Kingham v Sutton

Case [2002] FCA 506


Kingham v Sutton [2002] FCAFC 107

Kingham v Sutton [2002] FCA 506

NOTE: CHANGES TO THE MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION (MNC)

The Federal Court adopted a new medium neutral citation (FCAFC) for Full Court judgments effective from 1 January 2002.  Single Judge judgments will not be affected and will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.

The transitional arrangements are as follows:

  • All Full Court judgments delivered prior to 1 January 2002 will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.
  • All Full Court judgments delivered between 1 January 2002 to 30 April 2002 have been assigned parallel medium neutral citations in both the FCA and FCAFC series. 
  • All Full Court judgments delivered from 1 May 2002 will contain the FCAFC medium neutral citation only.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kingham v Sutton [2002] FCA 506

INDUSTRIAL LAW – proposal to amend divisional rules of union – where Divisional Executive decided against amendment – request to review decision - whether governing body of union obliged to review decision of Divisional Executive when request made – whether implied restraint on operation of decision pending consideration of request to review decision

INDUSTRIAL LAW – request for referendum – methods of requesting – divisional branches passed resolutions requesting referendum – whether valid request by majority of members of division - petition of union members requesting referendum – whether petition signed by requisite percentage of divisional members – whether all signatures on petition genuine – whether necessary to verify genuineness of all signatures on petition for it to be valid – whether presumption of regularity could be applied to verify that signatures genuine – whether presumption in favour of honesty and against fraud could be applied to verify that signatures genuine – whether members required to prove petition - whether Divisional Executive to investigate genuineness of signatures on petition - whether Divisional Executive to check financial status of signatories

INDUSTRIAL LAW – proof of membership of union – whether payment of union dues evidence of intention to become a union member – whether payment of union dues sufficient to attain membership of union – whether payment of union dues must be personally made - whether necessary for person to sign membership application form to become a union member

INDUSTRIAL LAW – interpretation of terms in union rules – meaning to be given to terms “members”, “financial members” and “membership” when used in same rule – purpose of rule – whether application of defined meanings creates inconsistency

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 187A, 195(1)(b) and 209.

Kingham v Ferguson [2001] FCA 537, (2001) 107 IR 403 referred to

Morris v Kanssen [1946] AC 459 referred to
Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Limited v Imperial Smelting Corporation Limited [1942] AC 154 referred to
McLean Bros and Rigg Ltd v Grice (1906) 4 CLR 835 referred to
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 referred to
Forward v Merchant Service Guild of Australia (1987) 16 FCR 302 followed

Re Porter; Re Transport Workers Union of Australia (1989) 32 IR 87 followed

Continue reading Kingham v Sutton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kingham v Sutton [2002] FCA 506
Case
[2002] FCA 506
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kingham v Sutton involved the appellants, who were members of the Division, challenging the decision of the primary judge. The respondents included Margaret Buchanan, a Deputy Industrial Registrar, and others. The central dispute was over the proposed alteration of the Divisional Rules regarding the timing of elections for Divisional offices. The appellants sought to prevent the certification of these rule changes. The Federal Court was tasked with resolving this issue.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed changes to the Divisional Rules were valid and could be certified. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the appellants had to prove the validity of the signatures on the proposed rule changes. Another issue was whether the proposed changes to the timing of the elections were in accordance with the existing rules and if the Divisional Secretary had the authority to conduct a postal ballot for such changes.

The court examined the relevant rules and the circumstances of the postal ballot conducted by Mr Sutton, the Divisional Secretary. It was determined that the proposed rule changes did not require any amendments to National Rule 17. The court found that the Divisional Secretary had the authority to conduct the postal ballot under rule 26 of the Divisional Rules. However, the court held that the appellants did not need to prove the validity of the signatures on the proposed rule changes. Instead, the focus should have been on whether the proposed changes were consistent with the existing rules.

The appeal was dismissed, but the court ordered that a referendum on the proposed rule changes should be held by the Divisional Executive.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

The second respondent, Margaret Buchanan, is a Deputy Industrial Registrar of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. She is not under any obligation to perform or observe the rules of the organisation. She was made a party to the proceeding, before the primary judge, in order to enable the appellants to obtain interim relief restraining certification of alterations to the rules of the organisation. Ms Buchanan has not taken an active part in the litigation and did not appear on the appeal.The facts The internal dispute arose out of the fact that, in his role as Divisional Secretary, on 7 March 2001, Mr Sutton sent papers for a postal ballot to members of the Divisional Executive. The ballot concerned a proposal to alter the registered rules of the Division (“the Divisional Rules”) in such a manner as to allow elections for Divisional offices to be conducted earlier, in each election year, than currently provided by the rules. The Divisional Rules provide for an election of Divisional office bearers each fourth year. They envisage a one tier collegiate election to be conducted at a biennial meeting of the Divisional Conference. As the rules stood on 7 March 2001, nominations for the 2001 election to Divisional offices would open in late September 2001 and close in mid October 2001. The rule change, if adopted, would have allowed the Divisional Executive to fix an earlier date for the Divisional Conference and the election. In conducting the postal ballot, Mr Sutton relied on rule 26 of the Divisional Rules. This is headed “VOTING OTHER THAN AT MEETINGS”, and provides:“(a)If the Divisional Secretary shall consider it advisable to submit any matter, including the imposition of a levy or the alteration, rescission or making of rules to a vote of Divisional Executive members at any time he may submit a resolution dealing with such matter to the members by letter, facsimile, telephone, telegram, verbally and/or any other means of communication or any combination thereof.(b)A copy of such resolution shall be sent at the same time to each Divisional Branch Secretary.(c)The votes on such resolution shall be returnable to the Divisional Secretary at such time as the Divisional President and the Divisional Secretary shall fix. The result of such vote shall be binding and enforceable in the same manner as a decision arrived at in meeting assembled.(d)No amendment shall be allowed on any such resolution, but if it is negatived any member may request the Divisional Secretary to submit in a like manner a further resolution bearing on the same matter. In the event of the Divisional Secretary being requested to submit more than one such resolution the order in which same shall be submitted shall be in his absolute discretion.(e)The Divisional Secretary shall keep a register of names and addresses of delegates to Divisional Conference.(f)Divisional Branch Secretaries shall within fourteen days of the election of delegates to Divisional Conference notify the Divisional Secretary of their names and addresses.”

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

His Honour, Goldberg J, did not consider that any amendment would be necessary to National Rule 17 if the Divisional Rules dealing with the election of the Divisional Executive were altered. National Rule 17 does not itself specify how those elections are to be conducted. It is concerned with the election of the Divisional Conference. In his Honour’s view subrule (iii)(e) of that rule should be read as requiring an advertisement which reflects the true position under the Divisional Rules as to how the Divisional Executive is elected. I respectfully agree. The respondents have not shown his Honour’s approach to be in any way erroneous. CONCLUSION In my respectful view his Honour was in error in one respect, namely, in holding that the appellants needed to prove, and failed in proof of, the validity of the signatures. I would allow the appeal in part and make orders requiring the Divisional Executive to forthwith hold a referendum on the question.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.