. He was not sure at what point of time such discussion took place but he accepted full responsibility for the inclusion of this pamphlet in the envelopes. Further Mr Slater stated in evidence that although a draft of the recommendation was placed before the Federal Executive on 6 March 1978 he had not informed the members of the Executive that it was intended that such pamphlet would be circulated in the same envelope as the plebiscite ballot paper. He further stated that at no stage thereafter did he tell the members of the Executive that the said document

Oral evidence was also given by Mr Hopkinson, Assistant Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Union and the claimant. Such evidence shows that there

were at all material times members who held contrary views to that recommended by the Federal Executive in respect of the first question set out in the plebiscite paper and confirms that there are two schools of thought

Mr Kenzie who appeared for the claimant argued that there was no power in the Federal Executive to conduct a plebiscite amongst members of the Union other than in accordance with r.21 and that pursuant to that rule a plebiscite can only be conducted amongst the members of a group as defined. Accordingly a plebiscite of members of the Lines Staff forming a section of a group

'as defined is not permissible under the rule and there being no residual power in the Federal Executive to conduct such a plebiscite the same was contrary to the

Further the claimant argued that in any event the insertion of the document setting out the recommendations of the Federal Executive in the envelope containing the

plebiscite ballot papers vitiated the so-called plebiscite.

Mr P. Munro who appeared for certain respondents other than the New South. Wales Branch representatives on the Federal Executive, argued that as there was only two groups (as defined) within the Union at all relevant times the words

"any particular group" in r.21(a) was ambiguous and accordingly

the Court should when construing the rule consider that rule and r.32 - Classification into Groups - at times before the

Mr Munro further argued that the word "group in the phrase in "any particular group" in r.21(a) not being spelt with a "G" meant something other than "Group" as defined. He contended that it was synonymous with the

We turn first to the question of the validity of the plebiscite which was held. The first of two major grounds of attack is that the plebiscite was held among part only of the employees of Telecom Australia not being a group of members as defined by the rules. This attack

In the rules "Group" is defined as meaning the members of the Union classified and constituted by r.32 and.that rule provides that there shall be two groups, one of which is the Telecommunications Group being all members employed by Telecom Australia. It was put to us that in the definition clause group appears with a capital"c"while in r.21 dealing with the plebiscite the word appears without a capital'G: This however cannot be relied upon to suggest that in the rules the words in the two forms necessarily have different meanings. In the definition clause the draftsman has done no more than follow the normal practice in, for example, statutes, by putting the word defined with an initial capital letter and in inverted commas. Group as used in r.21 means a group

as defined in r.4 and consequently set out out in r.32.

It was further submitted that by the use of the phrase "any particular group" reference was clearly made to more than two groups and consequently groups so referred to could not be limited to those specified in r.32. We are quite unable to accept this interpretation. The expression "any particular group" taken by itself does carry some slight suggestion that more than two groups are in contemplation. However, construing this provision in its position in the rules and in particular by reference to r.4 and 32 this suggestion

Mr Munro invited us to say that it introduces ambiguity that would justify a reference to the history of the rule in question. However, when the history of the rule

• 13- is looked at it is seen that these particular words "any particular group" came into the rules at a time when in accordance with then r.32 there were more than two groups of members in the Union. All that has happened is that r.32 has been amended to provide that there shall only be two groups and it has not been thought necessary to amend r.21 by changing the expression "any particular group" into some expression which would more reflect the fact that in accordance' with the rules as they at present stand there are only two groups. It is quite impossible to regard the words taken separately or the phrase taken as a composite

phrase as involving the meaning that the groups must be more

It is common ground that at least 74% of the members of the Telecommunications Group in the Union were not sent ballot papers in the plebiscite. This being so the

plebiscite was not properly conducted in accordance with rule 21.

The second ground of attack is that there was inserted in the one envelope addressed to the member a ballot paper, a return envelope addressed to the Returning Officer and a further document. This further document was inserted in the circumstances we have outlined earlier. It purports to be a recommendation by the Federal Executive. It treats the question in respect of which a vote is sought as being whether the offer of Telecom Australia should be accepted "without prejudice". This distorts the question actually submitted for the vote and could cause gross misunderstanding of the effect of a vote if it were believed to be cast in respect of the question actually posed. In addition this document distinguishes between the first and second questions in respect of which a vote is sought by stating that there are legitimate differing points of view in relation to the second question and so inferring that there is no room for

differences of opinion in respect to the first question. On

these grounds it urges a yes vote as being the necessary consequence of a proper consideration of the issues. . Clearly the document was a propaganda sheet and a very influential one. It was distributed by insertion in the envelope which ensured its receipt by all voters. The usual method of circulating documents to members of the Union has been to forward them to representatives for distribution by them. Since members are widely scattered and indeed said to be in every hamlet in Australia a clear advantage for those members

of the Executive in pursuit of a Yes vote was gained by the

The duties of the Returning Officer in a plebiscite are specified in r.21 and r.2l(e) requires him to forward ballot papers and officially addressed return envelopes to Deputy Returning Officers for them to supply to members. This in our view not only specifies what is to be included but contains a clearly implied prohibition against including any other matter and we are satisfied that there was consequently a breach of

Looking at this question by reference to considerations of principle we consider it plain that there is a duty on the part of.a Returning Officer pursuant to rules such as r.21 and indeed in all cases in which a free vote of members is sought for the purpose of ascertaining the opinion of members, that the Returning Officer should consider himself as an official at arms length from those members of the organization having any interest in the vote going one way or the other, so that, in all aspects of the machinery for the taking of the vote the taking of a free vote

is achieved, uninfluenced by any propaganda in the machinery.

taken in breach of the rule and orders should be made accordingly.

It was put by Mr Munro that if the steps which were taken were not validly taken so as to constitute the taking of a plebiscite pursuant to r.21 and accordingly would not require the Executive to take steps to implement the opinion expressed in the vote (see r.21(k)), nevertheless as

a procedure to seek the opinion of Lines Staff members it was an administrative exercise which was not inherently unlawful.

It was said that if on the counting of the votes there were found to be @ majority of "yes" votes on the first question, then, although properly understood that vote would constitute merely a vote of approval of an Executive recommendation that the proposal of Telecom Australia be accepted on a "without prejudice" basis, it would have value as such to the Executive. Also, should there be a "no" vote of any significance, knowledge

thereof would have considerable value to the Executive.

It is our view that the procedure having been conducted as a plebiscite pursuant to rule 21 it would normally be appropriate that obedience to the rules would require that the whole procedure be treated as invalid. In such a case it 'would not be appropriate that the voting pattern.-therein should be revealed. However, the Court is responsive to the practical considerations referred to.above, and is of the opinion that reference to the voting pattern, if accurate and properly understood and treated would be of value to the Executive and

would not misinterpret the significance of the vote.

who appeared It is in these circumstances that the respondents /

urge. that the Court should exercise the discretion which resides in it in the jurisdiction conferred by s.141 of the Act to refrain in proper circumstances from making any order at all. For the respondents it was stated to the Court that they

accept, unequivocally, that in the circumstances the vote

taken was a vote on whether the Federal Executive recommenda- tion that the proposal of Telecom Australia be accepted on a without prejudice" basis, that, in other words, it was the Executive recommendation to that effect which went before the

We are of the opinion however that it would not be appropriate in this case, to refrain from making an order that the rules be obeyed by treating what has been done as an exercise of the authority to conduct a plebiscite pursuant to

s We think it important to emphasise that the clear

intention of the statute is that there should be representative and democratically controlled organisations and that the. Court should encourage the full participation by members of the organisation in its affairs.

It is: fundamental to the existence of a democrat- ically controlled organisation that it should have its own rules. These are laws made by the organisation dealing with the rights and obligations of members and their con- trolling bodies. They are in almost all respects laws which the body is entitled to make as it wishes. Having made them, it seems to us imperative that there be except in rare cases adherence to them. There cannot be a' democrat- ically controlled organisation in which members may prop- erly participate if the laws made for its government can be set aside or flouted at will and this is as true of unions as of other bodies. There are ready methods available to alter the rules if a proper case arises but members are placed in an impossible position when seeking to partic- ipate in the affairs of the organisation if they do not know whether controlling bodies will observe the rules or

net. However, in this case it is possible to make an order in terms which will secure to the union such benefits as may accrue to it by ascertaining whether or not members of the lines staff approve or disapprove the recommendation of the Executive that the Telecom Australia offer be accepted on

rules of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union,

rule 21 of the rules of the Union during the months of March and April 1978; and

by treating the first question submitted to the lines staff in the conduct of such alleged plebiscite as if it had been expressed in the following terms, namely --.. Do you approve of the recommendation of the Executive that the Union should accept the new lines staff structure proposed by Telecom on a 'without prejudice basis": and

by treating any affirmative votes cast by members of the lines staff in respect of the first question as

expressing approval/ of the recommendation of the Executive in the terms set out above and not otherwise; and

by treating an affirmative vote in respect of the second question submitted to members of the lines staff in the conduct of such alleged plebiscite as an expression of opinion of members of the lines staff only and not otherwise; and

by treating the votes cast in respect of the first question and the second question submitted in the conduct of the alleged plebiscite as being part of a consultative survey which may be used, only to enable the Executive to reach a decision as to the acceptance or rejection of the new Lines /Structure referred to in the first question

and the proposal referred to in the second question.

And it is further ordered that the interim order of

this Court made herein on the 23rd May, 1978 be and the same is hereby vacated.