Legal Research
Cases
Boland v Munro

Boland v Munro

Case [1980] FCA 68 23 May 1980

Control of Committees

Jurisdiction

Amendment of Rules

Compliance with Procedural Requirements

Industrial Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CATCIIWORDS

Industrial law

- organlzatlons - rules - amendment of rules -

compliance vlth procedural requirements

- court’s ~urisdictlon

where Industrial Registrar

hasnot glven a certificate -

control of committees of organlzatlon by members.

Conclliatlon and Arbitratlon Act 1904 ss.132,

133

, 133AA,

139(4), 140, 141.

Conciliation and Arbitratlon Regulatlons reg. 115

Federal Court of Australla Act 1976 s.24.

MICHAEL GERARD BOLAND .5 ORS. v. J. MUNRO & ORS.

N . S . W .

No.

18 of 1979

Coram: Evatt, Northrop and Keely JJ.

I4elbourne

23 Hay 1980.

I N THE

FEDERAL

COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH

WALES

DISTRICT

REGISTRY

N.S.W.

No.

1 8 of 1 9 7 9

I N D U S T R I A L

D I V I S I O N

B E T W E E N :

MICNAEL GERARD BOLAND, PATRICK

REEVES

and KEVIN MULLER

A p p e l l a n t s

( A p p l i c a n t s )

R e s p o n d e n t s ( R e s p o n d e n t s

ORDER

JUDGES MAKING ORDER:

E v a t t , Northrop and Kealy JJ

DATE OF .ORDER:

23 May

1 9 8 0

WHERE MADE :

Melbourne .

ORDER:

A p p e a l

dlsmissed.

I N TIIE FEDERU COURT OF AUSTRqLIh

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT R E G I S T R Y

M.S.W.

No.

18 01 1 9 7 9

INDUSTRIAL

DIVISION

B E T W E E N :

MICIIAEL GERARD BOLAND, PATRICK REEVES,

and

K E V I N

PIULLER

Appellants (Applicants

and

J. HUNRO, J. GODDARD, F. SNIBLEBE,

J . IXJRPHY, T. ARMSTRONG, W. LIVINGSTONE

J. D I L M N , T . CROTHERS,

G .

BRUCE,

J. MORRIS, K . JEFFREY, T. MAHONEY,

D . BAIRD, K . STOCKS, E . FRY, N. BAXTER,

P. EVANS, G . ENDACOTT, K. HILL and

FEDERATED LIQUOR mD ALLIED INDUSTRIES

EhPLOYEES'

U N I O N OF

AUSTRALIA

Respondent: (Respondent5

EVII.TT AND NORTIIROP JJ.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

2 3 PlAY 1 9 8

Thls 1 s an appeal brought under

. 2 4

Federa l

C o u r t

A u s t r a l i a A c t ,

1 9 7 6 ,

a s amended

from

judgment of

the

C o u r t

c o n s t l t u t e d

s l n g l e

j u d g e

and made on 3 A p r i l 1 9 7 9 .

Two

s e p a r a t e b u t r e l a t e d p r o c e e d l n g s

were

hca rd concur ren t ly

t h e

Cour t cons t l t u t ed

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 Boland v Munro

Details

AGLC: Boland v Munro [1980] FCA 68
Case: [1980] FCA 68
Decision Date: 23 May 1980

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Boland v Munro, the appellants, Michael Gerard Boland, Patrick Reeves, and Kevin Muller, appealed against a judgment made by a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The appellants sought orders under sections 140 and 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (the Act) to declare certain rules of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union of Australia (the Union) invalid and to direct the Union and its members to comply with the Union's rules. The primary legal issues were whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the case due to the absence of a certificate from the Industrial Registrar, and whether the Union's rules complied with the Act and the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations. The court found that while the Industrial Registrar's certificate was necessary for the court to have jurisdiction over amendments to the Union's rules, the court could still hear the case regarding the existing rules. Additionally, the court held that the Union's rules did not provide for adequate control by its members over its committees, as required by Regulation 115(1)(d)(v) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations.

The Federal Court of Australia, comprising Evatt, Northrop, and Keely JJ, dismissed the appeal but allowed it in part. The court found that the Industrial Registrar's certificate was a prerequisite for the court to have jurisdiction over amendments to the Union's rules. However, it could still hear the case regarding the existing rules. The court expressed no opinion on the amended rules as they had not come into effect. The court found that the Union's rules did not comply with the Act and the Regulations because they did not provide for effective control by the Union's members over its committees. Although the court agreed that the members had the power to elect committee members, it found that the rules did not ensure that the members could adequately control the committees between elections. The court held that Rule 13A, which allowed for a referendum to be held at the request of members, was not sufficient to meet the requirements of Regulation 115(1)(d)(v) because it depended on the willingness of the Union's officers to hold a referendum. The court held that the Union's rules contravened the Act and the Regulations by failing to provide for the control of committees by the Union's members. The court dismissed the appeal in part and allowed it in part, finding that the Union's rules did not comply with the Act and the Regulations in this regard.

Orders