Ward, Leonard Edward v Hughie Williams

Re: LEONARD EDWARD WARD; GREGORY JOHN RAY; LAWRENCE JOHN TURNER; BRIAN STUART
LEE; LESLIE RONALD LEE; ROY LESLIE LINCOLN; DONALD LYNALD BARDEN; RONALD JAMES
POTTER and JOHN CHARLES PENHALLURICK
And: HUGHIE WILLIAMS; ALLAN McPAUL; CLARENCE ROHWEDER; GREGORY NEWTON; HENRY
ASPLIN; STUART CROSBY; DAVID PEARCE; MERVYN KENDALL; PETER THOMSON and JOHN
HINSPETER
No. 3 of 1984
Industrial Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Neaves J.

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - Commonwealth - Registered organization - Rules - Construction - Resolutions of Branch Committee of Management - Whether authorised by the rules - Requirement of notice of motion to reconsider prior resolution - Inter-relation of powers of Branch Committee of Management and Branch Secretary - Organizers to be elected or appointed - Power to appoint additional organizers following triennial election for such positions - Relationship between Branch Committee of Management, Branch Secretary and organizers - Provision of staff and facilities for exclusive use of sub-branch - Custody of moveable property of the branch - Payment of legal expenses from branch funds.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, section 141

McKay v. Oliver (1967) 15 FLR 39

Dugmore v. Porter (Northrop J. - unreported - 17 December 1982)

Gordon v. Carroll (1975) 6 ALR 579

Re Penhallurick (1983) 51 ALR 589

Jess v. Scott (Beaumont J. - unreported - 2 March 1984)

Porter v. Dugmore (Full Court - unreported - 2 April 1984)

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 29:5:1984

ORDER

The rule to show cause be discharged.

The injunction granted by way of interim relief on 28 March 1984 be dissolved.

All questions of costs be reserved for further consideration.

JUDGE1

This is the return of a rule issued on 28 March 1984 at the suit of Leonard Edward Ward, Gregory John Ray, Lawrence John Turner, Brian Stuart Lee, Leslie Ronald Lee, Roy Leslie Lincoln, Donald Lynald Barden, Ronald James Potter and John Charles Penhallurick ("the applicants"). The rule called upon Hughie Williams, Allan McPaul, Clarence Rohweder, Gregory Newton, Henry Asplin, Stuart Crosby, David Pearce, Mervyn Kendall, Peter Thomson and John Hinspeter ("the respondents") to show cause why orders should not be made under section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 ("the Act") that the respondents observe rules 22, 30, 32, 33 and 47 of the rules of the Transport Workers' Union of Australia ("the Union") and why ancillary orders should not be made in terms of sub-paragraphs 1 to 11 inclusive of paragraph A of the application dated 19 March 1984 filed in these proceedings on behalf of the applicants. Those sub-paragraphs relate to the implementation of a resolution of the Branch Committee of Management of the Queensland Branch of the Union carried on 15 March 1984.

The Union is an organization registered pursuant to the Act. There is a branch of the Union known as the Queensland Branch. That Branch is divided into nine sub-branches, one of those sub-branches being known as the Brisbane Sub-Branch.
Each of the applicants is a member of the Union. At elections held for the Queensland Branch (the results of which were declared on 9 March 1984), Mr. Ward was elected Branch Secretary. The full title of his office (see sub-rule 61(h)) is "Secretary-Treasurer-Federal Committee of Management - Federal Council Representative" but, for convenience, I shall refer to the office as that of Branch Secretary. Messrs. Ray, Turner, B.S. Lee, L.R. Lee and Lincoln were elected Branch Organizers to carry out duties in the Brisbane Sub-Branch area or as directed by the Branch Secretary. Mr. Barden was elected Branch Organizer to carry out duties in the Ipswich and Kingaroy Sub-Branch area or as directed by the Branch Secretary. Mr. Potter was elected a Branch Trustee. Mr. Penhallurick does not hold any office in the Queensland Branch. Of the applicants, only Messrs. Ward, Barden and Potter are members of the Branch Committee of Management.
Of the respondents, Mr. Williams, who previously held office as Branch Secretary, was defeated in the election for that position by Mr. Ward. Mr. Williams was, however, elected Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary, an honorary position which he had held before the election. Each of the other respondents is a member of the Branch Committee of Management. Mr. Asplin is the Branch President. Mr. Newton is the Branch Vice-President. Mr. McPaul is a Branch Trustee. Messrs. Rohweder, Pearce, Kendall and Thomson are Committeemen elected by the Brisbane Sub-Branch. Mr. Crosby is the Committeeman elected by the Toowoomba, Warwick and Roma Sub-Branch and Mr. Hinspeter the Committeeman elected by the Northern Queensland Sub-Branch. Two members of the Branch Committee of Management are not parties to the proceedings.
The Union was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings: see Owens v. Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation (1978) 19 A.L.R. 569 at p. 575. The Court was much assisted by the careful and detailed analysis of the rules of the Union presented by counsel appearing on its behalf.
The resolution that was carried by the Branch Committee of Management, by a majority of 8 votes to 5, on 15 March 1984 was in the following terms -

"That in view of the almost total change of Organisers in the Brisbane Sub-Branch and the newly-elected considerable lack of experience by the Organisers, and taking into consideration the detrimental effect this will have on the rank and file members, particularly in the Brisbane Sub-Branch, this BRANCH COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT DETERMINES THAT -

The Branch shall make available to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary, Hughie Williams, Room twenty-one (21), First Floor, Trades Hall, Brisbane, for the purpose of conducting the business of the Brisbane sub-Branch. Room twenty-one (21) will also be utilised for the purpose of the Brisbane Sub-Branch Executive Meetings. Room twenty-one (21) will be supplied with a Committee table for the conduct of the Executive Sub-Branch Meetings, Office desk, telephone, and all necessary office equipment and furniture to conduct the administration and business of the Brisbane Sub-Branch.

The Branch Secretary shall make available to the Brisbane Sub-Branch, the necessary meeting rooms to conduct the Branch monthly General Meetings that are held on the first Friday of each month, and any other such meetings that may be necessary to be convened within the

Brisbane Sub-Branch.

The Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary shall have free access to all sections of the Queensland Branch Offices, also the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary shall have complete access to all correspondence and documents that may be re-required to carry out his necessary duties.

The Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary is authorised to deal direct with the Union's Solicitors - McCrossan & Douglas - on all matters pertaining to the Brisbane Sub-Branch and its members, provided that all costs incurred are authorised by the Branch Committee of Management.

All Brisbane Sub-Branch Organisers shall report verbally and in writing to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary on all matters, including all disputes. The Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary will notify the Branch Secretary of all these matters.

The Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary shall be Co-ordinator and Minute Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union Safety Committee, and the Transport Workers Union - TUTA Trade Union Training Committee.

The Sub-Branch Secretary shall call the above Meetings as deemed necessary. He shall forward the copies of all minutes to the Branch Secretary.

The Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary shall be competent to make press statements on all matters pertaining to the duties so outlined.

The Branch shall continue to make available to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary any necessary office staff which will at least consist of a Stenographer and Clerk/Typist for the purpose of attending to correspondence, membership records, and any other purpose necessary to administer the Brisbane Sub-Branch. The Staff, as mentioned, shall be immediately responsible to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary. All correspondence to the Brisbane Sub-Branch shall immediately be forwarded to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary for his attention and action.

The Branch shall make available a telephone at the residence and at the office of the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary, and shall pay all Union calls and the rent of such telephones.

The Branch shall continue to make available to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary the Branch Motor Vehicle, Ford, Registration No. 744OXI, and shall pay for the fuel and maintenance costs.

This Branch Committee of Management further determines that in pursuance to Rule 30, the Brisbane Sub Branch Secretary Hughie John Williams be appointed as a Branch Organiser. He shall be domiciled in Brisbane and carry out organising duties in all parts of the Brisbane Sub-Branch. He shall assist in all other matters relevant to the Branch. The Organiser, having regard for all other responsibilities, e.g. Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary and all other duties as previously outlined, shall be paid a salary and allowance equal to that paid to the Branch Industrial Research Officer as determined by the Branch Committee of Management.

He shall be entitled to retain all accrued Annual Leave, Sick Leave and Long Service Leave and he shall continue to accrue all such leave in accordance with the Rules and Policy of the Union.

The Branch Secretary will ensure that the necessary Certificates of Authorities are immediately supplied to all Organisers and Officers, whether elected or appointed. He will take up his duties as above, commencing on Friday, 16th March, 1984."

On the date on which the rule to show cause was issued, viz. 28 March 1984, the Court granted the applicants interim relief by way of injunction restraining the respondents, pending the hearing and determination of the matter or until further order, from giving effect to so much of the resolution of 15 March 1984 referred to above as provided that -

(1) the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary Hughie Williams be appointed as a Branch organizer;

(2) all Branch Organizers performing duty in the Brisbane Sub-Branch area report verbally and in writing to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary on all matters, including all disputes;

(3) the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary have free access to all sections of the Queensland Branch Offices and complete access to correspondence and documents of the Queensland Branch; and

(4) the Queensland Branch make available to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary staff at present employed by the Queensland Branch and performing duty in the Queensland Branch Offices.

The order of the Court made clear that the injunction so granted was not to prevent the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary having access to the membership records of the Queensland Branch relating to the members of the Brisbane Sub-Branch.

The rule to show cause was expressed to be returnable before the Court at Brisbane on a date and at a time to be notified to the parties. Subsequently, but prior to 17 April 1984, 26 April 1984 was notified to the parties as the date upon which the hearing of the matter would commence.
A meeting of the Branch Committee of Management was held on 19 April 1984. At that meeting a series of resolutions was carried including resolutions in the following terms -

"3. That in respect of the application to the Federal Court of Australia by LEONARD EDWARD WARD and others in relation to a meeting of this Committee that the Queensland Branch of the Union reimburse all respondents to the application all loss of wages incurred by them as a result of having to attend at Court as a result of these proceedings together with all travelling expenses, such payment to be made on the same basis as when such persons attend at a meeting of the Branch Committee of Management and such payments to be made within two (2) days of request for payment being made.

4. (a) That this meeting of the Branch Committee of Management notes the report of the President HENRY ASPLIN given at a special meeting of the Branch Committee of Management on 21 March, 1984 and notes further that the report given by the President HENRY ASPLIN was endorsed at that meeting.

(b) This Committee determines that all accounts rendered by the Union's solicitors Macrossan Douglas of and incidental to resisting the proceedings brought by LEONARD EDWARD WARD and others in the Federal Court including all reasonable outlays including Counsel's fees be paid by the Branch within seven

(7) days of such accounts being rendered by the Union's solicitors."

The above resolutions were carried by a majority of 9 votes to 5.

At the same meeting notice in writing was given of motions that the Branch Committee of Management reconsider "to any extent necessary in accordance with Rule 47(c)" of the rules of the Union as an item of special business at a special meeting of the Branch Committee of Management to be held on 26 April 1984 at 8.00 a.m. -

(a) the whole of the resolution passed on 15 March 1984 the text of which is set out above;

(b) that part of the resolution passed on 15 March 1984 which provided that the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary have free access to all sections of the Queensland Branch Office; and

(c) the resolution passed on 16 February 1984 which provided -

"That the policy of this Union in respect of press statements being made is that the Branch Secretary be solely responsible for all media statements and releases."

In each case the text of the resolutions which it was proposed should be moved at the special meeting to be held on 26 April 1984 were set forth.

The meeting resolved that the Branch Committee of Management call a special meeting at 8 a.m. on 26 April 1984 to deal with urgent and outstanding business, namely the motions referred to above.
The special meeting was held at 8 a.m. on 26 April 1984 and carried, by a majority of 8 votes to 5, a resolution in the following terms -

"That this Branch Committee of Management, noting:-

(a) That proceedings are presently before the Federal Court of Australia at Brisbane in relation to resolutions passed by the Committee on the 15th day of March, 1984 and that doubts have arisen as to the Committee's intentions.

(b) Of the seven Branch Organisers of the Queensland Branch of the TWU of Australia who are resident within the geographical area of Brisbane Sub-Branch to carry out organisational duties within that Sub-Branch area, four have no experience as organisers whatsoever. Further the Organiser resident within a reasonable area of Ipswich is also inexperienced.

(c) The position of Branch Secretary and Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary are presently held by different members of the Union for the first time in about forty-five years and consequently difficulties have arisen in relation to the Union's functioning in the Brisbane Sub-Branch area.

(d) Complaints have been made by the rank and file members of the Union as to the handling by the new Organisers of their duties because of their inexperience.

(e) Of the seven office staff of the Branch at Brisbane six have resigned and the seventh has indicated an intention to resign, and that this will cause difficulty to and add to the burden of work on the Branch Secretary and the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary.

(f) It is economically desirable that the Brisbane Sub-Branch utilise presently available office space and facilities of the Branch so far as is practicable.

(g) That for many years no sizeable Sub-Branch has been able to function effectively without an organiser, either appointed or elected, being also Sub-Branch Secretary.

resolves -

(A) That the Committee reaffirms and makes clear its view that there is a need for an additional Organiser to be resident in the Brisbane Sub-Branch area and to assist in the work of the Branch in the Brisbane Sub-Branch area.

(B) That the number of Organisers resident within the geographical area of the Brisbane Sub-Branch be increased from seven to eight available for full-time work;

(C) That the additional Organiser in accordance with the Rule just referred to be appointed.

(D) That Hughie John Williams be appointed to the vacant position as from 16th March, 1984.

(E) To reaffirm the requirement that, in addition to their other obligations to report all Branch Organisers performing duty within the Brisbane Sub-Branch area give prompt reports verbally (sic) and in writing to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary on all matters, including all disputes.

(F) That the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary have such access as he may require to the membership records of the Branch relating to the members of the Brisbane Sub-Branch and that the Branch Secretary make himself reasonably available for this purpose having regard to Rule 13.

(G) That in addition to (F) the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary be similarly granted full access at reasonable times to the correspondence and documents of the Queensland Branch except those which have no direct or indirect relationship to the interests and affairs of that Sub-Branch and its members.

(H) That the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary be similarly granted reasonable access to all sections of the Queensland Branch office except any section where staff are employed or records are kept which staff or records have no direct or indirect relationship to the interests and affairs of that Sub-Branch or its members.

(I) That there be five office staff on the Branch assigned to the Branch Office and affairs of the Branch and that these staff be selected by and responsible to the Branch Secretary subject to final approval being given to their engagement by the Branch Committee of Management.

(J) That there be two office staff paid by the Queensland Branch assigned for the exclusive use of the Brisbane Sub-Branch, to be selected by the Sub-Branch Executive and responsible to the Sub-Branch Secretary and that those office staff consist of:-

(a) Senior Stenographer;

(b) Filing Clerk.

subject to final approval being given to their engagement by the Branch Committee of Management and that these two staff be employed in room 21, i.e., Branch premises not now used as part of the Branch office."

The meeting also carried, by a similar majority, a resolution -

"That all Sub-Branch Secretaries shall be competent to make press statements on all matters pertaining to their duties as outlined in the rules and/or resolutions of this Committee".

When the hearing commenced the applicants contended that the resolutions carried on 19 April and 26 April 1984 to which reference has been made were contrary to the rules of the Union. Counsel for the applicants foreshadowed the filing of an amended application which would include references to those resolutions. It was contended by the respondents, and not disputed by the applicants, that the effect of the resolutions carried on 26 April 1984 was not to displace the whole of the resolution of 15 March 1984 some parts of which still remained operative. It seems to be unnecessary for the purposes of this judgment to set out those parts of the resolution. It will be sufficient to refer generally to them in the course of considering the parties' submissions.
An amended application was subsequently filed on behalf of the applicants. In anticipation of its being filed the matter proceeded on the basis that the rule issued on 28 March 1984 be treated as calling upon the respondents to show cause why orders similar to those sought in relation to the resolution of 15 March 1984 should not be made in relation to the later resolutions. It is appropriate that the rule be amended to call upon the respondents to show cause why orders should not be made under section 141 of the Act that the respondents observe rules 22, 30, 32, 33 and 47 of the rules of the Union and why ancillary orders should not be made in terms of sub-paragraphs 1 to 11 inclusive of paragraph A of the amended application dated 11 May 1984 filed in these proceedings on behalf of the applicants and I so order.
It is convenient at this point to refer to certain of the rules of the Union. They provide that, subject to the provisions of the Act, the supreme control of the Union is vested in a Federal Council constituted by the Federal Secretary, the Federal Assistant Secretary, the Branch Secretary for the time being of each branch and any additional Federal Councillor or Councillors representing a branch to which such branch is entitled under the rules (sub-rule 5(a)). The Federal Council elects by and from its members a Federal President, a Federal Vice-President and three Federal Trustees (sub-rule 5(e)). There is a Federal Committee of Management consisting of the Federal Secretary, the Federal Assistant Secretary, the Federal President, the Federal Vice-President and each Branch Secretary not already a member by virtue of being elected to the office of Federal President or Federal Vice-President (sub-rule 5(4)). When the Federal Council is not assembled in meeting and subject to the rules the Federal Committee of Management is invested with executive powers for the purpose of determining any matter affecting the interests of the Union or its members or any business submitted to it (through the office of the Federal Secretary) in writing by a branch (sub-rule 24(a)).
Sub-rule 5(g) provides that, for the purpose of assisting the Federal Council to control and manage the Union, a Branch may be constituted in each State and Territory where 100 or more members reside. Rule 6 makes provision for the formation of branches when fifty or more members are residing in a State or Territory where no branch is constituted. The Federal Committee of Management may call a meeting of those members. Upon the passing of a resolution at such meeting (at which not less than 15 financial members who reside in the State or Territory are present) that a branch be formed and the election at the meeting of a Branch President, a Branch Secretary, two Branch Trustees and not less than 7 and not more than 11 Committeemen the branch is to be deemed to be formed (sub-rule 6(a)). Sub-rule 6(c) provides that, notwithstanding anything prescribed elsewhere in the rules or any previous resolution of the Union or of its members, upon registration of the rules, branches in the terms of rule 6 are to be deemed to be constituted in each State and Territory.
Each branch elects on a triennial basis a Branch Committee of Management consisting of a Branch President, Branch Vice-President, Branch Secretary, two Trustees and not less than 7 and not more than 11 Committeemen (sub-rules 5(g) and 30(a)). The Branch Committee of Management, subject to the rules, has control of all business of the Union within the area over which it is constituted to operate (sub-rule 30(a)). Sub-rules 30(d) and (e) provide -

"30. - Branch Committee of Management

- Constitution and Powers

Branch Committee of Management and Officers

. . . . . .

(d) Without limiting its powers in any way each Branch Committee of Management shall have power to:

(i) cancel the whole or any part of the members arrears of contributions, fines or levies; and

(ii) Vote and expend any money that may be necessary in connexion with the business of the Branch; and

(iii) Determine such assistance as it deems necessary to employ to carry on the work of the Branch; and

(iv) Determine whether organizers shall be elected or appointed and the number of such organizers, and to reduce the number at any time; and

(v) Determine what salaries or other remuneration shall be paid to Branch Officers and others employed by the Branch.

(e) All paid officers, Organizers and employees of a Branch shall be subject to the control and direction of the Branch Committee of Management as expressed through the Branch Secretary.

. . . . . ."

Each branch is to control the funds available to it for the purpose of payment of contributions to the Federal Council and for both ordinary and extraordinary purposes by resolutions of the Branch Committee of Management (sub-rule 38(e)(v)). By virtue of sub-rule 47(c)(i), when the Branch Committee of Management has made a decision it is to have full effect and be observed by members of the branch.
A Branch Committee of Management may establish sub-branches within the State or Territory within which it is constituted. Such sub-branches are to function only within the area determined from time to time by the Branch Committee of Management concerned (sub-rule 5(g)). Each sub-branch elects a Sub-Branch Executive Committee consisting of a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary and 6 Committeemen. That Committee is to conduct the business of the sub-branch (sub-rule 30(c)). The duties of sub-branch officers are to be, insofar as relevant in respect of their sub-branch, the same as apply to branch officers (sub-rule 32(f)).
The Branch President, Branch Vice-President, Branch Secretary and Branch Trustees and, in branches which are not divided into sub-branches, the Committeemen are elected by a ballot of the whole of the members of the branch who are eligible to vote. In branches which are divided into sub-branches, the Committeemen are elected by a ballot of the members of their respective sub-branches who are eligible to vote on the basis set out in the rule (sub-rule 30(b)). In the case of the Queensland Branch, the Committeemen are elected on the following basis - Brisbane Sub-Branch 4; Rockhampton Sub-Branch 1; Wide Bay Sub-Branch 1; Toowoomba, Warwick and Roma Sub-Branch 1; Ipswich and Kingaroy Sub-Branch 1; and Northern Queensland Sub-Branch 1 (sub-rule 30(c)). The Branch Committee of Management of the Queensland Branch, therefore, consists of 14 members.
Although the Queensland Branch Secretary is elected by the members of the branch who are eligible to vote and the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary is elected by the members of that sub-branch, the situation for many years has been that the same person has been elected to both offices. As already appears that pattern of voting did not emerge at the recent election, Mr. Ward defeating Mr. Williams for the position of Branch Secretary and Mr. Williams defeating Mr. Ward for the position of Secretary of the Brisbane Sub-Branch.
Historically the affairs of the Brisbane Sub-Branch have been administered from the offices of the Queensland Branch in Brisbane and the sub-branch has not had separate premises. In this respect the Brisbane Sub-Branch differs from some of the other sub-branches where office premises are provided by the Queensland Branch for the use of the honorary secretary of the sub-branch, the sub-branch executive and the branch organizer performing duties in the area. The mode of operating the Brisbane Sub-Branch was no doubt a convenient one when the Queensland Branch Secretary also occupied the honorary office of Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary. The records maintained in respect of the membership of the Brisbane Sub-Branch are kept at the office of the Queensland Branch and the records so maintained are the only set of records kept in respect of the membership of that sub-branch. Other sub-branches maintain the records relating to sub-branch membership and a copy of those records is kept at the office of the Queensland Branch.
It is against this background that the validity of the resolutions of 15 March, 19 April and 26 April 1984 must be considered.

Principal Resolution of 26 April 1984
The main thrust of the applicants' attack on this resolution centred on paragraphs (A), (B), (C) and (D) thereof. Those parts of the resolution provide for an increase of one in the number of organizers resident within the geographical area of the Brisbane Sub-Branch and the appointment of Mr. Williams to the additional position as from 16 March 1984. Related to those paragraphs are the provisions, which are said to remain on foot, contained in the resolution of 15 March 1984 conferring on Mr. Williams an entitlement to retain accrued annual leave, sick leave and long service leave and to continue to accrue such leave in accordance with the rules and policy of the Union.
In support of the submission that paragraphs (A), (B), (C) and (D) of the resolution of 26 April 1984 and the provisions of the resolution of 15 March 1984 to which I have referred are contrary to the rules, the applicants rely on sub-rule 22(b)(iii), sub-rule 30(d)(iv) and sub-rule 33(a)(vii). Those sub-rules provide -

"22. - Eligibility to Hold Office

(a) . . . . .

(b) Subject to para (a) hereof a person is eligible to hold the office of - . . . . .

(iii) Organizer (whether elected or appointed); if he is a financial member of the Union continuously for the previous three years and is financial at the time of his nomination for election (or appointment as the case may be) but not otherwise."

"30. - Branch Committee of Management

- Constitution and Powers

Branch Committee of Management and Officers

. . . . .

(d) Without limiting its powers in any way each Branch Committee of Management shall have power to:

. . . . .

(iv) Determine whether organizers shall be elected or appointed and the number of such organizers, and to reduce the number at any time;

. . . . ."

"33. - Branch and Sub-Branch Elections

(a) Elections shall be held in 1979 and every three years thereafter for the following Branch Officers and representatives:

. . . .

(vii) Branch Organizers in each Branch which has determined that an election is required to fill such positions.

. . . ."

For the applicants it was submitted that, on their proper construction, the rules require a Branch Committee of Management to make a choice whether all positions of branch organizer are to be filled by election or whether all are to be filled by appointment. The Branch Committee of Management of the Queensland Branch, it was said, has had such positions filled by election and, that option having been taken and followed, there is no power in the Branch Committee of Management to make an appointment to any position of organizer other than an appointment under rule 34 to fill a casual vacancy. Reference was made to the specific power expressly conferred by sub-rule 30(d)(iv) to reduce the number of organizers at any time and the absence from the rules of any similar power to increase the number. It was submitted that the only power in the Branch Committee of Management to increase the number of organizers derives from its power to fix the number of organizers at the same time as it exercises the power, which may be exercised from time to time to determine whether such positions are to be filled by election or appointment. The provisions of sub-rule 30(d)(iv), so it was said, require the inference to be drawn that the power to determine the number of organizers is ancillary to the power to choose the method of selection. That inference was said to be consistent with the manifest intent of the rule.
Reference was also made to rule 34 which provides -

"34. - Casual Vacancies - Branch and Sub-Branch

If any of the officers referred to in Rule 33(a) or (r) dies or resigns his office or for any reason ceases to be entitled to hold his office, or is unable to perform his duties by reason of illness or incapacity or has been granted leave of absence, the Branch Committee of Management in the case of the offices referred to in Rule 33(a), and the Sub-Branch Executive Committee in the case of the offices referred to in Rule 33(r) and in Branches divided into Sub-Branches the office of Branch Committeemen representing the Sub-Branch, shall appoint a member of the Union to take the place of such officer for a period not exceeding twelve months, provided that such member is eligible to hold the office pursuant to Rule 22. If the unexpired portion of the term of the officer who ceased to hold office exceeds twelve months nominations for election as his successor shall be called for, and if necessary an election conducted in accordance as far as practicable with Rule 33, but the successful candidate shall only hold office for the remainder of the term of office of his predecessor."

Rule 33, which is headed "Branch and Sub-Branch Elections" identifies in sub-rule (a) the branch officers and representatives who are to be elected on a triennial basis. Paragraph (vii) of that sub-rule has already been set out. Sub-rule 33(r) identifies the sub-branch offices for which elections are to be held. It was argued that rule 34 contemplates that all offices are to be filled for a specific term and that the power of a Branch Committee of Management to determine the mode of selection of organizers and, if appropriate, to increase their number may be exercised only at or near the end of the term of those currently holding office.

A related submission based on rule 34 was that the rules require that each appointment of an organizer be for a definite duration or term. Mr. Williams having been appointed without a duration or term having been fixed, his appointment was said to be contrary to the rules.
Mr. Williams' appointment was also attacked on a narrower basis. It was pointed out that by virtue of sub-rule 22(g) a person is not eligible to nominate for election to more than one office where the offices concerned are full-time salaried offices. The position of Branch Secretary of the Queensland Branch and the positions of branch organizer are full-time salaried offices. Mr. Williams had nominated at the recently held elections for the full-time salaried position of Branch Secretary and could not, consistently with the rules, have nominated for a position of branch organizer. Sub-rule 22(g) was said to give rise to an implied requirement that any power which the Branch Committee of Management may have to increase the number of organizers and make appointments to the additional positions may not properly be used, immediately after the results of an election are declared, to appoint to a full-time salaried position of organizer a person who has been an unsuccessful candidate at that election for another full-time salaried office.
It was also submitted that Mr. Williams was elected to an honorary position, that of Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary, and that it is inconsistent with his election to that honorary position to provide for him to receive a salary, albeit that appropriate to a position described as that of full-time organizer.
In my opinion each of these submissions must be rejected.
In McKay v. Oliver (1967) 15 FLR 39, a case concerning the rules of the Australian Workers' Union, Kerr J. (as he then was) commented generally upon the position of organizer in an organization registered pursuant to the Act. His Honour said at p. 47 -

"Nothing in the Act or regulations requires an organization to have organizers. If an organization by its rules provides for organizers nothing in the Act or regulations prevents organizers from being employees. Rule 64 would be valid if it said merely that branches shall have the right to employ organizers at any time.

"Nothing in the Act or regulations requires organizers to be members of an organization. However, the rules of an organization may provide for an office of organizer, may make it obligatory for an organizer to be a member, and may make an organizer an officer who has specific rights under the rules as to term of office, removal, and powers and duties. Such an organizer may or may not be an employee. The rules may provide for the selection of an organizer by a process of election but may in all respects leave him, as an employee, with no rights and duties under the rules and subject to dismissal like any ordinary employee. On the other hand, he may have some rights, under the rules, in relation to dismissal."

The rules under consideration in the present case clearly contemplate that eligible persons may be elected to offices of organizer or may be appointed as such. Apart from making provision for eligibility to hold the position of organizer, the rules are silent as to the method of appointment. I have no doubt, however, that the power is to be found in sub-rule 30(a) which confers on the Branch Committee of Management power to control all the business of the Union within the area over which it is constituted to operate. The appointment of organizers is but a matter of branch management (Roughan v. Coulson (1982) 3 IR 393 per Smithers J. at p 395).
I am unable to read the provisions of the rules conferring upon the Branch Committee of Management a discretion whether to have positions of organizer filled by election of appointment as requiring that the Branch Committee of Management determine that all positions be filled by one method of selection rather than the other. The language of the rules is consistent with the Branch Committee of Management having power to determine that some positions be filled by election by the members of the branch and that others be filled by appointment by the Branch Committee of Management. It is not difficult to envisage circumstances, which may be of a permanent or transient nature, which would make an increase or decrease in the number of organizers desirable, or in the view of the Branch Committee of Management desirable, in the interests of the proper conduct of the affairs of the branch. To adopt the submission put forward on behalf of the applicants would mean that, where the Branch Committee of Management has opted for the filling of positions of organizer by election, the number of organizers may not be increased until the next triennial elections are held whereas there would be no similar limitation where the Branch Committee of Management has determined that the positions of organizer be filled by appointment. Such an inconvenient result is not to be attributed to the draftsman of the rules unless the language is such as to compel its adoption.

The circumstance that sub-rule 30(d)(iv) confers an express power to reduce the number of organizers "at any time" does not have the consequence that the Branch Committee of Management may not appoint additional organizers whenever it considers it appropriate to do so. The draftsman may well have considered that the power to reduce the number required express mention but to my mind its inclusion does not have the consequence of limiting the extent of the power of appointment to be found in the general language of sub-rule 30(a).
Rule 34 does not, in my opinion, require that the appointment of an organizer be for a specified duration or term. The subject matter dealt with by that rule is the filling of casual vacancies. Such a vacancy will occur when an elected officer dies or resigns, or for any reason ceases to be entitled to hold, his office or is unable to perform his duties by reason of one of the circumstances referred to in the rule. The reference in the rule to the unexpired portion of the term of an officer who has ceased to hold office is clearly a reference to an officer who was elected: it has no application where the person concerned was appointed.
I am also of opinion that the fact that Mr. Williams was a candidate for the full-time salaried position of Branch Secretary at the most recent elections cannot affect his eligibility to be appointed to a position of branch organizer. Eligibility is to be determined by applying the provisions of rule 22 and there is nothing in the material before the Court to indicate that Mr. Williams is other than eligible under that rule to be appointed to such a position. Nor can it affect the matter that Mr. Williams was elected to the honorary position of Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary. The evidence establishes that there are a number of sub-branch secretaries within the Queensland Branch, each of whom holds that office on an honorary basis, who are also branch organizers. It was not suggested that to be both a sub-branch secretary and an organizer is in contravention of the rules.
For these reasons I am of opinion that paragraphs (A), (B), (C) and (D) of the resolution of 26 April 1984 have not been shown to be contrary to the rules in any respect.
Paragraph (E) of the resolution of 26 April 1984 requiring all Branch Organizers performing duty within the Brisbane Sub-Branch area, in addition to their other obligations to report, to give prompt reports orally and in writing to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary on all matters, including all disputes was said to be contrary to sub-rule 30(e), sub-rule 32(c), sub-rule 32(e) and sub-rule 32(f). Those sub-rules provide -

"30. - Branch Committee of Management - Constitution and Powers

Branch Committee of Management and Officers

. . . .

(e) All paid officers, Organizers and employees of a Branch shall be subject to the control and direction of the Branch Committee of Management as expressed through the Branch Secretary."

"32. - Branch Officers and Organizers - Duties of

Branch Officers and Branch Organizers:

The duties of Branch Officers and Branch Organizers shall be as hereunder:

. . . .

(c) Secretary: The Branch Secretary shall be competent to discharge all duties assigned to him by the Branch Committee of Management, and shall attend all meetings connected with the Branch when practicable. He shall attend to all correspondence, keep a copy of all letters and wires despatched. He shall give an official receipt for all moneys received, and bank such moneys to the credit of the Branch at least weekly. He shall keep all documents books and accounts relating to the business of the Branch. He shall issue notices to members, particularly to those who are in arrears with their dues. He shall hand over to the Branch Auditor all property, books, documents and moneys belonging to the Branch within twenty-four hours after being requested to do so by resolution passed at any meeting of the Branch Committee of Management. He shall further discharge such duties as may be allocated to him from time to time by the Branch Committee of Management. He shall, if deemed necessary, find security in such a sum as the Branch Committee of Management may decide, the premium to be paid by the Branch. He shall be allowed a sum not exceeding $100 as determined by the Branch Committee of Management from time to time.

Such amount, once determined, shall be reimbursed by cheque drawn from the Branch Bank account for petty cash, to be drawn by cheque from the Branch General Fund account. The Secretary shall be custodian of the moveable property of the Branch. Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in these rules he shall also be in sole charge of the Branch office and those employees connected with the work thereof.

. . . .

(e) Organizers:

(i) Branch Organizers shall be eligible for election on the Branch Committee of Management.

(ii) Branch Organizers shall assist in the work of the Branch generally, and discharge such duties as may be allotted to them by the Branch Secretary. All moneys collected by them shall be paid over to the Branch Secretary within one week of collection.

(f) Sub-Branch Officers: The duties of Sub-Branch Officers shall be, insofar as relevant in respect to their Sub-Branch, the same as apply to Branch Officers."

It was submitted that, under the rules, the structure of a Branch is such that the governing body, namely the Branch Committee of Management, controls and directs the organizers through the Branch Secretary and as a corollary of that the reports of the organizers go to the Branch Secretary and through him to the Branch Committee of Management. Particular attention was directed to sub-rule 30(e), to the reference in sub-rule 32(c) to the Branch Secretary being in sole charge of the Branch office and those employees connected with the work thereof (an expression said to be wide enough to include the organizers) and to sub-rule 32(e) (ii). Those provisions, it was submitted, put the organizers under the supervision of the Branch Secretary. Paragraph (E) of the resolution was said to tamper with the structure created by the rules by requiring the organizers performing duty in the Brisbane Sub-Branch area to report to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary. This change of structure, it was submitted, could not be effected by a resolution of the Branch Committee of Management but would require an amendment of the rules. It was also said that to give to a Sub-Branch Secretary the function of supervising branch organizers is contrary to sub-rule 32(f) as that sub-rule, by the words "insofar as relevant in respect to their Sub-Branch", limits the powers of a Sub-Branch Secretary to those falling within the Sub-Branch structure and Branch organizers are outside that structure.
The rules, on their proper construction, place the organizers under the control and direction of the Branch Committee of Management and, subject to that power to control and direct, the supervision of the work of the organizers is vested in the Branch Secretary. Further, any directions given by the Branch Committee of Management are to flow to the organizers through the Branch Secretary. A resolution of the Branch Committee of Management which purported to subvert the line of control from the Branch Committee of Management through the Branch Secretary to the organizers would, in my opinion, be contrary to the rules and of no force or effect. The question for consideration is whether paragraph (E) of the resolution of 26 April 1984 is properly so described.
By that paragraph of the resolution the organizers performing duty within the Brisbane Sub-Branch area are, in addition to their other obligations to report, to give prompt reports orally and in writing to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary. That language is to be contrasted with the corresponding paragraph of the resolution of 15 March 1984 which made no reference to the organizers' other obligations to report and, having required the organizers to report orally and in writing to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary, cast the obligation on that official to notify the Branch Secretary of the matters on which the organizers had reported. The vice in the resolution of 15 March 1984 was that it could be read as purporting to direct that the organizers report to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary and not to the Branch Secretary with the consequence that, if valid, the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary would occupy a position as an intermediary between the Branch Secretary and the organizers.
In my opinion paragraph (E) of the resolution of 26 April 1984 does not, and does not purport to, place the organizers performing duty within the Brisbane Sub-Branch area under the control, direction or supervision of the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary or give him any role in allotting the duties which those organizers are to discharge. It is not to be read as interfering, or as authorising the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary to interfere, in any way with the Branch Secretary's undoubted power, subject to the general control and direction of the Branch Committee of Management, to control and supervise the work of the organizers. The paragraph does no more than require that the organizers keep the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary informed, either orally or in writing, of matters relevant to the business of the sub-branch. So read the paragraph is not contrary to the rules.
Paragraphs (F), (G) and (H) of the resolution relate to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary having access to membership records, correspondence and documents of the Queensland Branch and to the Queensland Branch office. Those provisions, it was submitted, interfere with the Branch Secretary's sole control of the branch office and the employees connected with the work thereof - see sub-rule 32(c), the text of which is set out above. Reference was directed to the amendment of that sub-rule made in 1976 when the sub-rule took its present form. Prior to that amendment the relevant part of the sub-rule read -

"He (the Branch Secretary) shall also be in charge of the Branch office and those connected with the work thereof."

The amendment was said to have strengthened the position of the Branch Secretary vis-a-vis the Branch Committee of Management. Attention was also directed to the circumstance that the control of the business of the Union which sub-rule 30(a) confers upon the Branch Committee of Management is expressed to be subject to the rules and one of the relevant rules, so it was said, is sub-rule 32(c). The power which rule 29A confers on the Branch Secretary to empower an elected official of the branch to perform his functions during his temporary absence for a period not exceeding four weeks on any one occasion was also adverted to as indicating the extent of the control within the branch office which the rules confer on the Branch Secretary. He was said to be no mere clerk to the Branch Committee of Management but an officer with extensive powers and responsibilities and with a large measure of independence.

A further reason advanced in support of the submission that the Branch Committee of Management had no power to resolve as they did in paragraphs (F), (G) and (H) of the resolution was that the subject matters dealt with in those paragraphs are regulated expressly by the rules. Reliance was placed on sub-rule 12(b) and rule 13. Sub-rule 12(b) requires the Branch Secretary of a branch to keep or cause to be kept at the respective branch office a membership register and a record of all contributions and levies paid by each member, the register and record to be available to the Federal Secretary on demand. Rule 13 provides -

"13. - Inspection of Books

All financial members interested in the funds of the Union shall be permitted to inspect the books and register of members at all reasonable times, on an order signed, as regards the books of the Federal Council, by the Federal President thereof, and as regards the books and register of members of a Branch or Sub-Branch, by the Branch President of such Branch or Sub-Branch. Provided that no such authority shall entitle a member to inspect any books or register of members or make any other inspection of the moveable property of the Union unless the Secretary concerned is present when the inspection is being made."

It was submitted that those provisions set out exclusively the relevant rights and duties as to inspection of the books and records of a branch. Since the rules expressly deal with the matter, the Branch Committee of Management has no power, so it was argued, to interfere by granting further or different rights to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary.

In my opinion the submission that paragraphs (F), (G) and (H) of the resolution of 26 April 1984 are contrary to the rules lacks substance. To give the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary access to the Queensland Branch office and to records, correspondence and documents relevant to the conduct of the business of the sub-branch cannot, I think, properly be characterised as interfering in any relevant way with the sole control of the branch office and the employees connected with the work thereof which sub-rule 32(c) vests in the Branch Secretary. Nor do I regard sub-rule 12(b) or rule 13 as dealing exclusively with the rights and duties as to inspection of the books and records of the branch.
The matters dealt with in paragraphs (F), (G) and (H) are, in my opinion, clearly within the power given to the Branch Committee of Management by sub-rule 30(a) - they are properly described as matters of branch management and, as such, fall within the authority of the Branch Committee of Management.
Paragraph (I) of the resolution was said to be contrary to sub-rule 32(c) the text of which has already been set out. Paragraph (I) provides that there be five office staff on the branch assigned to the branch office and affairs of the branch, those staff to be selected by and responsible to the Branch Secretary subject to final approval being given to their engagement by the Branch Committee of Management. The imposition of a ceiling of five on the staff in the branch office was said to be an interference with the sole control of the branch office and the employees connected with the work thereof vested in the Branch Secretary by sub-rule 32(c). That sub-rule was to be read as conferring on the Branch Secretary the right to fix staffing levels and staff including the right to engage and dismiss employees without reference to the Branch Committee of Management.
In my opinion sub-rule 32(c) has no such operation. To say that the Branch Secretary is to be in sole charge of the branch office and of those employees connected with the work of the branch office (sub-rule 32(c)) is not equivalent to conferring upon him power to determine the level of staffing to be employed in the branch office or the power to employ and dismiss staff. To have charge of the office and the employees is, so it seems to me, equivalent to having under his control the office and such staff as the Branch Committee of Management deems it appropriate to employ in the sense that he is to have power to direct how they are to perform their duties in the course of their employment.
I am unable to conclude that paragraph (I) of the resolution is beyond the power of the Branch Committee of Management.
Paragraph (J) of the resolution provides that there be two office staff (a senior stenographer and a filing clerk) paid by the Queensland Branch assigned for the exclusive use of the Brisbane Sub-Branch, the staff to be selected by the Sub-Branch Executive and responsible to the Sub-Branch Secretary subject to final approval being given to their engagement by the Branch Committee of Management. It also provides that those two staff be employed in room 21 in the branch premises. Those premises are situated at the Trades Hall, Brisbane.
It was submitted that, on the evidence, room 21 is part of the Queensland Branch office and that any staff of the Union working in that room are subject to the sole control of the Branch Secretary by virtue of sub-rule 32(c). Further, it was submitted that paragraph (J) of the resolution provides for the staff to be employees of the Queensland Branch and it is contrary to sub-rule 30(e) for such staff to be made responsible to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary.
In my opinion this paragraph of the resolution is not beyond the powers of the Branch Committee of Management. I see no reason to conclude that the Branch Committee of Management may not, if it considers it proper to do so, provide staff to assist in the carrying on of the business of the Brisbane Sub-Branch.
A general attack was made on the resolution of 26 April 1984 on the ground that the procedures prescribed by sub-rule 47(c)(ii) had not been followed. I have already referred to the notice given at the meeting of the Branch Committee of Management held on 19 April 1984 of a motion to reconsider at the special meeting to be held on 26 April 1984 the resolution passed on 15 March 1984 and to the fact that it set out the text of the resolution which it was proposed should be moved at the special meeting. At the meeting held on 26 April 1984 a motion to amend in a number of respects the text of the proposed resolution as set out in the notice of motion was carried. The proposed resolution as amended was then put to the meeting and carried. No notice of the motion to amend the proposed resolution or of the amended resolution was given at any meeting of the Branch Committee of Management prior to that held on 26 April 1984 or to the members of the Branch Committee otherwise than at that meeting. This circumstance was said to render the resolution of 26 April 1984 invalid by virtue of the provisions of sub-rule 47(c)(ii) which provides -

"47. - Rescissions and Recommittals

. . . .

(c) (i) . . . .

(ii) The Branch Committee of Management may reconsider the subject matter of any resolution at a subsequent meeting of the Committee on condition that notice of motion to do so is given at a meeting of such Committee and that notice of the intended reconsideration be given to all members of the Committee, and that the motion to reconsider is made special business at a subsequent meeting."

I am clearly of opinion that the applicants have failed to establish any breach of sub-rule 47(c)(ii). That sub-rule does not, in terms, require that notice be given of the resolution which the member seeking to have an earlier resolution of the Branch Committee of Management reconsidered desires to have substituted for that resolution and there is no basis for implying any such requirement. All that the rule requires is that notice be given at a meeting of the Branch Committee of Management and to all members of that committee "of the intended reconsideration". The requirement is similar to that under sub-rule 43(g) which requires notice to be given of "the nature of the business" to be considered at a special meeting of the Branch Committee of Management. It is not suggested that notice of the proposal to reconsider the earlier resolution was not given to all members of the Branch Committee of Management and in those circumstances the requirements of sub-rule 47(c)(ii) were, in my opinion, fulfilled. The suggestion that, because notice of the proposed resolution was given, albeit in a form different from that in which the resolution was in fact carried on 26 April 1984, what the Branch Committee of Management could do at that meeting was in some way limited is untenable.

Resolution of 15 March 1984

An attack was made on those parts of the resolution of 15 March 1984 that provide that the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary be co-ordinator and minute secretary of the Transport Workers' Union Safety Committee and the Transport Workers' Union - TUTA Trade Union Training Committee with power to call meetings thereof as deemed necessary and with an obligation to forward copies of all minutes to the Branch Secretary.
Those committees are concerned with matters of interest to all members of the Queensland Branch and it was said to be beyond the power of the Branch Committee of Management to shut out the Branch Secretary except so far as the resolution provides for him to receive copies of the minutes. Reference was again made to sub-rule 32(c) and sub-rule 32(f).
In my opinion the challenge to the above provisions cannot be sustained. The resolution does not interfere, or enable the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary to interfere, with the Branch Secretary's right to attend any meeting of either committee. There is nothing in the rules that requires that the Branch Secretary be the co-ordinator and minute secretary of committees such as those with which the resolution is concerned. As a matter of branch management the Branch Committee of Management may make such arrangements as it deems appropriate.
The part of the resolution dated 15 March 1984 providing that the branch continue to make available to the Brisbane Sub-Branch Secretary the branch motor vehicle, Ford, registration number 744-OXI and pay for the fuel and maintenance costs was challenged as being in conflict with sub-rule 32(c) in so far as that sub-rule provides that the Branch Secretary is to be custodian of the moveable property of the branch. It was submitted that the general powers of the Branch Committee of Management have to be read down to the extent necessary to leave unfettered the Branch Secretary's custodial powers under that sub-rule. "Custody" was said to be a word of wide import carrying with it notions of being in charge of or having the care, protection, safekeeping and guardianship of the moveable property to which the sub-rule refers. Attention was drawn to the absence from sub-rule 32(c) of any words similar to the words contained in sub-rule 32(d) making the control of the property of the branch which that sub-rule vests in the Branch Trustees subject to the direction of the Branch Committee of Management.
In my opinion, whatever meaning and operation should properly be given to that part of sub-rule 32(c) as provides that the Branch Secretary is to be the custodian of the moveable property of the branch, that provision does not operate to vest in the Branch Secretary power to determine, to the exclusion of the Branch Committee of Management, who within the organization is to have the use of the property of the branch. The resolution has not been shown to be invalid.

Further Resolution of 26 April 1984
This resolution provides -

"That all Sub-Branch Secretaries shall be competent to make press statements on all matters pertaining to their duties as outlined in the rules and/or resolutions of this Committee."

An objection was taken that the passing of this resolution was not in accordance with sub-rule 47(c)(ii). Notice of the proposed resolution was given to the meeting of the Branch Committee of Management held on 19 April 1984. The resolution then proposed was in the same terms as that passed at the special meeting on 26 April 1984 but it was said that, because of the presence of the words "and/or resolutions of this Committee", the proposed resolution was too vague to be a sufficient compliance with the requirement, said to arise under sub-rule 47(c)(ii), that notice of the proposed resolution be given. The vice in the notice was said to be that the proposed resolution did not identify the "resolutions of this Committee" to which it was referring.
I have already referred to what sub-rule 47(c)(ii) requires. In my opinion the submission has no substance.
Alternatively, it was submitted that the resolution purports to give sub-branch secretaries power to make press statements concerning any resolution of the Branch Committee of Management - contrary to sub-rule 30(f) which confines, so the argument ran, sub-branch secretaries to matters relevant to their sub-branch.
In my opinion that submission misconceives the meaning of the resolution. All that the resolution authorises is the making by sub-branch secretaries of press statements on matters pertaining to their duties. The resolution postulates that the extent of those duties may be found in the rules or in resolutions of the Branch Committee of Management. The reference to such resolutions is, of course, to be read as a reference to resolutions validly passed by the Branch Committee of Management. So read, the resolution is within the power.

Resolutions of 19 April 1984
The resolutions of 19 April 1984 under challenge provide for the payment by the Queensland Branch of the respondents' legal and ancillary expenses in connection with the present proceedings. It was submitted that there is no express power in the rules enabling the Queensland Branch to pay such expenses. In the absence of any express power, so the argument ran, the resources of the Union are to be used for the benefit of the members as a whole and not for the benefit of particular individuals or officials and the rules must be taken, by implication, to preclude the selective use of the funds of the Union to aid one group of members of the Union, the respondents, in a matter arising under section 141 of the Act and not another group, the applicants.
The applicants further submitted that the general power of the Branch Committee of Management to control the business of the branch (sub-rule 30(a)) is to be interpreted in the light of the objects of the Union as set out in rule 2. Those objects expressly include the provision by the Union of assistance in various circumstances none of which are appropriate to include financial assistance to members of the Branch Committee of Management to meet the cost of litigation and ancillary expenses. Reference was also made to sub-rule 31(c) which empowers the Federal Council to pay "all or any part of the expenses incurred by or on behalf of a Branch in an appeal to a Board or Court of Conciliation or Industrial Appeal or other approved tribunal". The express reference in that sub-rule to the payment of legal expenses was said to operate to exclude any implication that a branch might meet the legal expenses of individual members of the branch.
The respondents raised a jurisdictional point in so far as the applicants sought to rely on an implied provision in the rules limiting the power of the Branch Committee of Management to expend the funds of the Queensland Branch in the manner approved by the resolutions under challenge. There is, it was submitted, no scope for implied rules in the affairs of an organization registered pursuant to the Act or, alternatively, no jurisdiction in the Court under section 141 of the Act to give directions for the performance or observance of any such implied rules: Dugmore v. Porter (Northrop J. - unreported - 17 December 1982): cf. Gordon v. Carroll (1975) 6 ALR 579 at pp 602- 3; Re Penhallurick (1983) 51 ALR 589 at p 595; Jess v. Scott (Beaumont J - unreported - 2 March 1984; Porter v. Dugmore (Full Court - unreported - 2 April 1984).
On the view which I have taken it is not necessary to consider further that jurisdictional argument.
The respondents also submitted that power to pass the resolutions in question was clearly conferred on the Branch Committee of Management by sub-rule 30(a) and sub-rule 30(d)(ii). The first of those sub-rules confers on the Branch Committee of Management control over all the business of the branch. The second expressly confers power to "vote and expend any money that may be necessary in connexion with the business of the Branch".
I am prepared to assume for the purpose of considering the validity of the resolutions of 19 April 1984 that the rules, as a matter of construction, require that the funds available to the Queensland Branch are to be expended only for the purposes which the Branch Committee of Management bona fide and reasonably believes to be for the benefit and in the interests of the members of the Union as a whole. The respondents other than Mr. Williams are parties to these proceedings by reason only of their membership of the Branch Committee of Management and the circumstance that, with the exception of Mr. Thomson (who appears not to have been present at some at least of the meetings), they formed the majority of that committee voting in favour of the resolutions of 15 March 1984 and 19 and 26 April 1984 that are subject to challenge. Mr. Williams is a party because consequential relief is sought against him in the event that it is held that the resolutions under challenge were not validly carried.
In these circumstances and having regard to the nature and content of the resolutions under challenge and the circumstance that no attack is made in these proceedings upon the bona fides of the members of the Branch Committee of Management who voted in favour of any of the resolutions, I do not think it would be proper to conclude that the Branch Committee of Management could not bona fide and reasonably believe that the expenditure of the funds of the branch in accordance with the resolutions of 19 April 1984 would be for the benefit or in the interests of the membership of the Union as a whole. The fact that it was the respondents, other than Mr. Williams, who voted in favour of the resolutions of 19 April 1984 is not, of itself, sufficient to warrant a different conclusion. The applicants have not satisfied me that those resolutions travel outside the powers of the Branch Committee of Management.

Conclusion
For the reasons I have given the rule to show cause is discharged.
I have not found it necessary to reach any conclusion upon the validity of the whole of the resolution of 15 March 1984. I have dealt only with those parts of it which are said to remain on foot and not to be superceded by the resolutions of 26 April 1984. The respondents have agreed that, except to that limited extent, the resolution of 15 March 1984 will not be implemented. In those circumstances it is appropriate that the injunction granted by way of interim relief on 28 March 1984 be dissolved.
As requested by the parties I reserve all questions of costs and will hear submissions thereon if the parties so desire.

[1984] FCA 138

29 MAY 1984