Mapstone, David John Garland v Maynes, John Peter - [1983] FCA 111

Re: DAVID JOHN GARLAND MAPSTONE; BERNADETTE ANNE CALLAGHAN; GABRIELLE MARY
CRAWFORD; CHRISTOPHER WOODS; DIANNE MARGARET LINNANE
And: JOHN PETER MAYNES; JOAN RIORDAN; TERRENCE WILLIAM SULLIVAN; RICHARD JOHN
WASSON; VINCENT HIGGINS; DOUGLAS FRY; HARRY KRANTZ; JOHN DANIEL SMITH; MAXWELL
MULLER; LESLIE THOMAS HAUFF; GREGORY DAVID SWORDS; JOHN DUNCAN CAMERON;
ALEXANDRA JOHN NUCIFORA; GORDON McPHERSON; DAVID LEWIS; GRAHAM TREACY; PAUL
GRIFFITHS; PATRICK JAMES BROPHY; TADEUSZ MARIAN KOWALSKI; VINCENT McKENNA;
FEDERATED CLERKS UNION OF AUSTRALIA
Qld No. Q1 of 1983
Industrial
4 IR 198

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Fitzgerald J.

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL - second respondents dismissed as Branch Organizers by the Branch Council of the Union - second respondents employed by the Union as Branch Organizers - construction of Union and Branch Rules - autonomy of Branch - "matters affecting members of the branch only".

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, as amended, s. 140(1)(d), s.141(9)

Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961, as amended, (Qld)

HEARING

BRISBANE

#DATE 6:6:1983

ORDER

1. The respondents other than the third respondent observe the rules of the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia:

(a) by terminating forthwith the purported appeals by the second respondents from their dismissal as Branch organizers by the Branch Council of the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia Central and Southern Queensland Branch. (b) by terminating forthwith the employment of the second respondents to carry out the duties specified in rule 47 of the rules of the said Branch.

2. The first respondents observe and perform the said rules by treating as null and void the demand that the said Branch pay to the said Union an amount equivalent to the cost to the Union of the salaries and associated expenses of employment of the second respondents and the resolution of 16 March 1981 pursuant to which such demand was made.

JUDGE1

This is an application for orders pursuant to s.141(1G) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (Cwith) ("the Act"). An application for an order under s.140 of the Act has been left in abeyance on the understanding that a certain course of conduct will be abandoned by the respondents. Interim orders were made on the basis of undertakings on 12 May 1983. The applicants now seek final relief in the following terms:

"(a) An order under s.141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 that the first respondents observe the rules of the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia and those of the Central and Southern Queensland Branch by refraining from demanding that the said branch forward to the Federal Executive so much of the monies received by the said branch as shall be equivalent to the cost of the salaries and associated expenses of employment of the Second Respondents.

(b) An order under the said section that the First Respondents observe the said rules by refraining from causing or permitting the Second Respondents as employees of the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia to carry out or purport to carry out any of the functions of the said…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mapstone, David John Garland v Maynes, John Peter and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1983] FCA 111
Decision Date: 06 JUNE 1983

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between David John Garland Mapstone and John Peter Maynes concerned the interpretation of union rules within the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia Central and Southern Queensland Branch. Mapstone, the first respondent, sought to enforce the termination of the second respondents' employment as Branch Organizers, as well as to nullify their appeals against their dismissal. The dispute arose from the second respondents' dismissal by the Branch Council and their subsequent appeal, which Mapstone deemed invalid under the union's rules. The crux of the matter was the interpretation of the Branch Rules, particularly regarding the autonomy of the Branch and the scope of matters affecting members of the branch only.

The legal issues the court needed to address were the validity of the second respondents' appeals and the enforcement of the Branch Rules, specifically whether the Branch Council had the autonomy to manage internal matters without interference from the Union. The court had to determine if the Branch Rules allowed for the Branch to be autonomous in handling disputes concerning its own members, and if the Union's demand for the Branch to reimburse the Union for the costs associated with the second respondents' employment was valid.

The court found that the Branch Council had the autonomy to manage internal matters, including the dismissal and subsequent appeal of the second respondents. It ruled that the second respondents' appeals were not valid as per the Branch Rules, which specified that matters affecting members of the branch only were to be resolved internally by the Branch Council. Additionally, the court held that the Union's demand for reimbursement was null and void, as it overstepped the autonomy granted to the Branch under the union's rules. The court thus upheld Mapstone's position that the Branch Council's actions were within its jurisdiction.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondents other than the third respondent observe the rules of the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia:

(a) by terminating forthwith the purported appeals by the second respondents from their dismissal as Branch organizers by the Branch Council of the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia Central and Southern Queensland Branch. (b) by terminating forthwith the employment of the second respondents to carry out the duties specified in rule 47 of the rules of the said Branch.

2. The first respondents observe and perform the said rules by treating as null and void the demand that the said Branch pay to the said Union an amount equivalent to the cost to the Union of the salaries and associated expenses of employment of the second respondents and the resolution of 16 March 1981 pursuant to which such demand was made.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.