Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ruttiman - [2025] QIRC 130

INDUSTRIAL REGISTRAR

CITATION:	Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ruttiman [2025] QIRC 130
PARTIES:	Johanson, Madonna (Applicant) v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees (First Respondent) and Ruttiman, Kate (Second Respondent)
CASE NO:	RIO/2025/83
PROCEEDING:	Application for interim orders
DELIVERED ON: HEARING DATE:	21 May 2025 16 May 2025
MEMBER:	Industrial Registrar Shelley
ORDERS: CATCHWORDS:	The authority to issue the interim orders sought by the Applicant lies beyond the powers conferred upon the Industrial Registrar. INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – REGISTERED INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATIONS - application for an election inquiry including interim orders– interim orders sought not within jurisdiction of Industrial Registrar.
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 687, s 690, s 692, s 696, s 697 Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2011

Reasons for Decision

On 7 May 2024, Ms Madonna Johanson (Applicant) filed in the Industrial Registry an application for an election inquiry pursuant to s 687 of the Industrial Relations Act2016 (the Act) with regards to three elections for the Australian Education Union (Queensland Branch) (AEU) with ballots due to be held on 17 May 2025. The application also included a request for final orders for an injunction in accordance with s 697 of the Act.
A notice of listing was sent to the parties on 15 May 2025 setting the matter down for a hearing on 16 May 2025. The notice advised the parties that the hearing was scheduled for the purpose of discussing the request of the Applicant for interim orders.
Mr David Quinn, of Holding Redlich, appeared as legal representative for the Queensland Teachers Union of Employees (First Respondent). It was noted on the record that Ms Kate Ruttiman (Second Respondent) did not make an appearance. I was, however, subsequently informed by the Industrial Registry that an email had been received on 15 May 2025 from Ms Ruttiman, advising that she did not wish to be heard and that she "…will abide by the decisions of the commission".
The Applicant was requested to provide submissions regarding the source of the Industrial Registrar's power, in accordance with the Act, to make an interim order.
The Applicant submitted the decision sought was outlined in the application as follows:
(a)      an order making appropriate directions under rule 41 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Rules) 2011;
(b)      an order in the nature of injunctions requiring the QTU to disclose the eligible roll of voters at the date of 7 February 2025, 7 days before nominations opened;
(c)      an order restraining the QTU from taking any steps to conduct elections at State Council on 17 May 2025, for positions of Federal Conference delegates, until such time as the referral from the Industrial Registrar is heard and determined by the Commission;
(d)      an order restraining the QTU from ratifying the Federal Conference election result from TAFE Council on 22 March 2025;
(e)      an order restraining the QTU from ratifying any Federal Conference delegates on 17 May 2025;
(f)      such further or interim or interlocutory orders or directions as the…

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 Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ruttim...

Details

AGLC: Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ruttiman [2025] QIRC 130
Case: [2025] QIRC 130
Decision Date: 21 May 2025 16 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Johanson v Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ruttiman involved the applicant, Johanson, seeking an election inquiry and interim orders from the Queensland Industrial Registrar against the Queensland Teachers Union of Employees and Ruttiman, the union's president. The dispute arose from allegations of irregularities and misconduct in an internal union election. The Industrial Registrar was asked to investigate these allegations and, if warranted, to issue interim orders to manage the situation during the investigation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Industrial Registrar had the jurisdiction to grant the interim orders requested by the applicant. Specifically, the court needed to determine if such orders were within the scope of the powers granted to the Industrial Registrar under the applicable industrial laws in Queensland. The court was also required to assess whether the interim measures sought were necessary and appropriate to ensure the integrity of the election process.

In examining the matter, the court concluded that the authority to issue the interim orders sought by the applicant exceeded the powers conferred upon the Industrial Registrar. The court held that the Registrar's jurisdiction was limited to specific functions outlined in the legislation and that the requested interim orders were not within this jurisdiction. The court emphasised that the Registrar's role was primarily investigatory and did not extend to making decisions that would directly affect the outcome of the election or the internal management of the union.

The final orders of the court were that the authority to issue the interim orders sought by the applicant was beyond the powers conferred upon the Industrial Registrar. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to the defined scope of the Registrar's authority and clarified the limitations of the Registrar's role in managing internal union disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

The authority to issue the interim orders sought by the Applicant lies beyond the powers conferred upon the Industrial Registrar.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – REGISTERED INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATIONS - application for an election inquiry including interim orders– interim orders sought not within jurisdiction of Industrial Registrar.

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.