Saddington, J.A. v Oliver, B. - [1993] FCA 327

JUDGMENT No. ........ ........ ., ......,., ., 327 , l9%3 i

CATCHWORDS

Industrial law - registered organisation - rules - performance and observance - interim orders - use of union logos in

I	electioneering material - whether breach of rules by

. -

candidates in elections - whether organiser distributing
electioneering material during working time.
Industrial Relations Act 1988 S. 209
JOHN ALLAN SADDINGTON V. BILL OLIVER & ORS.
NO. V.I. 30 OF 1993

JUDGE : Gray J.
PLACE : Melbourne
DATE : 7th May 1993

AUSTRALIA

21 MAY 1993

FEDERAL coum OF

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

1 NO. V.I. 30 of 1993
)
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION 1
B E T W E E N :

JOHN ALLAN SADDINGTON

Applicant

and

BILL OLIVER & Ors

Respondents

JUDGE : Gray J.
PLACE : Melbourne
DATE : 7th May 1993

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

There are in progress elections for various offices Building Union Division, Victorian Divisional Branch. Those in the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union,
elections are being conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. The ballot material is due to be distributed next Monday, 10th May 1993. The respondents in this proceeding, who number twenty-four persons, constitute a group of
- candidates in those elections known as the official ticket or as the BWIU Rank and File Supporters Group.
On Wednesday, 5th May 1993, the applicant, who is a member of the union and a candidate in opposition to the respondents' group, obtained a rule to show cause, calling upon the respondents to show cause why the following orders should not be made:-

(l)

That the respondents perform and observe the rules of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, ("the Union") by:-

(a)

refraining from using the staff funds or resources of the Union or the Building Unions Division, Victorian Divisional Branch of the Union for the purpose of assisting or promoting certain candidates in the election currently being held in the Building Union Division, Victorian Divisional Branch to the exclusion of other candidates;

(b)

refraining from authorising, producing or distributing any leaflet bearing the official logo of the Union or the official logo of one of the Union's predecessor organisations, the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, for the purpose of assisting or promoting certain candidates in the election currently being held in the Building Union Division, Victorian Divisional Branch to the exclusion of other candidates.

The application is made under S. 209 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988. At the time when the rule to show cause was granted, the judge granting it granted interim orders until 4.00 pm today, 7th May 1993, in the terms in which final relief is sought. The rule to show cause was made returnable today and counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondents have appeared. Counsel for the applicant has sought the continuation of the orders made on Wednesday, by way of interim orders, pending the hearing and determination of…

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 Saddington, J.A. v Oliver, B. 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: [1993] FCA 327
Decision Date: 7 May 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Saddington v Oliver and others revolved around allegations of misuse of union resources in the context of internal union elections. The applicant, John Allan Saddington, a union member and election candidate, sought interim orders against the respondents, a group of candidates known as the BWIU Rank and File Supporters Group, to prevent them from using union funds and resources, including logos, to support their election campaign. The application was made under section 209 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.

The court had to determine whether the use of union logos on electioneering material constituted a breach of union rules, and if the respondents misused union resources during working hours. The applicant relied on union rules regarding the control and use of union funds and property, suggesting that the respondents' actions breached these provisions. However, the court found that the proper recourse for alleged misuse of union property would be against the decision-making bodies controlling those resources, not the respondents themselves. Therefore, the application concerning the misuse of union logos was dismissed, and the interim orders were discharged.

Regarding the allegation that one respondent, Dave Noonan, used union time and resources for electioneering, the court found the evidence insufficient to support an interim order. The conflicting accounts and lack of detailed evidence meant the applicant could not establish the alleged misuse to the required standard. The court emphasised the importance of organisers adhering to their duties without engaging in election campaigning during work hours.

In conclusion, the court discharged the interim orders, dismissed the application for further interim orders, and set deadlines for the filing of contentions and affidavits, as well as scheduling a directions hearing.

Orders