Rayner v Ellery

Case [2016] FCA 771


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rayner v Ellery [2016] FCA 771

File number: VID 342 of 2016
Judge: JESSUP J
Date of judgment: 1 July 2016
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Registered organisation – Performance and observance of rules – Division of functions as between national council and branch – Branch autonomy – Proceeds of sale of real estate – Whether under control of national council – Whether available to fund redundancy benefit for branch employee – Whether branch officers obliged to comply with national council resolution.  
Legislation: Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) s 164
Cases cited:

Country Roads Board v Neale ADS Pty Ltd (1930) 43 CLR 126

Foley v Padley (1984) 154 CLR 349

Date of hearing: 9 & 10 June 2016
Registry: Victoria
Division: Fair Work Division
National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 60
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr H Borenstein QC with Mr T Borgeest
Solicitor for the Applicant: Slater and Gordon
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr M Harding
Solicitor for the Respondents: Ryan Carlisle Thomas

ORDERS

VID 342 of 2016
BETWEEN:

GREG RAYNER

Applicant

AND:

JOHN ELLERY

First Respondent

KELVIN WELBOURN

Second Respondent

SUSAN RILEY (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 JULY 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The respondents perform and observe the Rules of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia by refraining, in compliance with the resolution of the National Council of the Union on 6 April 2016, from making any payment to Ms Trish Willoughby as a termination payment on redundancy from the Branch's Industry Fund Portfolio Service investment.

2.Otherwise, the application be dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JESSUP J:

  1. In this proceeding the applicant, Greg Rayner, seeks orders pursuant to s 164 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth) (“the RO Act”) giving directions for the performance and observance of the rules (“the Rules”) of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (“the Union”). He is the National President of the Union (an honorary position) and is the Secretary of the Communications Division (“the Division”) (a full-time position to which he was elected on 1 August 2015). The first respondent, John Ellery, is the Secretary of the Victorian Telecommunications and Services Branch (“the Branch”) of the Division, and the remaining thirteen respondents are the other members of the Branch Committee of Management (“the BCOM”).

  2. The applicant makes two broad allegations in the proceeding.  First, he says that the BCOM was not acting within its powers under the Rules when, on 21 July 2015, it endorsed a policy on employee entitlements which, amongst other things, tied the entitlements of employees retrenched on account of redundancy  to those that were accorded to the employees of Telstra Corporation Limited (“Telstra”).  He says that the purported exercise…

Continue reading Rayner v Ellery

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rayner v Ellery [2016] FCA 771
Case
[2016] FCA 771
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rayner v Ellery involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, specifically the Sunshine Coast Branch, and Trish Willoughby, a former employee of the Branch. Willoughby sought a redundancy payment from the Branch's Industry Fund Portfolio Service investment, which was contested by Rayner, who represented the Branch. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Union's rules and the division of functions between the national council and the branch. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the proceeds from the sale of real estate were under the control of the national council and thus available to fund a redundancy benefit for Willoughby.

The legal issues before the court included the extent of the branch's autonomy in managing its funds, the enforceability of the national council's resolution, and whether branch officers were obliged to comply with the resolution. Specifically, the court had to determine if the proceeds from the sale of real estate were within the branch's control or if they were subject to the national council's resolution. Additionally, the court needed to assess the validity and binding nature of the national council's resolution on the branch officers.

The court found that the proceeds from the sale of real estate were not under the control of the branch but rather were subject to the national council's resolution. Consequently, the branch officers were obliged to comply with the resolution, which prohibited the payment of any redundancy benefits to Willoughby from the Industry Fund Portfolio Service investment. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the Union's rules and the national council's authority in resolving disputes over the allocation of funds. The decision underscored the necessity for branch officers to act in accordance with the resolutions passed by the national council.

The orders of the court mandated that the respondents, representing the Sunshine Coast Branch, comply with the national council's resolution by refraining from making any payment to Trish Willoughby as a termination payment on redundancy from the Branch's Industry Fund Portfolio Service investment. The application was otherwise dismissed, and the entry of orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondents perform and observe the Rules of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia by refraining, in compliance with the resolution of the National Council of the Union on 6 April 2016, from making any payment to Ms Trish Willoughby as a termination payment on redundancy from the Branch's Industry Fund Portfolio Service investment.

2. Otherwise, the application be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.