La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industry

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	1	No. SA 3 of 1986
1
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION	)

IN THE MATTER OF - the

Conciliation	and
Arbitration Act, 1904

AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by DORIANO TAM for an Inquiry into an Election for an office in

XEELY J. 8 OCTOBER, 1986

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

. _ _

- _ - - -., , .~ _.

I.       .L

MR P. MOLONEY: I appear for the applicant, Mr Tam, in

thls matter.

MR P. McCUSKER: I appear on instructions of Freeman Turner,

the solicitors for the union. -

HIS HONOUR: What are your submissions in this matter?

TRANSCRIBED REPORTED NOT

HIS HONOUR: In this matter, the Industrial Registrar on

2 1 March 1986 was satisfied that there were:

Reasonable grounds for an inquiry lnto

the question of whether there hawbeen

irregularities in or in connection

with the electiordfor zone

representatives to state conference

[of the SA branch of The Amalgamated

Metal Workers Union1

That vlew was based upon hls concluslon that the returnzng offlcer had erred in relectlng the

nominatlon of Doriano Tarn for one of those

positlons. Mr Tam 1s the appllcant In these

proceedrnqs. The Industrlal Reglstrar consldered

the lnformation in the appllcatlon and, after

having lnquirles made, he reached the concluslon

that the:

. - ._ - .

. - . Mr Tarn wlth the relevant quarterly	Errors in reconclllnq payments by
periods resulted ln him being found
lneligible to be a candidate.

and, accordingly, the nomination had been wrongly

rejected. The court has been told that since

the applicatrons first came before the court

there have been discussions between the legal

representatives of the applicant on the one

hand and of other interested parties on the

other. Today the parties have all been

represented before the court namely, one,

The Amalgamated Metal Workers Union; two, The

Amalgamted Metal Workers Union (South Australian

Branch); three, the returnlng offlcer,

Mr B.E. Gausden; four, the candldates who were

declared elected unopposed as	the five zone
representatlves.

Those partles joined the applicant in placing

before the court a mermr+ndum of agreed facts

which is exhibit A . It is clear from that

statement that the nomlnation of the applicant

for the positlon had been wrongly rejected by

the returning officer. Having considered the

memorandum of agreed facts lodged on behalf of

each of the parties interested, I am satisfied

that an irregularity occurred In connection

with the election. That irregularlty consisted

of the wrongful rejectlon by the returning

.'officer of the nomination of the

appllcant, -

Doriano Tarn, as the Industrlal Registrar said

in his declsion:

The rejection of the applicant's

nomination had the consequence that

ballots were not necessary and the

unopposed candidates were declared

elected.

The court having accepted that errors had

occurred in reconclling payments made by Mr Tarn

as set out earlier and the nomination having

been relected, it necessarily follows that

in the words…