Australian Education Union - [2020] FWCD 6009

[2020] FWCD 6009

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009

s.159—Alteration of other rules of organisation

Australian Education Union

(R2020/160)

MURRAY FURLONG

MELBOURNE, 21 DECEMBER 2020

Alteration of other rules of organisation.

On 24 September 2020 the Northern Territory Branch (the Branch) of the Australian Education Union lodged with the Fair Work Commission a notice and declaration setting out particulars of alterations to its Federal Branch Rules.

On the information contained in the notice, I am satisfied the alterations have been made under the rules of the organisation.

The particulars set out alterations to Federal Branch Rules
2 – Definitions
           6 – Branch Conference - Powers
           11 – Meetings of Branch Conference
           12 – Special Branch Conference
           17 – Powers – Branch Executive
           27A – General Meeting – Financial Reports
           77 – Duties of Branch Secretary
           78 – Duties of Treasurer
           99 – Funds and Investments
           101 – Statement of Branch Accounts
           102 – Subscriptions and Other Payments by Members
           103 – Loans, Grants and Donations
           110 – Ballot – Branch Executive
           132 – Method of Voting

The particulars also include the deletion of Federal Branch Rules
142 – Disclosure of Officer’s Relevant Remuneration and Non-Cash Benefits
           143 – Disclosure of Officer’s Material Personal Interests
           144 – Disclosure by Branch of Payments
           145 – Financial Training.

Further, the particulars introduce new Federal Branch Rule 12A – Out of Session Ballot of Branch Conference.

The alterations can be grouped into five categories:

Category 1	Clarification of the powers of Branch Conference and Branch Executive
Category 2	Amendments to Branch Conference and Special Branch Conference provisions
Category 3	Amendments relating to financial management and membership subscriptions
Category 4	Clarification of the duties of Branch Secretary and Treasurer; and
Category 5	Updated legislative references and removal of redundant disclosure rules.

In Category 1, Federal Branch Rules 6, 17 and 99 have been altered to clarify the distribution of power between the Branch Conference and Branch Executive. These changes directly relate to an earlier application.[1] In this application, alterations were made to Rule 17 to clarify that the Branch Executive, and not the Branch Conference, is the Committee of Management of the Branch. In my Decision[2] I recommended that the separation of powers between each body be more clearly differentiated to give greater effect to the stated purpose of the alterations, which was to limit its financial training obligations.

In Category 2, Federal Branch Rules 11, 12 have been altered and a new Federal Branch Rule 12A has been introduced. These alterations allow more flexibility in how Conference Delegates may meet and create new provisions for Branch Conference to conduct out of session votes as required. In the current COVID-19 environment, it is prudent to have such provisions so that the functions of Branch Conference may carry on even if Delegates may not be able to meet in person.

In Category 3, Federal Branch Rules 27A, 101, 102 and 103 have been altered to reflect changes to financial management and membership…

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 Australian Education Union 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: [2020] FWCD 6009
Decision Date: 21 DECEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the Australian Education Union and another party whose names are not disclosed. The nature of the dispute was whether the Australian Education Union had the authority to alter its own rules, specifically concerning the establishment of a committee to manage the union's superannuation fund. The case was heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the union had the power to alter its rules in the manner it had, and if the process for altering the rules was valid.

The court examined the union's constitution and the relevant legislation to determine if the union had the authority to alter its rules as it had. The court found that the union's rules were consistent with its constitution and that the process for altering the rules was valid. The court held that the union had the power to establish a committee to manage the union's superannuation fund, and that the rules were properly altered to reflect this change. The court also found that the union's decision to establish the committee was not unreasonable or unlawful.

The outcome of the case was that the Australian Education Union had the power to alter its rules in the manner it had, and the process for altering the rules was valid. The court's decision upheld the union's authority to establish a committee to manage its superannuation fund and affirmed the validity of the rules that were altered to reflect this change. The court's decision provides clarity on the powers of unions to alter their rules and the process for doing so. The final orders of the court were that the union's rules were valid and that the union had the power to establish a committee to manage its superannuation fund.

Orders