Adams, Geoffrey David v M.K. Hill - [1984] FCA 163

C A T C H W O R D S

Industrial Law - application under

s.141 of Conciliation

and Arbitration Act for enforcement

of rules - provisions

of rules relating to election

of delegates to

A.L.P. State

Conference - whether Union State Council

is the constituency

for election nominated by the rules - whether the rules empower the State Councll to select itself as the constituency, and in contrast to election by all financlal

members of the Union in the State

- relevance of s.133 of

the Act - whether "substantial compliance" test is applicable	-
proper exercise of the dlscretion of the Court.

Conclliatlon and Arbitration Act,

1904 - ss.4, 133, 141

Rules of Amalgamated Metal Foundry and Shiprlghts Union

ss. 2, 20, 21, 23, 25

ADAMS V HILL

(No. 1.20 of 1984)

CORAM:

WILCOX

PLACE :	SYDNEY
DATE :	TUESDAY, 19 JUNE, 1934

IN THE FED=	COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)

NEW	SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	1	No.	1.20	of	1984
)

DIVISION

INDUSTRIAL

)

BETWEEN: GEOFFREY

DAVID

ADAMS

Applicant

m: M.K. HILL

AND ORS.

Respondencs

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CORAM :	WILCOX J
IjATE:	19 JUNE, 1984

W: SYDNEY

This i s the return of an order to show cause made by

%.John J on l? May. 1984.

The matter concerns a dispute between members

of the

Tasmanian branch of the Amalqamated Metals Foundry and

- - -

2 .

Shiprights Union as to the method of election of delegates of

the Union

to meetings of the Australian Labor

Party, wlth

which the Union

is affiliated. Affidavit evidence was filed

on behalf both of the applicant and the respondents but

it was

agreed between counsel that

I should deal with the matter by

reference to a statement of aureed facts (Exhibit

B). The

facts set out hereunder

are taken from that source.

The applicant

is a financial member of the Union and

1 s State Secretary of its Tasmanian branch. By virtue of hls

offlce he is a member of the State Council of the Tasmanian

branch.

The remainlncr members of State Councll

are amongst

the respondents to this Appllcation.

The Union is an

organisation registered under the Conclliation and Arbitration

Act.

The practice of the State Council of

the Tasmanian

branch. durin? recent years and untll

28 May. 1984, has been

to choose the Union's delegates to the State Council of the have been appointed to represent the Unlon only at a specified

A.L.P. State Council Meeting. not to hold offlce for

a period

of time.

Nominations for selection, to use

a neutral word, as

a delegate have not been invited from amongst the members of

the Tasmanian branch

of the Union, nor has

a returning officer

3 .

been appointed to conduct the election of such delegates.

All

delegates have been members

of the Tasmanian branch of the

Union. although not necessarily members	of the Tasmanian State
Councll of the Union.

A meeting of the Tasmanian State Council of

the

Australian…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adams, Geoffrey David v M.K. Hill and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1984] FCA 163
Decision Date: 16 Jun 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Adams v Hill revolves around a dispute within the Tasmanian branch of the Amalgamated Metal Foundry and Shiprights Union concerning the method of electing delegates to the Australian Labor Party's (ALP) State Council. Geoffrey David Adams, the applicant and a financial member of the union, sought enforcement of the union's rules, arguing that the union's state council did not have the authority to select delegates to the ALP State Council. Instead, he contended that the delegates should be elected by the entire financial membership of the union. The respondents, including members of the union's state council, maintained that the state council had the power to act as the constituency for the election of delegates.

The court's primary task was to interpret the union's rules and determine whether the state council had the authority to select the delegates or if the election should be conducted by the entire financial membership of the union. The court found that the phrase "arrange for the election" in the union's rules did not grant the state council the authority to act as the constituency for the election. Instead, the court held that the rules implied an election by the entire financial membership.

Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the state council's method of selecting delegates constituted a substantial compliance with the union's rules. It found that the state council's proposed method of selecting delegates did not comply with the union's rules and, therefore, was not a valid method of election.

Ultimately, the court found in favor of the applicant and directed the union's state council to arrange for the election of delegates by the entire financial membership of the union. The court also gave the parties an opportunity to consider the appropriate form of order in light of its conclusions.

Orders