Jacomb v Australian Municipal Administrative Clerical and Services Union

In the matter of Jacomb v Australian Municipal Administrative Clerical and Services Union, the applicant sought a declaration that certain union rules were unlawful and contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). The respondent union, an amalgamated union registered under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), had implemented rules that included quotas for women in certain positions within its branches in Victoria. The applicant, a member of one of these branches, argued that these rules were discriminatory and did not qualify as 'special measures' under the Sex Discrimination Act. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the union rules were indeed 'special measures' within the meaning of s 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act and if they were necessary to achieve substantive equality between men and women within the union.

The court had to consider whether the union rules were special measures within the meaning of s 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act and whether they were necessary to achieve substantive equality between men and women. This required an analysis of the evidence presented regarding the historical underrepresentation of women in the union and the reasons for implementing the rules. The court also had to examine whether the rules were inflexible and if they had been utilised only once, as well as whether they could remain valid beyond the exigency that called them forth.

The court found that the union rules were indeed 'special measures' within the meaning of s 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act. The evidence showed that women were historically underrepresented in the union and that the rules were designed to address this imbalance. The court noted that while the rules sanctioned inflexible quotas in favour of women, there was evidence that the rules could be discontinued if they were no longer needed. The court also found that it was too early to determine whether the special measure was no longer necessary or if the rules had been utilised only once. However, the court emphasised that rules 5 and 9 could not remain valid as special measures beyond the 'exigency' that called them forth.

The application was dismissed, and submissions on the question of costs were to be made by both parties.