Joyce v Christofferson

Case [1990] FCA 381

Re: JOHN DANIEL JOYCE; JAMES O'DONNELL; BRUCE WILLIAM SLOMAN; FERNANDO LOUIS
PEREZ; RONALD DOUGLAS NORUP; JAMES FRITZ OELLING; BRIAN DENNIS GERHARDT;
ROBERT DOWNIE; SYLVIA MAY LOWE; KENNETH HARVEY EDMUNDS; TERRENCE JAMES FEGAN;
MARK CARL DOWLING; KIMBERLEY GEORGE WILLIAMS; PETER JOHN MALLER; GERASSIMOS
EXARHOS; ERIC THOMAS GROUNDWATER; COSTAS CAMBETIS; RAYMOND KENNETH GRAHAM;
BRADLEY ROY COLEMAN; WILLIAM EDWARD GARRARD; DOUGLAS BERNARD HENDRICKS; THOMAS
GORDON PAYNE; HENRY JAMES LOWE; FRANCISCO PANA GENEROSA; KEVIN JAMES CARLSON;
WILFRED JULIUS THUN; WILLIAM ERNEST SMYTH; JOHN McCULLOUGH; MILES JOHN MASON;
RICHARD DAVID MACDONALD; PERCY ROBERT SALTMER; RAYMOND JAMES LIDDELL; RICKY
DOUGLAS GARRETT; HARRY HENRY BIONDI; IAN FRANCIS RICHARDSON; RONALD WILLIAM
SHUTE; BEVAN SPENCER REAUBEN ALEXANDER; MERVYN DOUGLAS RADECKER; WILLIAM JAMES
CALVERT; JAMES ANTHONY SWIFT; MERVYN JAMES RYDER; KENNETH LAURIE BELTON;
PATRICK CHRISTOPHER McALLISTER; MIROLJUB MIHALJLOVIC; ANDREW CHARLES O'BRIEN;
KENNETH JAMES WEAL; THOMAS PATRICK WHELAN; ROBERT RENNIE and BARRY ALEXANDER
MORRISON< And: BRIAN REUBEN CHRISTOFFERSEN; MICHAEL JAMES WILKINSON; LESLIE
THOMAS HAUFF; BERNARD FRANCIS SMITH and PETER IAN WISEMAN
No. Q 6 of 1988
FED No. 381
Industrial Law
26 FCR 261

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Gray J.(1)
CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - registered organisation - rules - performance and observance - purge of members by executive of branch on ground of cessation of eligibility - whether all reasonable steps taken before proceeding - rights of appeal under rules - change of legislation - whether eligibility a question for branch executive or a jurisdictional question - whether members continued to be eligible - employment as "storemen/storewomen" - whether engaged in clerical capacity - primary functions of employees - whether decision vitiated by bias - whether bona fide exercise of power - whether ulterior motive - whether decision based on improper considerations - whether decision unreasonable - whether right to a hearing - nature of hearing - whether branch executive misconceived its function under rules - whether defects cured by exercise of right of appeal - whether order should be made - nature of order.

Words and phrases - "engaged in a clerical capacity".

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 s. 139, s.141, s.140.

Industrial Relations Act 1988 s.196, s.209.

Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 s.5, s.52.

Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961-1987 (Qld).

Industrial Commercial Practices Act 1984 (Qld).

Mount Isa Mines Limited Award

HEARING

MELBOURNE

#DATE 20:7:1990

Counsel for the applicants: Mr M. Amarena and Mr A. Stone

Solicitors for the applicants: Callaghan and Reidy

Counsel for the respondents: Mr R.R.S. Tracey and Mr P. Applegarth

Solicitors for the respondents: Mullins and Mullins

ORDER

The court orders that the respondents and each of them perform and observe the rules of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia by treating as null and void the resolution of the branch executive of the North Queensland Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia made on 20th September 1988 as follows:

"That Branch Executive hereby directs the Branch Secretary to immediately remove from the registry of members the names of those members listed on the…

Continue reading Joyce v Christofferson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Joyce, J.D. & Ors v. Christoffersen, B.R. & Ors [1990] FCA 381 (26 FCR 261)
Case
[1990] FCA 381
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Joyce v Christofferson involved the Federated Clerks Union of Australia and a number of its members, including the plaintiff, John Daniel Joyce. The members were removed from the union's registry on the basis that they were no longer eligible for membership due to changes in their employment status. The dispute centred on the legality of the branch executive's decision to purge the members and the subsequent appeal process. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the validity of the union's actions and the rights of the affected members.

The legal issues before the court included whether the branch executive took all reasonable steps to ascertain the members' eligibility before deciding to remove them, and if the members had the right to appeal the decision. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the eligibility criteria were a matter for the branch executive or a jurisdictional issue. The court also considered whether the decision was made in good faith, free from bias and improper considerations, and if the members were afforded a fair hearing. Finally, the court had to assess whether the branch executive's actions were an error of law and if the defects in the process could be rectified through the appeal mechanism.

The Federal Court found that the branch executive did not take all reasonable steps to ensure the members' continued eligibility before making the decision to remove them. The court held that the members had a right to appeal the decision and that eligibility was a jurisdictional matter rather than one for the branch executive alone. The court further determined that the decision was not vitiated by bias, was a bona fide exercise of power, and was not based on improper considerations. However, the court found that the decision was unreasonable due to the lack of a proper hearing for the members. The court concluded that the branch executive misconceived its function under the union's rules and that the defects in the process could not be cured by the appeal mechanism. As a result, the court ordered the respondents to treat the resolution as null and void in relation to the specified members and to restore their membership status.

In light of the findings, the court ordered the respondents to perform and observe the union's rules by treating the resolution as null and void for the listed members. This order required the restoration of their membership status and the notification of the members accordingly. The nature of the order was such that it addressed the illegality of the branch executive's actions and sought to rectify the injustice suffered by the affected members.

Orders

Orders of the court

The court orders that the respondents and each of them perform and observe the rules of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia by treating as null and void the resolution of the branch executive of the North Queensland Branch of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia made on 20th September 1988 as follows:

"That Branch Executive hereby directs the Branch Secretary to immediately remove from the registry of members the names of those members listed on the membership schedule dated 20th September 1988 marked "A" as such members are no longer eligible for membership of the Union and that each such member be notified accordingly."

so far as such resolution relates to the following applicants:

John Daniel Joyce

James O'Donnell

Bruce William Sloman

Fernando Louis Perez

Ronald Douglas Norup

James Fritz Oelling

Brian Dennis Gerhardt

Robert Downie

Sylvia May Lowe

Kenneth Harvey Edmunds

Mark Carl Dowling

Eric Thomas Groundwater

Raymond Kenneth Graham

Bradley Roy Coleman

Douglas Bernard Hendricks

Thomas Gordon Payne

Henry James Lowe

Franciso Pana Generosa

Kevin James Carlson

Percy Robert Saltmer

Harry Henry Biondi

Ronald William Shute

Bevan Spencer Reauben Alexander Kenneth Laurie Belton

Patrick Christopher McAllister Miroljub Mihajlovic

Andrew Charles O'Brien

Robert Rennie

Barry Alexander Morrison

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by O.36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.