CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union

[2015] FWCD 8208

[2015] FWCD 8208

DECISION

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009
s.159—Alteration of other rules of organisation
CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union
(R2015/231)
MR ENRIGHT	MELBOURNE, 11 DECEMBER 2015
Alteration of other rules of organisation.

[1]        On 16 October 2015 the CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union (the Union)

lodged with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) a notice and declaration setting out

particulars of alterations to the rules of the Union.

[2]        The particulars set out alterations to the Chapters A and C rules of the Union (Chapter

A and Chapter C) in order to remove all references to the now-defunct SPSF Queensland

Branch of the Union (the Queensland Branch) and the Queensland Public Sector Union

(QPSU). Specifically, the following changes are proposed.

	In proposed rule 5 (c) of Chapter A by removing the references “The Queensland Public
Sector Union” from the definition.
	In proposed rule 10 of Chapter A by creating a new list of branches of the SPSF Group
that excludes references to the Queensland Branch.
	In proposed rule 1.1 (v) of Chapter C by removing “The Queensland Public Sector Union
of Employees” from the definition of “Associated Body” in the Interpretation Rule.
	In proposed rule in Schedule A of Chapter C by removing the “Queensland Branch” from
the table of Federal Council Delegates for each Branch.

Background

[3]        The proposed alterations remove references to the Queensland Branch and the QPSU

on the basis that the Queensland Branch is now defunct and the QPSU no longer an associated

body.

[4]        The Union provides an explanation in its declaration why it considers the alterations to

be necessary. It states that it continues to incur steep compliance costs relating to the

Queensland Branch and that the proposed rule changes are designed to remove the

Queensland Branch as a reporting unit so that the compliance costs are no longer incurred.

[5]        The Union further submits that the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission

would be aware that the Queensland Branch has no members or officials as the circumstances

by which this occurred was the subject of an inquiry and investigation conducted and

concluded by the Commission.
[2015] FWCD 8208

[6]        The Operating Report of the latest financial report for the Queensland Branch

(FR2015/266) states that, prior to 2011, the QPSU had a legal relationship with the CPSU

(SPSF Group) by reason of its being an “associated body” and that members of the QPSU

were also members of the Queensland Branch. The Operating Report explains that this

relationship ceased due to the amalgamation of the QPSU with another Queensland state

union (the Australian, Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, Central and

Southern Queensland Clerical and Administrative Branch Union of Employees or AMACSU)

and its subsequent deregistration on 1 July 2011.

[7]        The Operating Report asserts that the Queensland Branch has no Committee of

Management, no financial members or employees and has effectively ceased to operate in

previous financial years. The notes to the financial report states that the Queensland Branch

was expected to cease as a reporting unit. The Union’s latest annual report (AR2015/161)

confirms that the Queensland Branch has no current officers.

[8]        Having regard to the information provided in the declaration and in the latest Annual

and Financial Reports, I accept that the Queensland Branch is defunct and that the alterations

have been made in order to formalise the existing structure of the Union.

[9]        I now consider whether the organisation has made alterations in accordance with its

rules.

Reasonable Notice

[10]      Paragraphs 5 to 42 of the application list a series of steps the union has undertaken in

order to comply with its rule altering procedure.

[11]      I note that compliance with the rule altering procedure is a lengthy process requiring

resolutions of a number of bodies to approve the rules alterations. I consider the Union to

have followed their rule altering procedure in order to effect the rule alterations.

[12]      I do note that the meeting with the National Officers’ Committee (the NOC) was held

with 6 days’ notice provided prior to the meeting. Rule 17(f) of Chapter A relevantly provides

that ‘the Joint National Secretaries shall give reasonable notice to all the members of the

NOC’ however the rule is silent to what constitutes reasonable notice. The issue is whether 6

days’ notice can be deemed ‘reasonable notice’.

[13]      The question of what is ‘reasonable notice’ has been dealt with by a number of

1

authorities. In Re Homer District Consolidated Gold Mines Ex parte Smith, stated that in the

absence of a relevant provision in the company’s constitution, the law requires that the period

of notice for convening of the meeting be ‘fair and reasonable’.

2

[14] In Winter v McAdam, Dunphy and Morgan JJ held that ‘the notice should be given in

such a manner as may reasonably be expected to come to the attention of all the members

concerned, and in such time as to give those members a reasonable opportunity of attending

the meeting’. Additionally it has been established that stated that ‘in order to determine what

3

is ‘reasonable’ or ‘adequate’ regard must be had to all the circumstances of the case’.

[2015] FWCD 8208

4

[15] Further in Dusica Moromilov v Sreta Dragicevic, Refshauge J stated that ‘notice has

been deemed adequate when it indicates a time and place as well as the business which will be

transacted’. Moreover Rich J in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Fernandez held that

‘whether the business is stated sufficiently clearly depends upon the meaning the notice would

5

fairly carry to ordinary minds.’ His Honour also clarified that ‘the notice must give fair

warning of the matters to be dealt with. This need not be in the precise terms of the proposed

6

resolution; all that needs be done is to specify the general nature of the business.’

[16]      In this case, an email was sent to all members of the NOC with documents attached

including the proposed agenda, full copies of the amended rules and the minutes of the

Federal Council (attachment “KMB4”). The emails sent provided the date and time of the

meeting and sufficient information as to the proposed alterations. I consider this to be

adequate notice indicating a time and place as well as the business to be transacted. I also

consider this to be notice that could reasonably be expected to come to the attention of the

members of the NOC; and enable them a reasonable opportunity to attend the meeting.

[17]      In addition to the above, it is my opinion that members of the NOC could be said to

have been put ‘on notice’ of the impending rule alterations. It is clear not only that the

Queensland Branch is non-operational, but has been non-operational for a considerable period

of time. In these particular circumstances, the alterations appear to formalise the removal of

all references to the QPSU and the Queensland Branch.

[18]      I therefore consider 6 days’ notice prior to the meeting of the NOC reasonable in the

circumstances.

[19]      On the information contained in the notice, I am satisfied the alterations have been

made under the rules of the organisation.

[20]      On 10 December 2015, the Joint National Secretary, Ms Karen Batt gave consent

under subsection 159 (2) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, for the

Delegate to make various amendments to the alterations for the purpose of correcting

typographical, clerical or formal error.

Accordingly the following correction has been made:

 In rule 10 (d) Chapter A to change the word “SFSF” to “SPSF”.

[21]      In my opinion, the alterations comply with and are not contrary to the Fair Work

(Registered Organisations) Act 2009, the Fair Work Act 2009, modern awards and enterprise

agreements, and are not otherwise contrary to law. I certify accordingly under subsection

159(1) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.
[2015] FWCD 8208

DELEGATE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR574464>

1  th

(1888) 39 Ch D 546, cited in AD Lang, Horsley’s Meetings Procedure, Law and Practice (LexisNexis Butterworths, 7	ed,
2015) at 42.
2
(1957) 1 FLR 201 at 211.
3
Myer Queensland Garden Plaza Pty Ltd V Port Adelaide City Corp (1975) 11 SASR 504 at 99; 33 LGRA 70 (Wells J).
4
[2013] ACTSC 91 (17 May 2013) at para. 38.
5
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Fernandez [2010] FCA 1487 at para. 43 per Rich J citing Henderson v Bank of

Australasia (1890) 45 CH D 330, 337.

6

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Fernandez [2010] FCA 1487 at para. 43 per Rich J citing Ryan v Edna May Junction

Gold Mining Co (NL) (1961) 21 CLR 487, 497.