Squires, Richard James v Stephenson, Keith - [1983] FCA 19

Re: RICHARD JAMES SQUIRES
And: KEITH STEPHENSON; GLEN HOLLAND; PETER JACOBS; WARREN SMITH; RENE HERBERT;
DAVID BARWICK; LEW JACKSON; DAVID LOMAS; CHARLIE LUCAS; GARRY MORRIS; PAUL
MURPHY; MICHAEL SHEEHAN; CHRISTOPHER TREGEAGLE; TONY BAKER; MALCOLM MILLER;
JON JENKINS; TREVOR WILKINS; DAVEY JONES; FLIGHT STEWARDS' ASSOCIATION OF
AUSTRALIA
V. No. 6 of 1981
Industrial law
4 IR 1

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Sheppard J.

CATCHWORDS

Industrial law - membership of registered organisation - charge against member of disobedience to lawful decision of Federal Council - charge invalid for procedural and substantive reasons - amendment of rules of organisation - procedure to be followed - whether certain rules contravene provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 - Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, ss.132, 139, 140, 141 and 188; regulations thereunder 115(1)(d)(iii) and (v).

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 14:2:1983

JUDGE1

This is the return of a rule to show cause granted by Northrop J. on 4 May, 1981. The applicant is a member of the Flight Stewards' Association of Australia, an organisation registered pursuant to the provisions of s.132 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 ("the Act"). The application is brought pursuant to ss.140 and 141 of the Act. The respondents to the application are the Association already mentioned and the members of the Federal Council thereof. One of these (the evidence does not reveal his name) had resigned before the events in question in the proceedings. An amendment to the title of the proceedings should be made before any final order is taken out.

The applicant seeks a number of orders each of which is specified in the rule. Rather than set out the orders sought in this judgment I have appended the rule as a schedule to it.

The applicant did not eventually press for orders 5(c), 6, 7 or 10(iv). Order 3(b) was amended by substituting for the word "describing" in the first line thereof the word "treating". There were some other amendments made during the course of the hearing to which I shall later refer.

The contest between the parties arises because of disagreements between them which occurred at or about the time of the imposition of bans by the Association upon the Special Performance variant of the Boeing 747 aircraft in the early months of 1981. The aircraft is a shortened version of the jumbo jet aircraft operated by Qantas Limited and was considered by Qantas Limited not to require the same number of cabin crew as the standard version thereof.

Two major matters of disagreement concerned the purported increase by the Council of the Association of membership fees and the laying of a charge against the applicant by another member of the Association alleging a breach of the Association's Rules.

In order that the various questions raised for decision may be properly understood it is necessary that I refer to certain of the Rules of the Association, to certain evidence which was given and to some of the provisions…

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 Squires, Richard James v Stephenson, Keith 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 19
Decision Date: 14 FEBRUARY 1983

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Squires, Richard James v Stephenson, Keith, the dispute arose within the context of industrial law, focusing on the membership of a registered organisation. The crux of the matter was a charge against the plaintiff, Squires, for alleged disobedience to a lawful decision of the Federal Council. The plaintiff contested the validity of this charge on both procedural and substantive grounds, arguing that it was invalid due to the manner in which it was issued and the nature of the decision itself. The case was heard in the relevant court, which had to determine whether the charge against Squires was legitimate and, if not, the implications for his membership.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting and applying provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, specifically sections 132, 139, 140, 141, and 188, alongside relevant regulations such as 115(1)(d)(iii) and (v). The primary question was whether the charge against Squires could stand given the procedural and substantive failings. Additionally, the court had to consider whether certain amendments to the organisation's rules contravened the Act, and if so, what the effect of such contraventions would be on the organisation's operations and the rights of its members.

In its reasoning, the court found that the charge against Squires was indeed invalid. The procedural defects were significant, as the decision-making process did not adhere to the requirements laid out in the Act and its regulations. Furthermore, the substantive content of the charge did not align with lawful decisions as prescribed by the Act. The court emphasised that any amendments to the rules of the organisation must follow a specific procedure to ensure compliance with the Act. Consequently, the court held that the charge against Squires was not valid and ruled in his favour. The final orders included the invalidation of the charge against Squires and a directive for the organisation to amend its procedures to ensure future compliance with the Act.

Orders