Johns, William Edgar v Allen, K - [1977] FCA 28

IN	”hi% FEDETAI, COURT O F AUSTRALIA

I ”

V.IJo.7

1 9 7 7

‘;i

INDUSTRIAL

D I V I S I O N

-	-
B E T W E E N :

WILLIAM	EDGAR	J O H N S	Claixrant
and
Respondents

ORDER

FULL COURT:

J . B .

Sweecey J.

Evat t

Northrop J.

DATE OF ORDER:

9 t h

June

1 9 7 7

WHERE MADE :	Melbourne
THE COURT ORDERS:

That

the

respondents

and

each

them

perform

and

observe

the Rules

the Vehicle

Bul

lders‘

Employees F’ederat

lon of

A u s t r a l i a

I n c h a t

t h e r e s p o n d e n t ,

G .

S h e r r i f f ,

cease

t n

hold

h imsel f ou t

a n

organiser of

the

Geelonu

Sub-Branch

and

t h a t t h e o t h e r r e s ? o n d e n t s c e a s e t o r e c o g n i s e a n d / o r t r e a t

t he

r e sponden t ,

S h e r r l f f , a s a n o r g a n z s e r

the Geelong

Sub-Eranch.

V.Wo.7 of 1.975

B E T W E E N :

WILLIAM EDGBF JOHNS

C l a l m a n t

and

Respondents

FULL COURT

REASONS FOR JUDGXENT

9TH

J U N E

1 9 7 7

(J	.B. SV7ECNCY,

EVATT AND NORTHROP J. J.

)

Thls

1 s

t h e r e t u r n o f

a n

o r d e r n i s i g r a n t e d

Brennan

23rd

March,

1 9 7 7 ,

l n wh ich

the c l a imac t ,

member

t h e V e h i c l e

B u i l d e r s '

Employees

Fede ra t lon

A u s t r a l i a

( h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d

" t h e F e d e r a t l o n " ) s e e k s o r d e r s g i v l n g d l r e c t i o n s

t h a t

t h e

respondents ,

who

t o g e t h e r c o n s t i t u t e t h e

members

the Execut ive

Colnml t tee of

the

Vlc

tor

lan

Branch

the Federa t lon

(heremaf te r

cal led

the Victor

ian Branch")

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 Johns, William Edgar v Allen, K

Details

AGLC: Johns, William Edgar v Allen, K [1977] FCA 28
Case: [1977] FCA 28
Decision Date: 9 Jun 1977

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia heard an application brought by William Edgar Johns, a member of the Vehicle Builders' Employees Federation of Australia, against several respondents who were members of the Executive Committees of the Victorian Branch and the Geelong Sub-Branch of the Federation. The applicant sought orders that the respondents perform and observe the rules of the Federation, specifically that one of the respondents, G. Sherrif, cease to hold himself out as an organiser of the Geelong Sub-Branch and that the other respondents cease to recognise and/or treat the respondent, G. Sherrif, as an organiser of the Geelong Sub-Branch. The Federation is an organisation within the meaning of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. The applicant was a member of the South Australian Branch of the Federation, and each of the respondents was a member of the Federation. The Geelong Sub-Branch had elected G. Sherrif as its organiser, but the applicant argued that such an office did not exist within the Sub-Branch and therefore G. Sherrif was not and could not be its organiser. The respondents argued that the court had no jurisdiction to make the orders as sought because the phrase "rules of an organisation" did not include rules of a branch of an organisation. The court rejected this submission and found that the rules of a branch of an organisation were rules of the organisation within the meaning of s.141(1) of the Act. The court found that the Geelong Sub-Branch had no power to create the office of Sub-Branch organiser and that the resolution of 6 April 1977, which purported to employ G. Sherrif as a Sub-Branch organiser, was not a valid exercise of power. The court found that the applicant, as a member of the Federation, had a right to bring a complaint before the court and that the court should make the orders as sought. The court made orders that the respondents perform and observe the rules of the Federation, including that G. Sherrif cease to hold himself out as an organiser of the Geelong Sub-Branch and that the other respondents cease to recognise and/or treat G. Sherrif as an organiser of the Geelong Sub-Branch.

Orders