Keily, C. (for an inquiry into a ballot of the members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia) In the matter of an amalgamation in the Transport Workers Union of Australia
[1991] FCA 661
•4 Nov 1991
JUDGMENT No. .b..!.z?L
IN THE FEDERAL COURT 1 OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY 1 INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
1 No. V1 72 of 1991 IN THE MATTER of an application by CHRISTOPHER KEILY for an inquiry into a ballot of the members of the Transport Workers' Union of Australia
IN THE MATTER of an amalqamation in the
rans sport Worker ' s Union of Australia Coram: Olney J
Place: Melbourne
Date : 4 November 1991
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
By application dated and filed on' 29 OcZober 1991 the <.-. applicant made application for an inquiry by this Court into certain claimed irregularities alleged to have occurred in relation to a ballot of members of the Transport Workers Union of Australia (TWU).
is being conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 253J of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (the Act) which requires the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct a
secret postal ballot of the members of the organisation.The application is made pursuant to section 253M of the
Act which provides:
The ballot has to do with the proposed amalgamation of the TWU with the National Union of Workers, the Federated Millers ' and Manufacturing Grocers ' Employees' Association of Australasia and the Federated Cold Storage and Meat Preserving Employees Union of Australasia. It
2 5 3 1 (1) Not later than 30 days after the
result of a ballot under this Division is declared, application may be made to the Court, as prescribed, for an inquiry by the Court into alleged irregularities in relation to the ballot.
(2) If the Court finds that there has been an irregularity that may affect, or may have affected, the result of the ballot, the Court may:
(a)
if the ballot has not been completed - order that a step in relation to the ballot be taken again; or
(b)
in any case - order that a fresh ballot be conducted in place of the ballot in which the irregularity happened;
and may make such further orders as it
considers necessary or desirable.
(3) The regulations may make provision
with respect to the procedure for inquiries bythe Court into alleged irregularities in relation to ballots under this Division, and for matters relating to, or arising out of,
inquiries.
The facts upon which the applicant relies are:
A ballot of members of the TWU was approved to be held by Deputy President Williams of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 18 September 1991.
2.
(a)
The opening date of the ballot was 28 October 1991;
(b) The closing date of the ballot is 18 November
On or about 28 October 1991, the electoral official conducting the ballot sent to all voters a ballot
. .
.,c.
paper and two envelopes. (A copy of each envelope ..: . . . .~ , . ... and of the ballot paper is attached to the ; 1 application. One envelope has printed on its face the words "Ballot-Paper only" and the other. is a reply-paid envelope which has printed on it the return address of the Returning Officer.) 4. The "Ballot-Paper Only" envelope bears a serial number and has a number of spaces for the voter to fill in the voter's name and to sign his or her signature.
5. The ballot paper directs voters to put their names and signatures on the "Ballot-Paper Only" envelope before returning it in the reply-paid envelope.
6. It is said by the applicant that by this. process, the identity of the voter and the way in which he or she casts the balkot can be ascertained and the ballot is therefore not secret.
In the application, the particulars of the alleged irregularities are given as:
The electoral official conducting the ballot has required voters to disclose their names on the "Ballot-Paper Only" envelope and has numbered the said envelopes, thereby rendering the ballot other than secret.
The application was supported by two affidavits, one sworn by the applicant, the Victorian Branch Secretary of the TWU, and the other by an industrial officer of the same branch. The general thrust of the applicant's affidavit is that about 84,000 TWU members are eligible to vote in the ballot, that in 1989 when he was a candidate for office in an election for officers of the TWU Victorian Branch in an election conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission he became aware of members who were eligible to vote who obliterated identifying numbers on pre-paid return envelopes that contained ballot-papers so that their voting preference
could not be identified, and that the irregularity claimed above may affect the result of the ballot in that it would be difficult to establish the extent to which any voters may refrain from voting because of a fear of lack of secrecy. The other affidavit, sworn by Glenys Stradijot asserts that on 29 October 1991 she was informed by a number of organisers of the Victorian Branch that they had received from members of the branch inquiries expressing concern about the requirement to
..
i:
. '~
. .
: .. .. ,
5. . -, . .. .. ,,
fill in their names and to sign the "Ballot-Paper Only" L". 1::' envelope. Contemporaneously with filing the application and the supporting affidavits the applicant filed a notice of motion seeking, inter alia, an order that the inquiry be heard and determined as a matter of urgency and interlocutory orders relating to the further conduct of the ballot. The notice of motion was made returnable at 2.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 30 October 1991 and on that L _ 1- occasion, service of the documents having been effected a [p; short time before, the Australian Electoral Commission t:; I ;.
1; .: and the 4 unions involved in the proposed amalgamation .? b:; appeared by counsel. I.' E, ' b~: L:.. Counsel for the applicant indicated at the outset that the applicant relied upon a decision of the Court given
k:; .:.
: ? E P, in a closely similar matter conveniently referred to as i: L:,.
Re Pullen; Federated Liquor and Allied Industries F: 1 ..'
Employees' Union of Australia (NSW Branch) (1990-91) 98 !.?;
. g : . . g;; ALR 699. That decision was handed down by Gray J on 28 r:<. November 1990. It was said for the applicant that Pullen
1; '. was decisive of the issue raised in the present
I: : .. 1:. application. By general consensus the matter was clearly one of urgency and in order to accommodate the parties I directed that the inquiry be. expedited and set it down for hearing at 10.15 a.m. on Friday, 1 November 1991. When it was called on for hearing the parties asked that it be stood down, ultimately to 2.15 p.m. on the same day. Upon resumption I was info'rmed that the parties were of the common view that there was a preliminary question which arose in the application upon which it would be desirable for the Court to rule before proceeding further. Before identifying the question, I will first make reference to further affidavit material filed since the initial hearing.
Ronald Arthur Cook, an officer of the Australian Electoral Commission, and the returning officer appointed to conduct the ballot, swore two affidavits each bearing date 30 October 1991. In the first affidavit Mr Cook confirmed that paragraphs 1 to 5 of the facts relied on in the application (set out above) are correct. However he added some further details. He says that the details
back flap to the envelope, an actual specimen of which is on the "Ballot-Paper Only" envelope were contained on a exhibited to his affidavit. He also refers to Note 2 on the ballot paper which he says contains advice to the voter that the "Ballot-Paper Only" envelope would not be opened until the back flap containing the details is detached by Australian Electoral Commission staff.
The deponent asserts that this -procedure will be followed and further that in each scrutiny room upon the back flaps of "Ballot-Paper Only" envelopes being removed, the envelopes will be batched and taken to another area of the scrutiny room. The envelopes will then be slit by a machine so that the ballot papers can be removed. The persons operating the machine will be different to the persons removing the back flaps. He says that by following the steps referred to above, the secrecy of the ballot will be preserved.
Mr Cook's second affidavit canvasses in considerable detail the procedures adopted in the conduct of the ballot but it is not necessary to deal further with that aspect of the matter at this stage. Sufficient to say that it is clear from an inspection of the specimen "Ballot-Paper Only" envelope that the back flap is part of the same piece of paper out of which the envelope is manufactured. The design is such that when the envelope
attached to the envelope below the adhesive strip. There is sealed in the ordinary way, the back flap remains is a line of perforations running along the bottom edge of the adhesive strip such that it is obvious that the back flap can be readily detached from the envelope without either the necessity or likelihood of the seal being affected.
1 I ' . .:-. :. . , .. ,-. r l ;L.:. '. ? ,. .
+, 2: :;. # ' I turn now to the preliminary issue. i
'~ 6 -' .. 7 F: Subsection 253J (6) of the Act provides that subject to bif ", the section, a ballot conducted under the section is to k:., l...
c:5 5: be conducted as prescribed.
: : . . ~.
.. I :.. . . ... Relevant to the ballot, the Industrial Relations . .. , ...~
I,? I. Regulations provide:
;;1; .,
8 7 (1) Where the scheme for a proposed . . .. amalgamation does not contain an alternative . ~ ._:
. :. provision, the ballot papers for use in a .:.
. . c ballot of the members of an organisation in ... respect of the proposed amalgamation: . ,
'1. :i
(a) may, if the organisation makes an
election to that effect, be in
accordance with Form 7; andE .:
1 ,. L,. L.'.
c , (b) must, in any case, be in accordance
with Form 8. l;,;
i' ,.. - I.
p ; 1
(2) Where the scheme for a proposed amalgamation contains an alternative provision,
[S':;
.. . i J ' / ,. the ballot papers for use in the ballots of the . . '. members of an organisation in respect of the ,I '.
F : : proposed amalgamation: 1 . . , ,* 2 ; ..
(a) may, if the organisation makes an election to that effect, be in
fi
I:
, -,
i accordance with Form 9; and > l _ . r:, !. .- v , .
(b) must, in any case, be in accordance ,.~<. c;.:
with Form 10. g; ~.. f:., '. .
k5 ,': . ... .. . ~.
89 As soon as practicable, but not earlier . .
. . ., than 2 days before the commencing day of a L': ballot or ballots of the kind referred to in l. section 253J of the Act, an electoral official must send to each person entitled to vote at
. .: , . the ballot a sealed envelope, addressed to the
.. ,, .I postal address of the person shown on the roll . ,I.
~.
:i_
. ,
. .
. .
i' . ~ . . F:, tT~<,< . . ..
6 . ..
of voters, containing: .- . . ,. ,
. ~~ '
(a) one ballot paper or multiple ballot paper, as the case requires, for the
.. ,,
, .
ballot that bears: .. . , (i) the initials of the electoral . ...
, .
> . -, . .
official; or ...
(ii) a facsimile of those initials; and ., . . ,' ;
(b) any document that the Act requires to be :i sent with the ballot paper; and K; (c) any other material that the electoral I-: ...
official considers to be relevant to the -. , . . ..L ballot; and :..: . ~ 7 . .
(d) an envelope, addressed to the electoral I , .
official, that may be posted without cost I:::
. ' . b to the voter; and c. I '
(e) details of the place where the person may L. i
obtain a copy of the relevant scheme for , -.
..+ r: :.: l amalgamation lodged under paragraph 242(2) (a) of the Act or, where appropriate, of that scheme as amended or of a subsequent scheme.
. . l;-. 1. :; p,;,
.. . .c ! ., ,.c-<
92 A person voting at a ballotof the members of an organisation in respect of a proposed
L.:!
:: F.:
i. . . amalgamation or proposed alternative 1:: , amalgamation must record his or her vote on the l:,?, ballot paper in the following manner: i;: t,:~
E,
(a) where the organisation has made an election under paragraph 87(l)(a) or
l'.: k
.
(2)(a) in relation to the ballot: ; ; 1 : I.' p'.. (i) if the person approves the
amalgamation - by placing a tick
or cross in the space provided
beside the word "YES" opposite i~
1:
the question printed on the I 1; ballot paper; or
, . 1:s
...
(ii) if the person does not approve
the amalgamation - by placing a b.:' F; tick or cross in the space provided beside the word "NO" opposite the question printed on the ballot paper;
; . g: : . . ..
. :., . . . . ~~ .
. ~. , ... .. . . . .~
(b) in any other case:
(i)
if the person approves the amalgamation - by writing legibly "YES" in the space provided opposite the question printed on the ballot paper; or
(ii)
if the person does not approve the amalgamation - by writing legibly "NO" in the space provided opposite the question printed on the ballot paper.
93 ( 1) The electoral official conducting a ballot or ballots of the members of an organisation must keep the ballot papers and other material relating to the ballot or
.
<.
ballots in safe custody until a scrutiny has ~ . # , - < been conducted in accordance with regulation 7.: 94. .: , : ... . .
94 (1) The electoral official conducting a j ballot or ballots of the members of an organisation must ascertain the result of the ballot or ballots by conducting a scrutiny in accordance with this regulation.
(2) As soon as practicable after the close of the ballot, the electoral official
i::
j j.: . ~ must:
(a)
admit the valid votes and reject the informal votes; and
(b) count the valid votes, and record the
number :
(i) in favour of the proposal; and
(ii) against the proposal; and(c) count the informal votes.
(3) In the case of a scheme for amalgamation that contains a proposed alternative provision, if the electoral official is satisfied that the result of the ballot on that provision may be required to be known for the purposes of the Act he or she must:
..
..,
(a) admit the valid votes, and reject the informal votes, on that provision;
~,
. .
,.. .. " . - .?. -. and
(b) count the valid votes, and record the
number : (i) in favour of 'that provision; and
(ii) against that provision; and(c) count the informal votes on that provision.
(4) Subject to the subregulation (5), a vote is informal only if:
(a) the ballot paper does not bear:
(i)
the initials of an . electoral official; or
(ii)
a facsimile of those initials; or
(b)
the ballot paper or the envelope containing it is marked in a way that permits the voter to be identified; or
(c)
the ballot paper is not marked in a way that makes it clear how the voter meant to vote.
(5) A vote is not informal by reason of
paragraph (4)(a) if the electoral official is satisfied that the ballot paper in question is authentic.
In the instant case, the scheme for the proposed
amalgamation contains an alternative provision and the,
form of ballot paper being used is that set out in Form 9
of the Regulations. The text of Form 9 is reproduced
below:
Form 9 Subregulation 87(2)
Industrial Relations Act 1988 Initials, or
facsimile of
BALLOTS OF MEMBERS OF initials,
of the(Name of Organisation person Whose Members are conducting
Voting) the ballot)
Directions to Voter
1 This paper contains [number] ballot papers.
Record your vote on each ballot paper as
follows : . if you approve the amalgamation referred to in the question set out in the ballot paper, place a tick
("p) or a cross ("X") in the space provided opposite the word "YES";
. if you do not approve the amalgamation referred to in the question set out in
the ballot paper, place a tick ("p) or a cross ("X") in the space provided opposite the word "NO".
2 Do not place on this paper any mark or writing by which you may be identified.
3 Mark only one square on each ballot paper.
BALLOT PAPER IN RESPECT OF
PROPOSED AMALGAMATION
QUESTION FOR VOTERS:
DO YOU APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMALGAMATION OF (name of organisation whose members are
voting WITH THE FOLLOWING ORGANISATIONS YES U NAMELY, (name of each organisation with which amalgamation is proposed), IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME FOR AMALGAMATION A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN SENT TO YOU WITH THIS BALLOT PAPER? NO BALLOT PAPER IN RESPECT OF
ALTERNATIVE AMALGAMATION
Note: You will not be taken to have recorded a formal vote in this ballot on the question of an alternative amalgamation if you have not recorded in the ballot in respect of the proposed amalgamation a formal vote in favour of the proposed amalgamation.
QUESTIONS FOR VOTERS:
IF THE PROPOSED AMALGAMATION IN RESPECT YES [7 OF WHICH YOU HAVE JUST RECORDED YOUR VOTE DOES NOT TAKE PLACE, DO YOU APPROVE THE AMALGAMATION OF (name of organisation whose members are voting) WITH THE OTHER ORGANISATIONS CONCERNED NO [7 IN THE AMALGAMATION WHOSE MEMBERS GIVE
A SIMILAR APPROVAL?
A true copy of the ballot papers sent out by the
returning officer in this ballot appears in the appendix
to these reasons.
The short point raised by the preliminary issue is whether, by reason of paragraph 94(4)(b) of the Regulations, a ballot paper returned to the returning officer in a "Ballot-Paper Only" envelope on which the serial number and/or the name or signature of the voter appears, is thereby to be treated as an informal vote.
The current form of regulation 94 was adopted by the Industrial Relations Regulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1991 No. 9 which came into force on 1 February 1991. Previously the provision corresponding with subregulation 94(4) was subregulation 89(4) which provided :
89 (4) For the purposes of this regulation,
a ballot paper is informal only if:
(a)
the ballot paper, or the paper containing .the ballot paper, does not bear the initials, or a facsimile of the initials, of the person conducting the ballot;
(b)
the ballot paper, or the paper containing the ballot paper, has upon it a mark or writing by which the voter can be identified; or
(c)
the ballot paper is so imperfectly marked that the intention of the voter is not clear.
- > ,.!:
I:
The references to "the paper containing the ballot paper" 1;': seem to relate to the fact that forms 9 and 10, which are L used in cases of ballots which contain alternative proposals, are regarded as containing multiple ballot
!I I - ] papers, although both would be printed on a single sheet ,:- V&
: 1 - of paper. [';,: I,'.:
; ; 1
:, l I .L Another change effected by S.R.1991 No. 9 is that form 9 1 ... /v . .
. ~ ~
;c ,- was amended by omitting from it the following portion , 1:. . I.:; which hitherto had appeared immediately after the second l??; , ,:'. . .
F<: ) ballot paper:
I.... a 12
Further Directions
After you have recorded your votes: j : (a)
fold this paper so as to conceal the way in which you have voted;
(b)
place this paper in the envelope addressed to the person conducting the ballots and seal that envelope; and
(c)
post the envelope so that it may reach the person conducting the ballots on or before (closing date of the ballots).
The further directions and notes which appear on the copy ballot paper in the appendix have obviously been added on the initiative of the returning officer and no doubt such directions and notes would comfortably fall within the scope of "any other material that the electoral official considers to be relevant to the ballot" which he is entitled to forward to each voter pursuant to paragraph 89(c) of the Regulations.
The first question that needs to be addressed in resolving the preliminary issue is whether the back flap is part of the "Ballot-Paper Only1* envelope so as to permit it to be said that the envelope containing the ballot paper is marked in a way that permits the voter to be identified. In my view, no sensible understanding of the words of the paragraph 94(4)(b) could lead to a conclusion other than that whilst the flap is attached to the envelope it is part of it, and to the extent that the flap is marked in the manner required by the returning
referred to in paragraph 94(4)(b). By the same token, officer the envelope will indeed bear marks of the type once the flap is removed it could not be said that the envelope bears such marking. (It is of some interest that in the second item appearing under Note 1 on the ballot paper the returning officer obviously accepted that the serial number is on the envelope.)
The second, and critical question arising is at what [j stage is the validity of a ballot paper to be judged;
before the flap is removed or afterwards.Consistent with subregulation 9 4 ( 2 ) the obligation of the
returning officer to admit valid votes and to reject :b. I-:-. informal votes arises after the close of the ballot.
According to the notes printed on the ballot paper the F'! returning officer would in some cases make a decision as
I ; ;
to the informality of a vote by referring to the back flap of the envelope. In cases where the required details have not been filled in or where there has been interference with the number on the back of the "Ballot-
1;
;
1 :- Paper Only" envelope the - vote will be treated as )i
: l; . : I [
informal. Clearly the initial scrutiny of all ballot F;.; t r t '
papers will occur at a time when the back-flap is still ; ; 1 p;, attached. I: , i;+. . .
It would seem logical therefore that on a strict p
construction of paragraph 94(4)(b) of the Regulations, >.
1 ;. r . those ballot papers which do indeed have attached to them
L; L."; ,.:. duly completed back-flaps, and even those which bear only the serial number, must immediately be treated as
informal .
There is every reason to believe that the system of voting adopted for this ballot has been designed by the
. . t:.
Australian Electoral Commission in a genuine attempt to, I..... c r: meet the type of situation with which Gray J had to deal in Pullen. And there is no reason to suggest that if a ballot is conducted in the manner detailed in the returning officer's second affidavit filed in these proceedings the secrecy of the ballot wouldybe assured. *l-
However, on the face of it, it seems that the regulation making authority has achieved nothing, and indeed may have unnecessarily complicated the conduct of ballots by introducing reference to the envelope containing the t:r [/& i'; ballot paper into what is now subregulation 94(4). But I r ' [.I' do not think that is necessarily so.
: ; ! l'. In Pullen Gray J said (at p. 709):
Although not alleged initially by the applicant i.1: as an irregularity, the question whether the t' :. secrecy of the ballot was compromised arose in the course of the inquiry. It arose because of the spaces for the filling in of names and 6- ,.G signatures on the backs of the envelopes into i- ll.: which completed ballot papers were required to I-' be placed before they were posted to the
Australian Electoral Commission and the serial : p
numbering of those envelopes. The possibility 1,; existed that whoever opened the envelope would i be able to determine how a particular voter had i-'C
, . .. voted, either by reference to the name, or by ) ~:> using the number on the envelope to ascertain the identity of the voter from the roll of voters. It is perfectly clear on the evidence before me that no breach of secrecy occurred in fact. The ballot paper envelopes were slit open by means of a machine, and the envelopes and the ballot papers were separated immediately in such a way that no employee of the Australian Electoral Commission, and no scrutineer for any of the candidates, could have ascertained the identity of anyone who had completed a particular ballot paper. None the less, in the circumstances, there must arise a
,:,. , :_i
:.. : i
.t: %. v; doubt .whether potential voters .might have been deterred from voting because of the possibility that their identities could be ascertained.
After dealing with some judicial authorities touching upon the issue his Honour concluded this particular portion of his reasons thus (at pp. 710-11):
Those cases concern what appears on the ballot paper, or in Cameron's case, what is attached to it. The principle to be derived from them, however, is that there should be no means of ascertaining the way in which a vote may be cast, and that the voter should be aware of this. In the present case, such means of ascertainnent existed, and the ballot paper did not even contain advice to the voter that- counting would be conducted in such a way that the ballot paper and the envelope would be separated without anyone having any opportunity to ascertain the identity of any voter.
The course of requesting identification on the ballot paper envelope was taken in the subject elections because of the. experience in the Queensland branch of the union. It was no doubt hoped to prevent impersonation of voters and multiple voting by individuals. These are laudable aims, but r.5(l)(b) of the branch rules, in conformity with s.l97(l)(e) of the Act, requires a secret ballot. In my view, the ballot was not secret and an irregularity thereby happened in relation to the subject
overcome by transferring the requirement for a elections. The problem could have been name and signature, and the serial number, to the outer envelope, in which the ballot paper envelope was to be enclosed' by the voter for postage, and by an assurance on the ballot paper itself that the process of counting would eliminate any possibility of ascertainment of a voter's identity. There is no evidence that any voter refrained from voting because of fear of lack of secrecy.
Whilst there is scope for a different view to be taken of his Honour's conclusion that in the facts of the particular. case the ballot was not secret and thereby an irregularity occurred, it seems that the reason this conclusion was reached was his finding that:
There must arise a doubt whether potential voters might have been deterred from voting because of the possibility that their identities could be ascertained.
Pullen's case had to do with an inquiry into a union election which was by statute to be conducted under the rules of the union which were required to be "such as to ensure, as far as practicable, that no irregularities can occur in relation to an election" (Industrial Relations Act, s,197(l)(f)). The judge's conclusion was that a reasonable perception that an irregularity may occur may deter a voter from exercising his or her right to vote and this amounted to an irregularity. This of course is the basis of the applicant's application in the present,
case but I express no view as to whether or not I would in the facts of the case, set as they are within a
different statutory framework, come to the same conclusion as Gray J did in Pullen. That issue has yet to be argued. What is relevant however, and in my view, decisive of the present issue, is that since the decision in Pullen the regulations have been amended so as, in effect, to give legal effect, albeit in a somewhat different form, in the case of an amalgamation ballot, to the view expressed in Pullen. It seems that what paragraph 94(4) (b) has done is to recognise the validity of the proposition that the perception that the voter's identity can be ascertained from the envelope containing the ballot paper is one which should be avoided. It is not without- significance that paragraph 94(4)(b) says nothing about compromising the secrecy of the ballot and further the use of the words "the envelope containing it (the ballot paper)" suggest that the draftsman may well have had in mind the type of voting procedure posited by Gray J in the penultimate sentence of the passage from his reasons in Pullen last quoted. Furthermore, the removal from the text of Form 9 in the Regulations of the direction to fold the ballot paper so as to conceal the way in which the voter has voted, suggests that the amendments made to the regulations by S.R.1991 No. 9 contemplated that the "Ballot-Paper Only" envelope would not bear any information that may compromise the secrecy of the ballot.
In my opinion upon the proper construction of
Regulations, the form of the voting material and the subregulation 94(4) of the Industrial Relations directions contained in the ballot paper are such that any voter adhering to such directions will cast an informal vote.
. .
L<
21. I.
9 , I,
1, . :
APPENDIX - - : F l;.;;
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS A m .. 1988 _ . ._+. .--
. - _ - , .. .
t. .., .C'
BALLOT OF MEMBERS OF THE TRANSPORT WORKERS, UNION OF A U S ~ - ; " ' f s . z : .
. . . - -.. k:~
r c;.
L:.: , -.:
DIRECI'IONS TO VOTER: .. .<
1. This paper contains TWO ballot-papers. ~ e c o r d your vote ballot-paper as follows: if you approve the amalgamation referred to in the question set out in the
ballot-paper, place a tick (-/") or a cross (X) in the space provided L' 6 %L. opposite the word "YES". 1.:; . .
1'.
if you do not approve the amalgamation referred to in the question set out
in the ballot-paper, place a tick ("P) or a m s s (X) in the space prodded opposite the word "NO".
- l
2. Do not place on this paper any mark or wrltingijy which you may be identified.
.m
.<
-- 3. Mark only-one square-on each ballot-paper. . -. . . .
4 .a ?
BALLOT-PAPER IN RESPECX OF PROPOSED AMALGAMATION
QUESTION FOR VOTERS -
Do you approve the proposed amalgamation of the Transport yES Workers' Union of Australia with the Natlonal Union of Workers, the Federated Millers' and Manufacturing Grocers' Employees' Association of Australasia and the Federated Cold Storage and Ment Preserving Employees Union of Australnsio,
NO 1 ' , ; In accordance with the scheme for amalgamation. a copy of the r:, outline of which has been sent to you with this ballot-paper? 8 2 '
,, !.,.;,. 4
BALLOT-PAPER IN RESPECF OF ALTERNATIVE AMALGAMATION h-.: 11 ;?.
1 1.'.
: . ~
QUESTION FOR VOTERS - ; ; 1 I ' i
If the proposed nrnnlgnmntion in respect of which you have YES is:: g.: Just recorded your vote does not take place, do you approve i, the amalgamation of the Transport Workers' Union of Australia with the other orgnnisntions concerned in the amalgamation whose members give a similar approval? NO
F: ..:' FURTHER DIRECITONS: i- After marking your votes:
t:
1. Fold the ballot-paper. place it in the envelope marked "Ballot Pnper Only", b.:> k ~ ,. fill in the details on the back and seal the envelope. i,;. F ' , 2. Do not place any other person's ballot-paper in your envelope. - . f(; .'?
.<
3. Place the "Ballot Paper Only" envelope in the Reply Paid envelope. then seal ? -
that envelope and post it. $,
- , : ... > ,,: v<.
I
NOTE: 1: ,~:
7%) l :
1. Your votes will be counted only if: <
... li - You have used both envelopes Issued to you for this ballot and have .4
filled in the details on the back of the "Ballot Paper Only envelope. .- , 14 - You have not interfered with the number on the back of the "Ballot Paper . . ..!
Only" envelope. 1
- NO other person's ballot-paper is enclosed in your envelope. . . -. -
)d . ., .. : ~..
- The envelope reaches the addressee not later than 9.00 a.m. on Monday. . .
. C . . .
.
18 November 1991.
2. Your votes are completely secret The "Ballot Pnper Only" envelope will not
be opened untll the back flap containing your details has been detached by 1 Australian Electoral Commlssion stair. i
R. A. COOK
Returning Officer. Australlnn Electoral Commission. Melbourne.I certify that this and the
preceding 21 pages are a true
copy of the Reasons for Judgment.
of the Honourable Mr JusticeOlney
7
Associate: , - - Dated: & .X. !W(
C-
Y
Counsel for the applicant Mr H. Borenstein. Solicitor for the applicant Harry Nowicki & Co.. Counsel for the TWU and the
Mr A.M. North Q.C. and other amalgamating Mr M.D. Carn. organisations Solicitors for the TWU and Ryan Carlisle Thomas. the other amalgamating
organisationsCounsel for The Australian Mr K.H. Bell. Electoral Commission Solicitor for the Australian Australian Goverment Electoral Commission Solicitor.
0
0
0