Armstrong v Elliott - [1997] IRCA 241

DECISION NO:241/97

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA

INDUSTRIAL LAW - Performance of rules - power to amend organisation’s rules vested in National Council and also in the Branches - Branches’ power to amend rules related to rules “for its own internal management” - Whether rules concerning timing of Branch elections of a particular branch are rules concerning internal management - Relationship between exercise of power by both National Council and a branch to amend same rules - Whether National Council could modify power of branches to amend rules for internal management.

Workplace Relations Act 1996

Imalach v Daley (1985) 7 FCR 457

JAN ARMSTRONG v ROBERT ELLIOT & ORS

No. VI 1311 of 1997

WILCOX CJ, MOORE, MADGWICK JJ
SYDNEY (heard in Melbourne)

7 AUGUST 1997

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS                 )
  )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA  )  No. VI 1311 of 1997
  )
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY                   )

BETWEEN: Jan Armstrong

Appellant

AND: Robert ELLIOTT, R van AREND, M BARRETT, J BREMNER, L BUTLER, D BYRON, P CLAPHAM, B COFFEY, T CONOULTY,
F CORNFORD, S CRONIN, D DAVIES, D DEWES, KD GEDDES,
H DALTON, K DARVENIZA, T DOLAN, J DRUMMOND, F DYSON,
S EICHENBAUM, P ELLISON, J EVANS, V FAHEY, B GANNINO,
T GARCIA, L GILLETT, G GILLS, B GOULDING, B GUNNING,
M HALL, J HANKINSON, H HARRISON, M HART, R HARVEY,
P HEREWINI, D HILL, H HOPGOOD, P INGWERSEN, J JACKSON,
J JENSZ, J KANARA-HOBSON, E KELLY, J KENNEISON, I KNIGHT,
M MALONEY, W MASSEY, S McCORMACK, W MILES, Z MITCHELL,
J MITCHELL, K MOORE, L MURDOCH, D MURPHY, N MYERS,
J NAVAS, S NOLAN, R O’BRIEN, S POLLARD, J RICHMOND,
G ROGERS, K RYAN, A SHAW, G SHELVERTON, C THOMSON,
M TIMBS, B TOLLEY, T TRACEY, L WALSH, D WHITWORTH,
L WILLIAMS, M WILLIAMSON, A WILSON, B WOODWARD,
C BURNS, C BURNS, R FELTHAM, T HAWKINS, A LILLICRAP,
J MARGAETTS, P MOYLAN, S O’CONNOR, K RUBY, G WEBSTER,
J WILSON, J YAMMOUNI, J MITCHELL and K McINTOSH

Respondents

COURT: Wilcox CJ, Moore, Madgwick JJ

PLACE: Sydney (Heard in Melbourne)

DATE: 7 August 1997

ORDER OF THE COURT

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be allowed.

The preliminary questions be answered are as follows:

1.Do the union’s rules confer on the National Council the power to make the changes which it made by postal ballot notice of which was given on 15 November, 1996 to:
(i)rule 52(e)(i)-(iii);              Yes
(ii)rule 52(e)(iv); and/or                   No
(iii)rule 53(e)(v).  No

5.Does rule 47(d) confer on the Victoria No. 1 Branch the power to make the rule changes to rule 52(e) which it made on:
(i)18 November 1996, Yes
(ii)16 January, 1997. Yes

6.If the answers to any part of question 1 and to any part of question 5 are yes, does rule 47(d) confer on the Victoria No. 1 Branch the power validly to make the rule changes to rule 52(e) which it made after certification of the changes referred to in question 1 on:
(i)18 November, 1996;
(ii)16 January, 1997.

It is unnecessary to answer…

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.

Continue reading Armstrong v Elliott

Details

AGLC: Armstrong v Elliott [1997] IRCA 241
Case: [1997] IRCA 241
Decision Date: 7 Aug 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Armstrong v Elliott involved a dispute concerning the alteration of rules governing branch elections within the Health Services Union of Australia. The primary issue was whether the National Council of the union had the authority to amend the rules regarding the timing and procedures of branch elections, and whether a specific branch could independently amend these rules concerning its internal management. The case was heard by Wilcox CJ, Moore, and Madgwick JJ in the Industrial Relations Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining the validity of amendments made by both the National Council and a specific branch, the Victoria No. 1 Branch. The court found that while the National Council had the power to amend rules applicable to all branches, it could not override the specific branch's power to manage its internal affairs, including the timing of its elections. The court held that the timing of branch elections was a matter of internal management for the branch, and thus the branch had the authority to set its own election schedule. Consequently, the National Council's amendments that sought to override the branch's internal management rules were deemed invalid. The court allowed the appeal and directed that the proceedings be remitted to a lower court for further hearing and orders as appropriate.

Orders