Bucknall, Gary Thomas v Printing & Kindred Industries Union

[1981] FCA 24

-. c;i'l'c.I!"G!'.l3s

I n d u s t r i a l l a w - e l e c t i o n i n q u i r y - ss. 159 , 170

Conci l . i a t ion and Arbl t ra t ion	__	Act	-	e l l g l b i l i t y t o
n o m i n a t e	f o r p o s i t i o n	-	r cqu i r e r r en t	fo r con t inuous

f lnnncia l membersh ip over a p e r i o d of time -

Pr	in	t	ing	and	Kjndred	Indus t r ies Union , k 'es tc rn
Aus t r a l i an Branch Ru les 18 ,	2GB(G)	( b ) ,	Unlon	Rule	15	-

whcthe r pe rmis s ib l e t o b r i n g c h a l l e n c e t o r u l e s of

u n i o n w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c l c c t l o n i n q u i r y - whether

eligibility r u l e s a r c o p p r e s s i v e , u h r e a s o n a b l e o r u n j u s t

5.140 - C o n c i l i a t i o n a n d __. __ Act. A r b i t r a t i o n

GhRRY TH0:"AS BUCYJALL and t h e PEINTlNG A N I KINDKED IIWJSTRILS

W.A. No. 8 of 1980

CORN!. TOOHEY J .

March 1981

DARWIN .

- IN 7'11E Yi4TTCR of t h e C o n c i l ~ a t j o n

anF/i-rbltrati-on Act 1904

AhQ IT; THE FlkTTER of an

A ~ p ~ l ? - ~ t ~ ~ i i	byL<rry Thomas Rucl.nal1
f o r a n I n q u i r y	i n t o a n E l e c t i o n 111

t h e 1'RlNTING AND KIt<DKCIJ IIWIISTKI_CS

U N I O N

(l? No. 250 of 1980)

AND IN THE MATTER of a Reference of

s G c h f T F i + Z Z F i % T b y t h e I n d u s t r l a l

R e g i s t r a r	t o	t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t o f
Australia
C O I W I	TOOHEY	J

REASOXS FOR - JUDGlEh'T _-

I n form t h i s i s en app l i ca t ion unde r s.159 of the

- Conc i l i a t ion and Arb i t r a t ion Ac t - 1904 f o r a n i n q u i r y by the

C o u r t i n t o a c l a i m t h a t t h e r e h a s hecn a n i r r e g u l a r i t y i n o r

i n connec t ion v1 th an e l cc t lon t o t h e o f f l c e of o r g a n i s e r i n

the P r i n t i n g and Kindred Industr ies Union, Western Austral ian

Branch. I t emerged h o m v e r a s 2 c h a l l e n g e t o r u l e s of t h e

o r g a n i s a t i o n , on the g round tha t t hey were oppres s ive ,

unreasonable o r u n j u s t .

The e l e c t i o n was conduc ted by the Indus t r l a l Rcg l s t r a r

pu r suan t t o s.170 of the Act In such a case t he Cour t i s

no t r equ i r ed to p roceed wi th an inqu i ry unde r s .159 "un le s s i t

i s	s a t i s f i e d t h z t t h e r e	1 s	reaqonahle	ground	for	the
appl ica t ior l "	( s . 1 5 9 ( 4 )	p a r a . ( b ) ) .	I	d o , n o t	r e a d	t h i s

p r o v i s i o n as o b l i g i n g t h e C o u r t t o s a t i s f y i t s e l f t h a t

there i s r easonab le p o u n d f o r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n b c i o r e

proccedinf: vi th an Inqui ry . Cf . - Re- Federated -. _- Liguor - __ - and

All ied 1nduC;tr jcs	E p l o y e c s '	Union of Aus t ra l ia ;	Ex	p a r t e
-	~
Huxtablc	(1979)	40 F . L . R .	4 1 8 a t p . 4 2 3 .	Rather it provide:. L

t h e means by v h i c h , i n t h e c a s e o f a conduc ted e l ec t ion , t he

Court necd not embark upon a t ine consuming and expensivc

i n q u i r y i f j t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e i s no reasonable ground

fo r do ing s o .

I n t h e p r e s c n t c a s e t h e f a c t s z r e v i t h i n a narrow

compass and hard ly in d i spute . I t seemed t o me q u i c k e r j n

t he long run to t ake the ev idcnce and hear the argument .

Mr. Ducknall has been a mcqlber o f t h e P r i n t i n g

and Kindred Indus t r ies Union s ince 27 September 1373. He

has been an ac t ive member, h o l d i n g o f f i c e as a t r u s t e e o f

t h e b r a n c h a n d f i l l i n g a t e m p o r a r y p o s i t i o n o f a s s i s r a n t

o r g a n i s e r , n o t i t s e l f a n o f f i c e . A s well he has been a

d e l e g a t e from the Gover rmen t P r in t ing Of f i ce to the b ranch

board of management.

L a t e l a s t y e a r n o m i n a t i o n s were c a l l e d f o r t h e

p o s i t i o n o f o r g a n i s e r w i t h i n t h e I k s t e r n Australian Branch

of	the	Union .	M r .	Bucknall	completed	a nomination	which
was	r e c e i v e d	by	t h e	A u s t r a l i a n	E l e c t o r a l	O f f i c e .	S h o r t l y

a f t e r , t h e r e t u r n i n g o f f i c e r w r o t e t o Mr. Rucknall drawins

h l s a tLcn t ion to Eranch Ru le 2 G E ( 6 ) ( b ) wh ich r equ i r e s a s

a c o n d i t i o n o f e l i g i b i l i t y t o nomin‘lte f o r t h e p o s i t l o n

of o r g a n i s e r that t h e E m b e r of the Eranch has been

f i n a n c i a l f o r a t l east 3 c o n s e c u t ~ v e y e a r s i m - n e d i a t e l y

p reced ing the da t e on which nominat ions a re ca l led .

Rule 18 of the Branch Ruleq incorporates Union Rule 15 so >-

as t o i d e n t i f y a n u n f i n a n c i a l member. Union Rule 15 r eads

“(1) A n e n b e r s h a l l b e u n f i n a n c i a l when h i s

u n p a i d c o n t r i b u t i o n s , f i n e s , fees , l e v i e s a n d o t h e r d u e s s e p a r a t e l y a n d l o r

c o l l e c t i v e l y a n o u n t t o t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f

o r more than the aggrega te amount of t h e

con t r ibu t ions wh ich the member i s r e q u i r e d

t o pay pu r suan t t o Ru le 10 of these Rules

f o r a p e r i o d of th i r t een (13 ) weeks o r

one (1) q u a r t e r ” .

The returning o f f i c e r r e f e r r e d t o a check of union records

wh ich had d i sc losed tha t Mr. Eucknal l had been unf inanc ia l

f o r t h e q u a r t e r A p r i l t o J u n e 1978. This was the on ly

occas ion on wh ich he had f a i l ed to pay h i s dues on time.

He was on annual leave when t h e c o l l e c t o r c a l l e d f o r p a p e n t .

He made up t h e a r r e a r s l a t e r b u t n o t w i t h i n s u f f i c i e n t t i m e

t o p r e v e n t hlm b e i n g u n f i n a n c i a l i n t e rms o f t he ru l e s .

/

In view of the way the hea r ing p roceeded , i t i s

unnecessary to spend much tjme on a r e c i t a l o f t h e f a c t s .

Through h i s c o u n s e l Mr. Bucknall acknowedged that a t

the t ime of h i s nominat ion he d id not meet the requi rement

o f 3 y e a r s c o n t i n u o u s f i n a n c i a l e l i g i b i l i t y . I am s a t i s f i e d

t h a t h i s f a i l u r e t o pay on the due date was b e c a u s e o f h i s

absence on leave. Equal ly i t i s c l e a r t h a t had he apprec ia ted

t h e i l ? p l i c n t i o n s of t h e r u l e s h e c o u l d o n h i s r e t u r n

frorn l eave have rnadc payment i n such a way as t o p r e v e n t

h l?nsc l f f rom becoming u n f j n a n c i a l .

Counsel f o r Mr. Bucknall conceded t l lat the

r c t u ~ - n j n g o f f i c e r h;?d b e e n c o r r c c t i n r e l e c t j n g t h e

rlomlnat.ion. Once t h i s conccss ion \-as made, t h c q u e s t i o n

>-

i n e v i t a b l y h a d	t o be asked	-	On	!chat	b a s i s	clfd	t h e
a p p l i c a n t	seek	an	inqui ry under	S . l 5 9 of	the	Act?	'.hat

v a s t h e i r r e g u l a r i t y a l l e g e d ?

In r e s p o n s e c o u n s e l r e p l i e d t h a t h i s c l i e n t ' s

c o n p l a i n t	v a s	n o t o f	Lhe	\'ay	i n w h l c h t h e r e t u r n i n g o f f i c e r
had ac t ed bu t	of	t h e	exj s t ence o f	r u l e s	which could operate

t o p r e v e n t t h e a p p l l c a n t f r o m n o c i n a t i n g f o r t h e p o s i t i o n

o f o r g a n i s e r \:hen he had been un f lnanc ia l fo r a pe r iod o f

one quar te r on ly dur ing sone seven years .

A t h r e s h o l d q u e s t i o n m u s t he ansvered . Is i t open

t o t h e C o u r t , w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f a n a p p l i c a t i o n u n d e r

s .159 , t o cons ide r an a t t ack upon t h e r u l e s b a s e d upon the

p r o v i s i o n s	of	F. 140?	I f	It	i s open,	I	have no hes i t a t ion
i n	d o i n e	s o .	I	canvassed t:ith	c o u n s e l	f o r	t h e	a p p l i c a n t

and the Aus t r a l i an E lec to ra l ' Of f i ce and wi.th the union

whe the r any p re jud ice wou ld r r su l t j.f I d i d None v a s

demons t r a t ed and the pa r t i e s !:ere g iven an oppor tun i ty

t o p r e s e n t a n y f n c t u a l c a t c r i a l t h e y t h o u g h t r e l e x - a n t t o

s . 1 4 0 . Submissions were made on t he ope ra t ion of t h a t

s ec t ion and the un ion d i d n o t s u g g e s t t h a t i t was unable

t o do j u s t i c e t o i t s c a s e . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e exercise

o f d i s c r c t i o n	was	r e l e v a n t , t h e r e	was	e v e r y t h i n g t o	l e
s a i d	fo r	h e a r i n g t h e e n t i r e t y o f	Nr.	Bukknal l ' s	compla in ts
a n d d e a l i n g w i t h	t h e n r a t h e r	t h a n I n v i t i n g	him	to	l aunch

f resh p rocecdinGs based upon s .140 . T h i s hnwevcr does not

answer the ques t ion - Ts i t p e r m i s s l l l e t o h e a r a c h a l l e n g e

t o r u l e s w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n

e l e c t i o n i n q u i r y ?

I t i s now e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i t i s unnecessa ry to

I n v o k e e x p r e s s l y t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s . 1 4 0 o r t o a d o p t t h e

machinery which the Act and Regula t ions providr for a

c h a l l e n g e b a s e d u p o n t h a t s e c t i o n so long as t h e o p e r a t i o n

and	e f f e c t	o f	s . 1 4 0	are	r e l e v a n t	to	t h e p r o c c e d m g i n h a n d .
Lcvcridge v . -.	Shop	D i s t r i b u t i v e	and	Al l ied	EmplTees '	-	- __

Association (1977) 31 F.L.R. 385	a t p .425 , Al lcn	_. -v.	Townsend
-- -__

(1977) 31 F.L.R. 431 a t p .481 ,LovelJ v . _- Federated __ Liquor and --

All ied Indus t r ies Employees ' Union of - ._ Aust-ralia (1978)

22 A .L .R . 704 a t p.740 and-Re Federated _ _ Liquor and All icd .

I n d u s t r i e s - Employees ' Union of Austral ia ; Ex par t e Hux tab le

s u p r a a t p p . 4 2 6 - 4 2 7 .

It i s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h i s l i n e of a u t h o r i t y t h a t

.

i n the p r e s e n t p r o c e e d i n g s t h e a p p l i c a n t p a y , i n v o k i n g S . 140,

c h a l l e n g e t h e v a l i d i t y o f a r u l e o r r u l e s m d i f successful

a r g u e t h a t t h e r e t u r n i n g o f f i c e r ' s r e l i a n c e upon t h a t rule

o r t h o s e r u l e s c o n s t i t u t e d a n i r r e g u l a r i t y . O f cou r sc

t h i s i n v o l v e s n o c r i t i c i s m of t h e r e t u r n i n g o f f i c e r whose

f u n c t i o n i t i s t o a p p l y t h e rules a s t h e y s t a n d .

As [:as s a i d by E v a t t and Northrop JJ. i n Allen - -- v .

__ Towmscnd s u p r z a t p . 4 8 1 -

I ,

. . . t h e i n v a l l d i t y arising f r o q a non-compliance

w i t h t h c r e a u l r c z c n t s of s .149(1) of the Act

r e s u l t s from t h e operation of t h a t s u b s e c t l o n

i t s e l f	a n d	t h e i n v a l l d i t y	d o e s not	depend	upon
an	ordclr	113ving	hecn	rnadc	I n proccBedings

l n s t i t u t - c d u n d e r t h e p r o v l s l o n s o f S . 140 of

t he Ac t . [bny o r d e r made in p rocc>rd ings o the r

t-han i n p r o c e c d l n g s i n s t i t u t e d u n d e r s . 1 4 0 of

the Act i s binding u p o n t h c p a r t i e s t o t h o s e

proceedings only and opera tes on preceding

f a c t s . hn o r d e r s o made has no e f f e c t s i m i l a r

t o a n o r d c r made i n p r o c e e d i n g s i n s t i t u t e d

under	s.140	of	the Act which ordcr operates	as
from	thr	d d t e o i i t s making and	thereaf te r	I ,
a f f e c t s a n d	i s b ind lng	upon	a l l p e r s o n s	. . .

Thus t h e focus of i n q u i r y s h i f t s f r o m t h c a c t i o n s

of t h e r e t u r n i n g o f f i c e r t o t h e v a l i d i t y a n d o p e r a t i o n of

t h e u n i o n ' s r u l e s .

The a p p l i c a n t ' s c a s e v a s n o t p u t w i t h g r e a t p r e c i s j o n

b u t	he	c a s t h i s n e t b r o a d l y a n d	seemed	t o o f f e r t h r e e b a s e s
o f	c h a l l e n g e	t o	t h e	rules.
1.	The	requi rement	of	t h r e e y e a r s c o n t i n u o u s f i n a n c i a l

e l i g i b i l i t y i s of i t s e l f o p p r e s s i v e , u n r e a s o n a b l e

o r u n j u s t .

2. A l t e r n a t i v e l y i t i s o p p r e s s i v e , u n r e a s o n a b l e o r

u n j u s t g i v e n	the	composition	of	the union	and	i t s
me~rbe r sh ip .

3 . The r e q u i r e v e n t of e l i g i b i l i t y i s oppres s ive ,

u n r e a s o n a b l e o r u n j u s t i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o

Mr. Buckna l l , a person who has a l r eady he ld

o f i i c e i n t h e u n i o n .

I may s a y i m c d i n t r l y t h a t n o c a s e wa5 made o u t

on	t he	s econd	bas i s .	Indeed no	r e a l a t t e m p t	w2s	made	t o
do so.	I n --	L o v c l l v . F e d e r a t e d L i i u o r a n d A l l i e d I n d u s t r i c s '	__ __	-	__	. -	- __ __	__ __
-	Employees'	.	I lnion of Austral ia	_ _ _ --	supra,	Smithcl-s 2nd	E v a t t	JJ .

r c g a r d r d a s r e l e v a n t t o a requi rement of cont inuous

f i n a n c i a l e l i g i b i l i t y , t-he perccntage of members of t he

Vic tor ian Branch of the union who were of less than 2 yea r s

s t a n d i n g a n d t h e f a c t t h a t p r a c t i c e s a d o p t c d by tha t b ranch

r e s u l t e d i n some members, through no f a u l t of t h e i r 01.~1,

be ing i n a r r e a r s a n d i n e l i g i b l e . Eut i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e

no evidence was led by the appl icant to shot . the composi t ion

of	membersh ip of	the Pr in t ing and Kindrcd Indus t r ies '	Union
n o r	was	the re any ev idence r ega rd ing the	l eng th o f o r

tu rnover of membersh ip in the union .

The union i t s e l f tendered an a f f idavi t sworn by

t h e S e c r e t a r y - T r e a s u r e r of the Western Austral ian Branch

showing tha t t he to t a l membersh ip o f t he b ranch was 3146

-

per sons , t ha t exc lud ing pc lmi t memhers , mor tua ry bene f i t

members and exempted members, the nurrbcr was 2768, tha t

t h c p r o p o r t i o n o f u n f i n a n c i a l members r e p r e s e n t e d 16% of

t o t a l membersh ip and tha t t hc p ropor t ion o f un f i -nanc ia l

members r e p r e s e n t e d 16% o f t h o s e c n t i t l e d t o v o t e i n any

b r a n c h e l e c t i o n . B u t o f c o u r s e t h a t s a y s n o t h i n g as t o

the l e n g t h o f t i m e members may h a v e b e e n u n f i n a n c i a l . I f

t h e a p p l i c a n t w i s h e d t o r e l y u p o n s u c h f a c t u a l m a t t e r s i t

was f o r him t o a d d u c e t h e r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l a n d h e d i d n o t

do so.

I t u r n now t o t h e b r o a d p r o p o s i t ~ o n t h a t a n y

r e s t r i c t i o n upon the r l g h t t o n o m i n a t e f o r o f f i c c i n a

union, or a t nuy r a t c -a r aqu i r c12cn t of 3 y c d r s f i n a n c i a l

mPdJCrShip, i s oppressive, unre;jr,onable o r unju:.t I do

50 npprec la t - ing tha t any dcc i s lon can b ind on ly thc

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

i s s u e o f i r r e g u l a r i t y	and	t h a t	I	am	n o t s i t t i n g	as	a
mclxbcr	of	a	c o u r t , h e a r i n g i n	t.he	convent ional	way,	a

challcnze based upon s . 1 4 0 .

The a p p l i c a n t d i d no t advance any au thor i ty i n

suppor t of the broad propos i t ion o thcr than thc judgment

OK Northrop J . i n L o v e l l ' s C a s e . His Honour 's v1Lxcs a r e

-

sumxed up i n t h i s p a s s a g e .

I ,

. . . a l l f i n a n c i a l members of an Organiza t ion

s h o u l d h a v e t h e r i g h t t o v o t e a t a n y b a l l o t

f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e l e c t i n g a p e r s o n t o a n

o f f i c e v i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and . . . any

f i n a n c i a l member of t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n who has

t h e r i g h t t o v o t e i n t h a t b a l l o t s h o u l d b e

e l i g i b l e	t o n o m l n a t e	a?	a	c a n d i d a t e	f o r	t h a t
o f f i c e .	The	o t h e r	f i n a n c i a l	members	must	hen

make a cho ice , be i t w i s e o r unwise" ( a t p . 729).

Smithers and Evat t JJ . f e l t t h e m s e l v c s " u n a b l e t o t a k e so

s t r ic t a view" (p.713).

So f a r as I arr aware there i s n o a u t h o r i t y , a p a r t

from the judgment of Northrop J . j u s t m e n t i o n e d , t h a t g o e s

so f a r as t o s a y t h a t a n y r e q u i r e m e n t of f inanc ia l meEber sh ip

over a per iod o f t ime i s n e c e s s a r i l y u n j u s t , u n r e a s o n a b l e

o r oppres s ive . Indeed t he re are d e c i s i o n s t o t h e c o n t r a r y .

Carvron v . Australian Workers Union ' (1959) 2 F . L . R . 4 5 ,

_-	~	-
\!atson	v.	k u s t r a l j a n
- . __- -- Workers' __ Union - (1967) 10 F.L.R. 3 4 7 ,

LeveriQcc

-- - v. S h o p D i s t r i b u t i v e - _ _ _ - - and A l l i e d EnlplKLees' __

Assoc ia t ion

. - ___ - __ supra p e r Smi thcrs J . a t . p . 3 9 9 a n d L o v e l l ' s Case

I t s e l f a t p . 7 1 5 whcre Smithrrs and Evat t JJ. s a i d

"Accordingly, we do n o t t h i n k t h a t a pe r jod

of r .cmbership	a s a	c o n d l t l o n of	eligibility
f o r s t a n d i n g f o r o f f i c e	1 s	incompatible	wi th

t h c r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n a t u r e	of	r c g i n t e r e d
o r g a n i z a t i o n s " .

R u l e 260 i n i t s p re sen t fo rm v u s jn t roduced in

1 9 7 7 . At t h e tunc t h e I n d u s t r i a l R e g i s t r a r i n c e r t i f y i n g

amcndrccnts t . r o t c t o t h e u n i o n -

"You r l i 1 1 n o t e t h a t I h z v r c c r t l f i e d t h a t p a r t

of a1 t c r e d r u l e 26B v h l c h s i m i l a r l y i n c r e a s c s

t h e	q u a l i f i c n t j o n	a	newbcr	s h a l l possess	i n
o r d c r	t o n o m i n a t e	f o r	t h e o f f i c e	of	o r g a n i s e r

w i t h i n t h e b r a n c h . I took the vier1 t h a t . a s

t h e n e x t o r d i n a r y e l e c t i o n f o r t h e o f f i c e	i s
due in 1980, a l l c u r r e n t members of the	branch

w i l l have an o p p o r t u n i t y of meeting thc more s t r i n g e n t q u a l i f i c a t i o n s p r i o r t o n o m i n a t i o n s

b e i n g c a l l e d a t t h e 1 9 8 0 e l e c t i o n "

( E x h i b i t 11 p . 3 ) .

Thus t h e r u l e is n o t open t o - c r i t i c i s m a s r ende r ing someone

i n e l i g i b l e by r e t r o s p e c t i v e o p e r a t i o n .

C o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t r e f e r r e d n e t o n o b i n d i n g

authori	ty	which would warrant	t	reat	ing Rule 26B(6)(b)	as
o p p r e s s i v e ,	unjust	o r	u n r e a s o n a b l e	111	p r i n c i p l e .	T h a t

would n o t d e t e r m e i f persuasivc argumcnt had been addressed

t o t h i s e f f e c t . A l t h o u g h a r e q u i r e E e n t o f f i n a n c i a l

membership for a t l eas t 3 consccu t ivc yca r s i nmcd la t e ly

preceding nominat ion i s onerous and the union should give

s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o i t s consequences, I am n o t

s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e r u l c o f f e n d s s . 1 4 0 .

I n L o v e l l ' s -_ Case Smithers and Evat t JJ. were

inf lucnced r e q u i r c m c n t not on ly by the cv jdcncc adduced but by the

t h a t a candidate should not have been I n

a r r e a r s d u r i n g 2 4 months p r io r t o nomina t ion when under

t h e r u l e s h e v a s i n a r r e a r s i f he Fa i l ed to pay on the day

on which h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n was payable . That i s n o t t h e

c a s e h e r c . A mcnlber i s n o t u n f i n a n c i a l u n t j l c a u g h t b y t h e

opera t ion of Union R u l e 15 . T h a t r e q u i r e s h i s a r r e a r s t o

cqual or excced t h e con t r ibu t ions wh ich he i s r e q u i r e d t o

pay €or a p e r i o d of 1 3 weeks o r o n e q u a r t e r . Thus n member

c a n n o t l i g h t l y f a l l i n t o a r r e a r s a n d i t i s hard to imagine

h im becoming unf inanc ia l w i thou t r ea l i s inp , t ha t i t vas abou t

t o h a p p e n . I n t h c p r e s e n t c a s e Mr. Bucknal l agrced tha t

t h e r e	was	no reason	why	he could pot have pa id the xe levant
c o n t r i b u t i o n	i n s u f f i c i e n t	t i m e	t o p r e v e n t h i m s e l f	f r o m

becoming	unfinancial	.	That	he	did	not	do so was	I	th ink
-

s imply due to a f a i l u r e t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e e x i s t e n c e a n d

o p e r a t i o n o f t h e r e l e v a n t r u l e s .

F i n a l l y t h e a p p l i c a n t s o u g h t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t

Rule 26B(6)(b) was oppres s ive , un reasonab le or u n J u s t - i n

i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o him i n t h a t h e h a d a l r c a d y h e l d o f f i c e

in the un ion . The b a s i s o f t h i s a r g u m e n t was the dcc i s jon

o f S t . John J . i n Hagger v. w r a t i v e P l a s t e r e r s ' - .___ - -_ i?nd

P l a s t e r W o r k e r s ' F e d e r a t i o n o f A u s t r a l i a (1979) 39 F.L.R. 2 4 5 .

i

But t h a t J c c l s i o n m u s t be r c a d i n t h c c o n t c x t of t he

f a c t s g i v i n g r i r . c t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . The a p p l i c a n t

chn l l cnccd a r u l c p r e s c r j b i n j ; rl q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f 3 y c a r s

f i n a n c i a l c:cr!:Jcrr,hip Lciore c l lg j .b i I l t y f o r n o m i n a t i o n

t o t h e o f f i c e o f S ( ~ C I ~ C - ~ ' I ~ Y - ~ I ' C ; ~ ! . L ~ ~ C ~ o f n branch of thc

o r g a n i s a t ~ o n . He d i d so on the g round t ha t t he ru l e

had r e c c n t l y been l n t r o d u c e d a n d t h a t p r i o r t h c r e t o h e

had, for over 2 y e a r s , a c t e d l n t h e o f f i c e o f s e c r e t a r y -

t r e a s u r c r . S r . John J . c o ~ ~ ~ ~ e n t c d

"It	rill	b e s c e n	t h e r e f o r e	t h a t	i f X I - .	Hageer
o r c n y o f f i c e r	who	has	b c m	t r i e d	'2nd	t e s t e d

i n t h e o f f i c e i s excludcd from a nomlnation.

tvo i r q o r c a n t n a t t e r s a r l s e . F i r s t l y a Ivmber

and a person 1-ho has a c t e d i n t h c o f f i c c loses

h i s r i g h t t o n o c i n a t e . X o r e i c ' p o r t a n t l y t h e

melcbers of a b ra r l ch o f t he o rgen l -~a t ion lose

t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f v o t i n g f o r someone o r n o t

v o t i n g f o r soacone who hes b e e n t e s t e d i n t h e

o f f i c e . In so f a r a s i t c o n s t r i c t s t h e

r i g h t o f members t o so vote and the r i g h t of

the pcrson who h a s a c t e d i n t h e o f f i c e t o

s t a n d f o r e l e c t i o n , I am of Lhe o p i n i o n t h a t

the Ru le a s p re sen t ly f r amed i s oppres s ive ,

unreasonable and unjust:' ( a t p . 2 4 7 ) .

!*h-. Bucknall h a s n o t p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h e p o s i t i o n

o f o r g a n i s e r a l t h o u g h , a s m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r h e d i d a c t i.n

t h e t e v p o r a r y c a p a c i t y of a s s i s t a n t o r g a n i s e r But t h a t

vas	n o t an o f f i c e i n the	un lon ,	He	p r e s e n t l y	h o l d s	t h e	-	-
p o s i t i o n	of	t r u s t e e	i n	t h e h r m l c h a n d	i s	c l l [ ; ih le	to	occupy

t h a t p o s i t i o n . The s i t u a t i o n h e r e i s not an one f I I

ancndmcnt	t o r u l e s h a v i n g t h e e f f c c t	o f	d i s q u a l i f y i n g
f r o m o f f i c e	someone	who	p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h e r e l e v a n t o f f i c e .

H s g e r ' s --- Case i s c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e and i s n o t

a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p ropos i t l on €o r wh ich t he app l i can t con tends . -

I am of the op in ion tha t Ru lc 26E(6 ) (b ) , a l t h o u g h

p r c s c r l b i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l p e r i o d o f f l n a n c i a l e l i g i b i l i t y ,

is n o t o p p r e s s i v e , u n r e a s o n a b l e o r unjust, p a r t l c u l a r l y

when thc circumstance: , undcr vhich a member bcco~nes

u n f i n a n c i a l a r e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . I a m not persuaded

t h a t t h e r e was a n y i r r e g u l a r i t y i n the conduc t of t h e

c l e c t i o n a n d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s h o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d .