Grimshaw, Geoffrey Allan v Petrie, Jack

Case [1982] FCA 291

1.

REVTSED FROM TRANSCRIPT

IF THE FEDERAL

COURT

OF

AUSTRALTA

)

1

VJCTORIA

DISTRTCT

REGTSTRY

) No. V.

45 of 1 9 R ?

)

INDUSTRIAL EIVTSION

\

DETVIEEN :

GEOFFRFY

ALLAN

GRTMSHAW

A p p l i c a n t

AND :

JACK PETRIE, JVAN IIODGS@W

a n d

TRANSPORT

WORKERS

'

IJNTON

OF

A U S T R R L I A

R e s p o n d e n t

1 7 DECEMRER,

1382

KEELY J

REASONS FOR

JUDGMEMT

F i r s t l y

I

o v e r r u l e t h e p r e l i m i n a r y

objection

t a k e n

by the r e s p o n d e n t s t h a t Hr.

Grimshaw was

n o t a member

of

t he

T r a n s p o r t Workers'

Union

of

A u s t r a l i a .

As

i n d i c a t e d

t o Mr.

K e n n a n

d u r i n g

t he

h e a r i n g .

I

d o

t h a t

s u b s t a n t i a l l y

f o r

t h e

reasons

given

by

th i s

C o u r t

i n

t h e

r l e c j s i o n

of

T r o j a v

A u s t r a l a s i a n

M e a t

I n d u s t r y

E m p l o y e e s '

U n i o n

( V i c t o r i a n

B r a n c h )

(1978) 23 A.L.R.

19 a n d in

p a r t i c u l a r a t pages

2 4 t o

26 of the report.

L

I n my

v i e w t h e o p l n i o n a s 'CO t h e l a w se t o u t there

q a i n s some

s u p p o r t from a

d e c i s i o n which was

n o t referred

to

i n Trcjja's case r4~icl.1

i s the

d e c i s i o n of

t h e High

C o u r t

I n

S o n s o l j d a t e d

P re s s

L i m j - t e d v

The

A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l l s t s

--

-

2.

A s s o c l a t l o n

(1q471

7 3 C . L . R .

S49

a n d

i n

p a r t i c u l a r

I

h a v e

i n

m i n d

p a s s a g e s

a t pages

S61

t o

S 6 2

i n t h e

j o i n t

j u d g m e n t

o f

R i c h

a n d

W i l l i a n l s

JJ..

Those

p a s s a g e s

were

d i s c u s s e d

i n

d e b a t e

h e r e

ea r l i e r

t o d a y .

A l t h o u g h

they

a p p e a r

i n

w h a t

w

a

s

a

d i s s e n t i n g

~ u d g m e n t ,

t h e i r

H o n o u r s

were

d i s s e n t i n g

o n

a

q u e s t i o n

of

w h e t h e r

a n

appeal l a y a n d

not.

on

t h a t

p a r t i c u l a r

p o l n t .

I t i s t r u e of

c o u r s e ,

it

i s o n l y obrter d i c t u m

b u t

It

is an obi te r d i c t u m of

two members of

the Hiqh Cour t .

The

second

mat ter

i s

t h a t

I

a m

not.

p r e p a r e d

t o

a c c e d e

t o

t h e

e a r n e s t

a n d

v i g o r o u s

s u b m i s s i o n s

u r q e d .

u p o n

m e

t h j s

a f t e r n o o n by

Mr.

L e n c z n e r

that

I

shou ld

make

orders

i n

the terms of

p a r a g r a p h s 1 ,

2

and 3

of

the r u l e t o show c a u s e

made

b y

S m i t h e r s

J . o n 2

Decemher,

1982.

Those o r d e r s

t h a t

were

s o u g h t

i n c l u d e d

a n

order

t h a t

the

r e s p o n d e n t ,

Mr.

P e t r i e ,

who

v a s

the

r e t u r n i n g

o f f icer ,

s h o u l d

accept

the

n o m i n a t i o n

of

M r .

G r i m s h a w .

Again

T

t h i n k

t h a t

matter

has

b e e n s u f f i c i e n t l y d e a l t

with

i n d i s c u s s i o n

w i t h c o u n s e l here

t o d a y .

I

p o i n t e d o u t

t h a t the

r u l e s i n

t he i r

p r e s e n t

form

do

n o t

r e q u i r e

t h a t

s u c h

a

n o m i n a t i o n

be

a c c e p t e d

a n d

I

a m

no t

p e r s u a d e d

t h a t a s a

mat ter

of

law

the

r u l e s

( i . e .

the

r u l e s

i f

a n d

w h e n

r e d r a f t e d )

m u s t

i n c l u d e

a

r e q u i r e m e n t

t h a t

a

n o m i n a t i o n

b y

a

p e r s o n

i n

M r .

Gr imshaw ' s

pos i t ion

mus t

be

a c c e p t e d

by

a

r e t u r n i n g

o f f i c e r .

T h a t

i s

n e c e s s a r i l y

lmplicl t

I n n o t a c c e p t l n g

Vr.

L e n c z n e r ' s

s u b m i s s i o n

based

o n

. . .

. . ~

. --. ._

.--- -

. ^ _ _

L -

. - -

. .

3 .

t h c

d i s t l n c t i o n

between

a n

a b i l i t y

t o nomlnate

on

the one

h a n d - a n d a n a b i l i t y

t o I l o l r l

o f f ic2

o n

the

o t h e r .

T

t

seems

t o

me

t h a t It vlould h e

d e s e r t i n s

r e a l l t y

i f

the

court

were

t o

order

a

r e t u r n i n g

o f f i c e r

t o

a c c e p t

a

nomination

f o r

a n

o f f i c e ,

on

t h e basis

that

t h e

r u l e s

d i d

n o t

p r e v e n t

such

a

nomin?tion,

where

i n

f a c t

t h e

r u l e s

i n

their

present

form

made

it

c l e a r t h a t t h e

p e r s o n

c o u l d

n o t

hold

t h e o f f i c e

fcr

which he was wishing t o nominate.

The

t h i r d

m a t t e r

i s t h a t T

Accept

he

suSmissiona

put

by both

M r .

Cooney and M r .

Lenczner as to the meaninq

of

rule

22(a )

o f

t he

T ranspor t

Worke r s '

Un ion

o f

Aus t r a l i a

r u l e s .

Although

t h a t

c o n s t r u c t i o n

has

a

v e r y

s u r p r i s i n g

r e s u l t ,

I

a m

unable

to

a c c e p t

Mr.

Kennan' S

c o n s t r u c t i o n

of

the sub r u l e .

To do so wouLd

lnvo lve hoth readinq

words

i n

t o the

r u l e a n d a l s o o m i t t ~ n g v o r d s

from

it.

I n a d d i t i o n ,

It

can

hard ly

he s a i d

t h a t

t h e

draf t sman

used

the

wronq

vords

a c c i d e n t a l l y

i n

t h e

f i r s t

p a r t

of

r u l e

2 2 ( a )

b e c a u s e

i n

Che

p r o v i s o

t o

r u l e

2 2 ( a )

t h e

1.7ords.

" a t the time of

nomination

f o r

e lect ion

for

a n

o f f i c e "

are

used

and

yet

those

a r e

t h e

words

vhich

Mr.

Kennan u r g e s

t h e

C o u r t

t o

n o t i o n a l l y

r e a d

i n

t o r u l e 27.(a)

i n p l a c e

of

t h e w o r d s ,

" a t a l l times

o f h o l d i n g

t h e

off

i c e " .

I

a p p r e c i a t e

t h a t

i 4 r .

Kennan

put

an

a l t e r n a t i v e

submission

t o

t h a t

hut.

T

t h i n k

t h a t

i s

t h e

subs tance of

it.

J p o i n t o u t i n

a d d i t i o n

t h a t

r u l e s

2 3 . ( b \ ,

( c ) , ( d ) ,

( e ) and

(7\, all

e x p r e s s l y

u s e

e i t h e r

t h e

w o r d s ,

" n o m i n a t ~ o n

f o r

e l e c t i o n "

o r

t h e

w o r d s ,

" e l i q i h l e

" .

:

4.

The l a s t matter

J

v a n t t.o

d e a l

w i t h

i s

t h a t

flr.

Kennan

conceded ,

and

i f

1 may

s a y so,

p r o p e r l y

c o n c e d e d ,

t h a t

1

i

i f

I l r .

C o o n e y ' s

c o n s t r u c t i o n

of

r u l e ? ? ( a )

i s cor rec t ,

i n the

s e n s e

t h a t

r a n k

a n d

f i l e members

of

t h e

u n i o n

are

u n a b l e

t o

h o l d

t h e

off ices

c o n c e r n ? d ,

then

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t s

c o u l d

n o t

s e e k

t o d e n y

t h a t

r u l e 22f.3)

c o n t r a v e n e s S.

14O(l)(cl.

I n

the

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

of

t h e

f i n d i n g s

w h i c h

J

h a v e

made

o n

t h a t

i s s u e

a n d

VI-. ICennan's

concesslon,

I

c o n s i d e r

t h a t t h e

p r o p e r

Course,

u n d e r

S.

1 4 O ( C \

o f

t h e

A c t ,

IS

t o

a d jol?rn

t h e

p r o c e e d i n g s

fo r

t h e

p u r p o s e

of

q i v i n q

t h e

o r g a n l z a t l o n a n o p p o r t u n l t y

t o

a l t e r

i t s

ru l e s

. . .

I n

t h o s e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s I

will

a d ~ o u r n

these

n r o c e e d i n g s .

T

s u p p o s e

it

i s best to f i x a

d a t e so T

h 7 1 1 1

a d ~ o u r n it

t o Monday,

13

J u n e ,

1983 a t 10 .15

i n

M e l b o u r n e

a n d

there will

he

l i b e r t y t o

a n y p a r t y

t o apply.

Details
AGLC
Grimshaw, Geoffrey Allan v Petrie, Jack [1982] FCA 291
Case
[1982] FCA 291
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Geoffrey Allan Grimshaw, the applicant, sought judicial review of a decision made by Jack Petrie and the Transport Workers' Union of Australia, the respondents, in the Federal Court of Australia, Victoria District Registry. The core of the dispute was whether Mr. Grimshaw, despite not being a member of the Transport Workers' Union of Australia, was eligible to hold office under the union's rules, and if the union's rules contravened Section 140(1)(c) of the Act.

The court first dismissed the respondents' preliminary objection that Mr. Grimshaw was not a union member, citing precedents and authoritative dicta. The court rejected the argument that the union's rules required the returning officer to accept a nomination from a non-member for office, as the rules did not explicitly mandate such acceptance. The court also disagreed with the interpretation of Rule 22(a) of the union's rules, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the text of the rules without adding or omitting words.

The court found that if the interpretation of Rule 22(a) by Mr. Cooney was correct, rank and file members of the union could not hold the offices in question, making Rule 22(3) contravene Section 140(1)(c) of the Act. Given these findings and the concession by Mr. Kennan, the court considered it appropriate to adjourn the proceedings to allow the union an opportunity to amend its rules.

The court adjourned the proceedings to Monday, 13 June 1983, at 10:15 in Melbourne, with liberty to any party to apply.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.