Legal Research
Cases
Imlach v Daley

Imlach v Daley

Case [1985] FCA 168 23 April 1985

Industrial Law

Branch autonomy

Constitutional Validity

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IMLACH v. DALEY and Others (1985) 7 FCR 457
Industrial Law
11 IR 23

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Evatt(1), Northrop(1) and Beaumont(2) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - Registered organisation - Branches - Rules - Power of National Council to amend and alter rules affecting the boundaries of a branch - Whether specified rules or rules in a specified respect contravene s.140(1) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) - Branch autonomy - Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), ss 140(1)(d), 141.

HEADNOTE

The Hospital Employees Federation (the Federation) is an organisation registered pursuant to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. It has two branches in Tasmania: the No 1 Branch and the No 2 Branch. Until 1984 the No 1 Branch covered all but the north-east corner of the State (which was covered by the No 2 Branch) and had approximately 3100 members. The No 2 Branch had approximately 1600 members. In 1983 the National Council of the Federation altered the relevant rule by allocating the southern half of Tasmania to the No 1 Branch and the northern half to the No 2 Branch. Because of the change 2250 numbers remained in the No 1 Branch and No 2 Branch had its numbers increased to 2450. The alteration was effected in accordance with the express provisions of the rules dealing with procedures for rule changes.

Held: (1) (Beaumont J., dissenting) The alterations were effected in conformity with rules of the Federation.

(2) Per Beaumont J: On a proper construction of the rules there was an implied limitation on the power to alter the rules to the effect that this power would not be used for the purpose of elimination of a branch or for the purpose of inhibiting or impairing the capacity of a branch to function. The boundary change was of such a nature as to undermine both the existence of the No 1 Branch and its capacity to function.

(3) (Beaumont J. not deciding) The word "and" appearing between the two limbs of s.140(1)(d) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 is to be read conjunctively. It joins the two limbs into a single requirement. The result is that s 140(1)(d) applies only with respect to organisations which, through branches, participate or seek to participate in a State industrial conciliation and arbitration system. No organisation, including the Federation, so participates or seeks to participate. There could therefore be no basis for alleging that any of the Federation's rules contravened s.140(1)(d).

Mapstone v. Maynes (1983) 4 IR 198 and Krantz v. Federated Clerks' Union of Australia (1984) 5 FCR 416, overruled.

HEARING

1984, November 28-29; 1985, April 23. #DATE 23:4:1985
APPLICATION

Applications for orders under ss 140 & 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904.

P J O'Callaghan QC and T J Ginnane, for the appellants.

R C Kenzie QC and S R Marshall, for the respondents.

Solicitors for the appellants: A J Macken & Co.

Solicitors for…

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 Imlach v Daley

Details

AGLC: Imlach, Peter Alexander & Anor v Daley, J.E. & Ors [1985] FCA 168 ((1985) 7 FCR 457; 11 IR 23)
Case: [1985] FCA 168
Decision Date: 23 APRIL 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Imlach v. Daley, the respondents, acting on behalf of the Australian Railways Union, sought an order to compel the appellant, who was the National President of the Union, to convene a meeting of the National Council of the Union. The respondents argued that the meeting was necessary to amend the Union's rules concerning the boundaries of certain branches. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of sections 140(1)(d) and 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), specifically regarding the power of the National Council to alter rules that affect the boundaries of a branch and whether such alterations contravene the principles of branch autonomy.

The court's reasoning focused on the construction of the relevant sections of the Act. It was necessary to determine if the specified rules or rules in a specified respect contravened section 140(1) of the Act, which pertains to the registration and operation of trade unions. The court considered whether the National Council's power to amend branch boundaries was limited by the requirement to respect branch autonomy as intended by section 141. The decision hinged on interpreting the legislative intent behind the Act and whether the amendments proposed by the National Council would unduly infringe on the autonomy of the branches.

The court concluded that the National Council had the authority to amend the rules affecting branch boundaries, provided that such amendments did not contravene the fundamental principles of branch autonomy as outlined in section 141. The court found that the proposed changes did not infringe upon the autonomy of the branches, thus upholding the power of the National Council to make the amendments. The High Court, therefore, ruled in favour of the respondents, ordering the appellant to convene the meeting of the National Council as requested.

Orders