Boland v Munro

The appeal in Boland v Munro was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, with Evatt, Northrop, and Keely JJ. The case involved an appeal from a decision made by a single judge in two related proceedings. In the first proceeding, the applicants sought a declaration under Section 140 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (the Act) that Rule 11(g) of the rules of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union of Australia contravened Section 140(1) of the Act. In the second proceeding, the applicants sought orders to compel the respondents to comply with the union's rules, to declare that certain resolutions passed by the union's Federal Council were null and void, and to declare that the union's rules contravene Section 140 of the Act. The central issue before the court was whether the union's rules complied with the Act and the relevant regulations, specifically concerning the control of committees by the members of the union.

The court held that the applicants' appeal should be dismissed in part and allowed in part. Firstly, the court found that the Industrial Registrar had not given a certificate under Section 139(4) of the Act, which is a condition precedent to the union's rules having effect. Therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction to make an order under Section 140 of the Act regarding the alteration of the union's rules. However, the court did have jurisdiction to make an order under Section 141 of the Act, which allows a member of an organization to apply for directions for the performance or observance of any of the organization's rules.

Secondly, the court held that the union's rules did not comply with Regulation 115(1)(d)(v) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations, which requires the rules to provide for the control of committees by the members of the organization. The court found that Rule 13A of the union's rules, which provided for a referendum on the actions of the committees, was not sufficient to meet the requirement of the regulation. The court held that a proper measure of control of the committees by the members of the union was not provided by the rules, as the control was dependent on the acceptance of two officers of the union, rather than being exercised directly by the members.

ORDER:

The appeal was dismissed in relation to the orders sought under Section 140 of the Act, as the court did not have jurisdiction to make such orders due to the absence of a certificate from the Industrial Registrar. However, the appeal was allowed in relation to the order sought under Section 141 of the Act, as the court found that the union's rules did not provide for the control of committees by the members, in contravention of Section 140(1) of the Act and Regulation 115(1)(d)(v). The court ordered that the union's rules were to be amended to provide for the control of committees by the members of the union.