Krantz, Harry David v Federated Clerks Union of Australia

[1985] FCA 687

Dr. Jessup, on behalf of the organrzatior, has submltte4

ts i r ~ that amonTst those amendments to the rules are ne%

p r x - l z l o n s , whlct.. have tte effect of o ~ ~ k - c o ~ . l ; n g the Sefecr: w5lch

c?.* Czurt f o u n l to exist I n the rules of t h e organlzatlan, ;n - k j

:udg~o?: 31ven on 21st December 1984. Fr. Feywood-Snlth on

b?talf of ?h? c:pllcar.:s I n the proceeding d ~ e s not Clspute that

the r ~ d o anendments 50 c,vercome t h e defect which wa5 foun2 to

exisr:. 3e contends, however, that the organization has taken

adorntage of the adlournment to alter ~ t s rules l n a number of

respezts, and that some of t h e amendments whlch have beer. so made tl?ernssl-;es rd1s.e other dlfflculties of compliance wrth S . 14O(i) cf Che Act. In parklcular, Mr. Yeywoos-Smith d e s l r e s to Craw attention to a nunher of features of t k amendments whlch he says made 7rov;sions which are In contraventlon of 5 . 14O(l)(c) of the Act, In that they :mpose on members of the organlzatlon condltions, oblrgatlonz 3r restrlctlons which, havlng regar2 to the o5:ects of the Act and the Furposes of tke registratlo? c,?

organlzatlons under	the	Act	are oppressive, unreasonable cmr
~n]urt.

I am required to rule as to c;hetb.er such a n attazk on the ruie amerknents 1 s pernlsslble 13 these p:-oceedinqs, or as to whether, the amerdments kavlng become part of the rules of the orqarizatlon, arynne who vlshes ?o challenge therr valldlty un<er

As appears from that passace the r u l e amcndments ~n that case had not 3een cErCifled under S . 139(4) of the A c t by the tlmf the

matter came back befare hls Honour. In the present case tine rule

amendments have been so certifled. Thls means that the

industrial Registrar must have performed hls function under S . ? 3 9 ( 4 ) of considering whether the amendmer.ts were contrary to the

provls lons of the Act. The passage that I have referred to from

LLckman's case does indicate that the C G L ~ ~ thzre was unwllllng

to travel outslde the matters in controversy betwee-, the partles

:n conslderlng ruls amendments made during an adjournzent.

Mr. Xeywcod-Snlth has arqued very persuasively that

tl.ere are matters of convenlence to the Court and to the part-ss,

I do foresee sonsiderable drLflcl-ltles, lf I were to

h o l C that the Court shoL.1d l o o k at all rule amendments mate

Curlng ar. atlocrnment per-o?, f o r the purao== of deteralnlng it

large, s ~ d wlthout the noti5;cat:on of grounds whrch 1 s l -~heren: lr. the 2ule to Show Cause procedure, whether they comFly or isll to coa?ly xitf. c . 140 generally.

For t h e s e rea5on5 i regard lt a5 t5e Setter view, on

'ralanze, that the Court shobld conflne ltself to th5 questlon xhether the defect ilt,lch was perceived in the rules at the tlme

sf the oezgsnal appl-catlon has been overcome, and if it has, the

remaLnder of the Rule to s1?ow Cause should Le discharged. Any challenge to any provisions, which are coxtalnsd m the

smentmenk5 to t h e rules, can be brought forward by the e s l c t l n q

partles or, indee?, by any other member who wlshes to challenge

t h c s e rules In t h e nrdir.ary way.

I order that the rernalnder of the %le to Show Cause be