King v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union

In the matter of King v Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, the applicant, who was either an employee or an appointed officer of the union, contested his dismissal and sought various orders under the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The union moved to strike out the applicant's application on the basis that it was without merit and not within the scope of s 209 of the Act. The central legal issue for the court was whether the applicant could establish that he was "removed from office" rather than having his employment terminated, and if so, whether the court could make orders to remedy this under the Act. The court found that the applicant did not have a case that he was "removed from office" and that there was no continuing obligation to him under the union's rules for which directions could be made under s 209. Consequently, the court held that the applicant's application must fail and the union's motion to strike out should be allowed. The court also dismissed the applicant's motion for leave to amend his application as it did not introduce any new elements and contained numerous defects that went beyond the scope of permissible orders under the Act.

The court relied on previous cases to clarify the scope of orders that can be made under s 209. It noted that while the court could give detailed directions to ensure the observance or performance of union rules, it could not make orders for an accounting of property by operation of the general law. The court found that the applicant's application, which sought remedies related to his employment rather than his position as an officer, was beyond the scope of what the court could order under the Act. The applicant's evidence did not support a case that he was "removed from office" or that there was any continuing obligation to him under the union's rules. Therefore, the court held that the application must fail and granted the union's motion to strike out the application. The applicant's motion for leave to amend his application was also dismissed as it did not introduce new elements and contained numerous defects that went beyond the permissible scope of orders under the Act.

The court's final orders were that the union's notice of motion to strike out the application be allowed, the applicant's application be struck out, and the applicant's motion for leave to amend his application be refused. The court emphasised that the applicant's application did not establish that he was "removed from office" and that there was no continuing obligation to him under the union's rules for which directions could be made under s 209. The court also noted that the amended application contained numerous defects and sought remedies beyond the scope of what the court could order under the Act. The applicant's evidence did not support a case that he was "removed from office" or that there was any continuing obligation to him under the union's rules. Therefore, the court held that the application must fail and granted the union's motion to strike out the application. The applicant's motion for leave to amend his application was also dismissed as it did not introduce new elements and contained numerous defects that went beyond the permissible scope of orders under the Act.