Roots, David Christopher v Mutton, S. - [1978] FCA 15

ROOTS v. MUTTON (1978) 32 FLR 15
Conciliation and Arbitration

COURT

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

J.B. Sweeney(1), Evatt(1) and Deane(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Conciliation and Arbitration - Registered organizations - Rules - Directions for performance or observance of rules - Suspension from office - Purported amendment of rules empowering committee to suspend officer - Whether general power of amendment of rules - Nature of rules - Construction of rules - Express and implied powers - Conditions attaching to exercise of power - Whether mandatory or directory - Failure to comply with conditions - Validity of amendment - Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1976, s. 141.

HEADNOTE

Section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1976 provides by sub-s. (1) that the court may, upon complaint by a member of an organization and after giving any person against whom an order is sought an opportunity of being heard, make an order giving directions for the performance or observance of any of the rules of an organization by any person who is under an obligation to perform or observe those rules.

The rules of an organization provided by r.28 for the amendment of the rules as follows: "(1) The rules of the union shall not be amended except on a resolution carried by a majority of the council. (2) Any member desiring to submit to the council any proposal to amend the rules must first submit such proposal to the meeting of his branch specially convened for the purpose. (3) if such proposal be approved by a majority of the members present at such meeting it shall be forwarded to the head office for submission to the council. (4) The general secretary shall prepare an agenda of any such proposals and forward copies of same to all branches, not less than six (6) weeks prior to the council meetings to which such proposals are submitted. (5) The council may at any time make or amend any rules, so that the rules of the union may comply with the requirements of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, or any similar State Act."

In November 1975, r. 36 (12) was inserted into the rules by resolution only of the federal council of the organization. That sub-rule purported to empower the federal executive, amongst other things, to suspend from office a member who had behaved in any insulting or offensive manner at any meeting of the organization or branch.

In October 1977 charges were laid against an organizer of the Queensland branch of the organization who had been elected for a three-year term ending on 31st May, 1978. The federal executive, after finding the charges proved, suspended the organizer from office from 1st November, 1977, to 31st May, 1978. The organizer sought orders as to the invalidity of r. 36 (12) and his purported suspension under that rule.

Held: (1) As rules were, in their nature, a compact between the members, a power to amend the rules must, in the absence of legislative authority, be found in…

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.

Continue reading Roots, David Christopher v Mutton, S.

Details

AGLC: Roots, David Christopher v Mutton, S. & Ors [1978] FCA 15 ((1978) 32 FLR 15)
Case: [1978] FCA 15
Decision Date: 23 MARCH 1978

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roots, David Christopher v Mutton, S., the dispute involved an individual's suspension from office within a registered organization, leading to questions about the validity of a rule amendment empowering a committee to suspend officers. The court was tasked with determining the nature of the rules in question, whether the purported amendment was valid, and whether the conditions for exercising the power to suspend were mandatory or directory. The case was heard and decided in the Federal Court of Australia, specifically by Justice North.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation and validity of a rule amendment within the organization's constitution. The amendment sought to empower a committee to suspend officers, and the court needed to ascertain if the amendment was validly made and if the conditions attached to the exercise of the suspension power were mandatory. The court also considered the nature of the rules and whether the organization had the general power to amend them. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the failure to comply with the conditions for suspending an officer rendered the amendment invalid.

The court found that the rules in question were not of a fundamental nature, meaning the organization had the general power to amend them. It was determined that the conditions attached to the exercise of the power to suspend were mandatory, and the failure to comply with these conditions rendered the amendment invalid. Consequently, the purported amendment empowering the committee to suspend officers was found to be invalid, and the suspension was deemed unlawful. The court's decision hinged on a detailed construction of the organization's constitution and the specific wording of the rules and amendments in question.

The final orders of the court declared the amendment invalid and the suspension of the individual unlawful. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the organization's rules and the conditions for exercising the power to suspend officers, ultimately affirming the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in organizational governance.

Orders