Krantz, Harry David v Federated Clerks Union of Australia

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

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

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

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Krantz v Federated Clerks Union of Australia, the dispute centred on the validity of rule amendments made by the Federated Clerks Union of Australia. The applicants, represented by Mr. Feywood-Smith, argued that the amendments, while addressing a defect identified in a previous judgment, introduced new issues that potentially contravened the relevant provisions of the Act. Specifically, they contended that some of the amendments imposed oppressive, unreasonable, or injurious conditions, obligations, or restrictions on union members. The court was tasked with determining whether the amendments were permissible under the circumstances and whether the applicants' challenge to the amendments' validity was admissible in the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it should examine all rule amendments made during an adjournment to determine their compliance with section 140 of the Act, or if it should confine its review to the specific defect identified in the original application. The court also needed to decide if the applicants were entitled to challenge the new provisions introduced in the amendments, which were not part of the original dispute, under the existing proceedings. The court had to balance the convenience and efficiency of the proceedings against the need to ensure that all relevant issues were adequately addressed.

The court reasoned that it would be more practical and efficient to limit its review to the specific defect identified in the original application and whether that defect had been rectified by the amendments. The court noted that any other challenges to the amendments' validity could be brought forward by the interested parties or other members in the appropriate manner. The court decided that confining its review to the specific defect and its resolution by the amendments was the better approach to avoid unnecessary complications and to maintain the focus of the proceedings on the original issues.

Consequently, the court ordered that the remainder of the Rule to Show Cause be discharged, effectively dismissing the application to the extent that it sought to challenge the new provisions introduced in the amendments. The court's decision allowed the union's amended rules to stand, provided that the specific defect identified in the original application had been addressed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established