I, Lo ay { ; a , oly IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA V.No,7 of 1977 INDUSTRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: WILLIAM EDGAR JOHNS Claimant and K. ALLEN, G. SHERRIFF, E. McMANUS, R. LEWRY, C. STEVENSON, W, CLARKE, H, BURT, T, McDOUGAL, E. FORD, D. SLEVIN, L. McKAY, C.E. JARRAD, W.D. BLAIR, W. ALLAMBY, C. ZAGLAS, J, BUCKS, L. McKAY, E. LYONS, gd. LARAGY, L. BARRY, A, HALSTEAD, W. REED, M. ASPLET, J,A, DAZZELL, M. MORTIMER, H. BURT, H. MUENCH, P.D. SLEVIN and J, STACHKURSKI Respondents ORDER FULL COURT: J.B. Sweeney J. ° Evatt J. Northrop J. DATE OF ORDER: 9th June 1977 WHERE MADE: . Melbourne THE COURT ORDERS: That the respondents and each of them perform and observe the Rules of the Vehicle Builders' Employees rederation of Australia in that the respondent, G. Sherriff, cease to hold himself out as an organiser of the Geelong Sub-Branch and that the other respondents cease to recognise and/or treat the respondent, G. Sherriff, as an organiser of the Geelong Sub-Branch. Be een Rae tee eee at anette no oe IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA er —— V.No.7 of 1977 INDUSTRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: WILLIAM EDGAR JOHNS Claimant and K. ALLEN, G. SHERRIFF, E. McMANUS, R. LEWRY, C, STEVENSON, W. CLARKE, H. BURT, T. McDOUGAL, &. TORD, D. SLEVIN, L. McKAY, C.E, JARRAD, W.D. BLAIR, W, ALLAMBY, C. ZAGLAS, J. BUCKS, L, McKAY, D. LYONS, J. LARAGY, L. BARRY, A. HALSTEAD, W, REED, M. ASPLeTt, J.A, DAZZELL, M. MORTIMER, H. BURT, H. MUENCH, P.D. SLEVIN and J, STACHURSKI Respondents FULL COURT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 9TH JUNE 1977 (J.B. SWEINIY, EVATT AND NORTHROP J.J,) This 1s the return of an order nisi granted by Brennan J. on 23rd March, 1977, in which the claimant, a member of the Vehicle Builders' Employees Federation of Australia (hereinafter called "the Federation") seeks orders giving directions that the respondents, who together constitute the members of the Executive Committee of the Victorian Branch of the Federation (hereinafter called "the Victorian Branch") and the Executive Committee of the Geelong Sub-Branch of the Victorian Branch (hereinafter called "the Geelong Sub-Branch"), each perform or observe the Rules of the Federation in that the respondent, G. Sherriff, not hold himself out as an organiser of the Geelong Sub-Branch and that the other respondents cease to recognise and/or treat the respondent, G. Sherriff, as an organiser of the Geelong Sub-Branch. The Federation is an organisation within the meaning of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (hereinafter called "the Act"), The claimant 1s a member of the South Australian Branch of the Federation, Each of the respondents is a member of the Federaticn and thus is under an obliyatison to perform or observe the Rules of the Federation, [eee As a result of an election conducted by and fron members of the Federation attached to the Geelong Sub-Branch, the respondent, G. Sherriff, was declared by the returning officer to have been elected the Geelong Sub-Branch organiser. The claimant alleges that the Rules of the Federation make no provision for such an office in the Geelong Sub-Branch and therefore Sherriff is not and cannot be the holder of the office of Geelong Sub~Branch organiser. The claimant accordingly seeks the orders set out above, At an early stage of the hearing, it became apparent that the claimant was relying upon the rules of the Victorian Branch and thereupon Mr. Powell, Q.C., who with Mr. Crawford, appeared for the first eleven and the last named respondents, took a preliminary objection that the Court had no jurisdiction to make an order under s.141(1) of the Act since the phrase "rules of an organisation" appearing therein did not include rules of a branch of an organisation. The Court rejected this submission but reserved its reasons which it now publishes. In R.V. Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; ex parte Barrett (1945) 70 C.L.R. 141, the High Court considered s.58£ of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1934 the forerunner of the present s.141. The relevant provisions of s.58E(1) were as follows :- "The Court may, upon complaint by any member of an organisation ........ make an order giving directions for the performance or observance of any of the rules of an organisation by any person who is under an obligation to perform or observe those rules." The High Court unanimously held that the phrase "rules of an organisation" included the rules of a branch of an organisation. At p.157 Latham C.J. said :- "It is next objected that the rules ordered to be observed are rules of a branch of the organization, and not of the organization itself, and that s.58E relates only to the rules of the organization. The organization is registered under the Act, and the organization ccnsists of branches; persons become members by joining branches: See Federal rule 5. The Federal rules provide that branches shall have power to make rules from time to time for their own interna] management as they may deem advisable, subject «/3... re en Saletan cere Lk nee TLE Cote en ile mee be ek ema Ne ree a i ln Ge en ct te mn ee Lend to any rule adopted by a Federal conference or Federal executive (Federal rule 24(b)). Statutory Rules 1928 No. 81, reg. 6V.(b), requires the rules of every branch of an organization to be registered. In my opinion, Chief Judge Piper rightly held that the rules of the branches of the Clerks' Union were rules of the organization within the meaning of s.58E. The fact that the rules of the Victorian branch apply only to the Victorian branch does not prevent them from being rules of the organization. The Federal rules contain certain rules which apply only to the Federal president, the Federal secretary and the Federal conference, but these rules, though their application 1s limited, are plainly rules cf the organization. In the same way, in my opinion, branch rules, though they apply only to a particular branch, are rules of the organization. A further objection to the order of Chief Judge Piper is that it is made against some persons who are members of the Federal executive and not members of the Victorian branch, and that therefore they are not persons bound to observe the rules of the organization within the meaning of s.58E. In my opinion, this objection fails for the reason that the branch rules are, as I have already said, rules of the organization, and all members of the organization are bound to act in accordance with the branch rules, and are therefore bound to recognize officers of the branch as entitled to discharge the functions incidental to their respective offices." StarkeJ. at p.160 said :- "Another argument was that the Court could only make orders and directions for the performance and observance of the rules of the organization and not of the rules of a branch of the organization. But the rules of the organization provide for branches, which are given power to make rules for their own internal management. The rules of the organization therefore comprise both the rules of the organization and its branches." Dixon J. at p.170 said :- "The second reason given in support of the contention that the order made by the Chief Judge is not authorized by s.58E is that the section relates only to the rules of an organization, and that the rules with which the order deals are those of the Vactorian branch and not of the organization. In my opinion, this objection was rightly answered that, within the meaning of s.58E, the rules of the organization called the "Federated Clerks' Union of Australia" comprise both Federal and branch rules. Rule 24 of the Federal rules provides that the union shall consist of members throughout Australia, and may have a branch in each State, the formation of which is to be decided by the Federal conference or executive. It confers upon the branches power to make rules for their own internal management, and authorizes them to conduct their own election of delegates to the Federal conference. Rules z /4... sees OR te toate ele Mine 8 Nae ee 4AM we et nee nO) en ay EY mS 7 ee OY CO OL WO ee ee bee ante nee ae ee and 26 deal with the revenues and meetings of the branches, and rule 5(a) and (f) and rule 6 show that membership and entrance fee are branch matters. Rule 10 enumerates the branches. It follows that the union is organized 1n branches, and that the rules of the branches are made in the exercise of a power delegated or conferred by the Federal rules, Under such a constitution, the expression "rules of an orcanization" comprises the whole rules, both Federal and branch rules." Mr. Powell did not dispute the views expressed in this authority, but relied upon amendments made in 1972 and 1973 to other sections of the Act and argued that the effect of these amendments amended the meaning of the phrase "rules of an organisation" so as to exclude therefrom the rules of a branch of an organisation, The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1972, by sections 46 and 47, made substantial amendments to sections 140 and 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1970. In particular a new sub-section 1(a) was substituted in s.140 and a new sub-section (12) was added. The old sub-section l(a) read :- "140.-(1.) A rule of an organization - {a) shall not be contrary to a provision of this Act, the regulations or an award or otherwise be contrary to law or be such as to cause the rules of the organization to fail to comply with such a provision." The substituted sub-section reads :- "140.~(1.) The rules of an organization - (a) shall not be contrary to, or fail to make a provision required by, a provision of this Act, the regulations or an award or otherwise be contrary to a law." The new sub-section (12) reads :- "(12.) A reference in this section to the rules of an organization or to a rule of an organization shall be read as including a reference to the rules of a branch of the organization or to a rule of such a branch." In s.141 a new sub-section (2) was substituted and a number of new sub-sections were inserted but no provision similar [Sear temete ee ane em atte ne ttt me ence, st et Sill RAE een ae Rn ee to the new s.140(12) was inserted in s.141. The relevant parts of s.141(1) remain the same namely :- "141.-(1.) 'The Court may, upon complaint by any member of an organization ........ make an order giving dirzctions 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." Further, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1973 by s.52 made substantial amendments to s.133 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1972 and in particular inserted a new sub- section (6) as follows :- "(6.)- A reference in this section to the rules of an association or organization shall be read as including a reference to the rules of a branch of the association or organization." In addition, reference was made to a number of sections of the Act in which organisations and branches are referred to expressly. Relying on these amendments, Mr. Powell submitted that the legislature 1untended to amend the meaning of the phrase "rules of an organisation" wherever appearing in the Act by excluding therefrom the rules of a branch of an organisation. We reject this submission. The legislature cannot have intended to amend by stealth the meaning of a phrase which had been stated authoritatively by the High Court over 20 years previously. Further, the submission, if accepted, would render nugatory many of the provisions of the Act relating to rules of a branch of an organisation, see e.g. s.132(2) and the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations, Reg. 115 and in particular Reg. 115(1)(d) and (2); s.139(4) and s.143(1) (b) (c) and (da). In our opinion, the enactment of provisions such as s.133(6) and s.140(12) of the Act merely give statutory recognition to the interpretation of the phrase "rules of an organisation" and do not have the effect of amending by implication that phrase wherever it appears in the Act including sections 133 and 140. We adopt the reasoning expressed and appiied in Sarrett's Case (supra). The RuJes of the Federation contain two sections, namely Section ] and Section 2. Within each section, there are a number -/6..- FL So EL a ee SR ee eee ne et A a ee ate at ek er tee ot ee ee tn re ee ne etn ni Patent, touche ce ee te thie i owt of chapter headings and 1n Section 2 there are rules numbered 1 to 53 grouped under the various headings. In Section 1 there appears the following chapter heading and chapter :- " OBJECTS (a) To maintain the identity of the Vehicle Builders Employees' Federation of Australia. (b) To maintain, preserve and advance the trade, interest and rights of employees engaged in the trade, business or calling as set out in the Constitution. (c) To draft and prepare Log of Wages and Conditions of Labor, for and on behalf of members of the Federation, and to serve such a claim or demand on all or any persons employing members of the Federation. (ad) To obtain and maintain for its members, by all lawful means, reasonable hours of work, fair wages and industrial conditions and to establish a thorough system of apprenticeship. (e) To promote industrial peace by all amicable means, such as conciliation and arbitration. (£) To prevent strikes or lock-outs between members of the Federation and the employers. When differences occur, to assist in their settlement by just and equitable methods. (g) To do all things conducive to the welfare and organisation of the working class. (h) To establish Brenches and sub-branches throughout the Commonwealth. (i) To establish a fund for the purpose of carrying on the work or business of the Federation. (j) To amalgamate with other Trade Unions whose objects are the same. (k) To absorb other Trade Unions who will adopt these objects." The comments made by Fullagar J. in Williams v. Hursey (1959) 103 C.L.R. 30 at 56-58 apply with equal force to this chapter of the Rules of the Federation. In particular, the draftsman of this chapter has not fully observed the distinction between "objects" and "powers to be exercised in effecting the objects". There can be no doubt that the essential object of the Federation is stated in paragraph (b) abcve. A number of the other purported "objects" are in reality powe1s or an expression of the meuns by which the obiects of the Federation are to be effected. Included within this category 1S paragraph (h) above namely :-~ "To estabitish Branches an@ sub-branches throughout the Commonwealth." /Teee en ek ee irk ee Pea a ak ee bee ee ee re Os Oe ee a ee ee eee ee ee te ee Reference may be made to a number of the Rules of the Federation grouped under the chapter headed "Branches" in Section 2, namely Rule 39, "Territory and Powers of Branches"; Rule 40, "Branch Officers"; Rule 42, "Branch Rules" and Rule 45, "Rules to Govern Sub-Branches", We set out relevant extracts from these rules :- Rule 39 "(a) The following are recognised Branches of the Federation with full local, autonomy subject to these Rules :- The Victorian Branch in the capital city of Melbourne; ........ (b) The Branches listed above may form Sub-Branches in their respective States or in any other State or Territory where no recognised Branch is operating. (c) Branches and Sub-Branches shall conform to the Rules of the Federation ..,....." Ruje 40 "The officers of each Branch shall consist of a President, Vice~President, Federal Secretary, Trustees and such other officers as may be deemed necessary for the conduct of the Branch ........" Rule 42 "Each Branch may formulate Rules and make amendments thereto to govern its own affairs provided that such Rules shall not be inconsistent with these Rules and provided further that no new Branch Rule or amendment to any existing Branch Rujes shall be lodged with the Industrial Registrar to be certified before it has been reported to the Executive Committee." Rule 45 (a) provides for the setting up by the Branch of a Sub- Branch and the concluding words provide for the Sub-Branch :- "which shall at all times be urder the control of and take instructions from the Branch." "(b) each Sub-Branch shall elect for its management a President, Vice-President, Secretarv, Door-keeper, Auditors and Trustees, who shall be the officers of the Sub-Branch, and such Sus-Branch Committee as may be deemed necessary. Such election shall be conducted ./8.- Ne ar an in the same manner as 1S provided for the election of officers in the Rules of the respective Branch." There are then set out a number of Sub-Rules under various headings as follows; "Keeping of Books", "Sub-Branch Returns", "Sub~-Branches Requiring Assistance", "Publication Affecting Federation" and "By-Laws". In the present case, no reference was made to any by-laws made by the Geelong Sub-Branch. Sub-Rule (1) under the heading "By-Laws" sets out a number of the powers of a Branch Committee of Management but it is not necessary at the moment to refer to any of those powers. In the exercise of the power conferred by Rule 42 of the Rules of the Federation, the Victorian Branch has formulated rules to govern 1ts own affairs. These rules are hereinafter called the Victorian Branch Rules and have been made pursuant to the power delegated to the Victorian Branch by the Rules of the Federation. This 1S consistent with and supports our opinion that the Victorian Branch Rules are rules of an organisation within the meaning of that phrase as contained in s.141(1) of the Act. Reference may be made to the following Rules of the Victorian Branch Rules :- Rule 3 " 3,~-OFPICERS The Officers shall consist of a President, two Vice~ Presidents, General Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary and Organiser, Organisers, and three Trustees." It is to be noted that this Rule, pursuant to the powers contained in Rule 40 of the Rules of the Federation, specifies officers additional to those expressly referred to in Rule 40. Included in this category are the Assistant Secretary and Organiser and Organisers. The other Rules need not be quoted but they include Rule 4. "Branch Executive or Committee of Management"; Rule 5, "Duties of Officers"; Rule 6, "Nominations and Election of Officers and Delegates" and Rule 7, "Method of Taking a Ballot". ed OO Ree ERR be Peer acacia bee we ee et ee renee ae en Mon eet eee mene ee Feet bad Pe UF Been ae ee Although the formation of the Geelong Sub-Branch was not proved, its existence was not disputed and, for the purpose of these proceedings, we accept that the Geelong Sub-Branch is in existence and was formed by the Victor1an Branch pursuant to the power conferred by Rules 39 and 45 of the Rules of the Federation. Relying on the provisions of Rule 45(b) of the Rules of the Federation, the Geelong Sub-Branch conducted the election to fill the office or position of Sub-Branch organiser in the same manner as is provided for the election of officers in the Rules of the Victorian Branch. There was no evidence given as to the exact nature of the duties to be carried out by the holder of the office or position, but having regard to the nature of the Rules of the Federation, it appears to have been accepted by all that the duties were to be similar to those of an organiser within the Victorian Branch and as set out in Rule 5 of the Victorian Branch Rules with such modifications aS were necessary to apply to the Geelong Sub- Branch instead of the Victorian Branch. In April 1976, a meeting of members of the Geelong Sub- Branch carried the following resolutions :- "That this General Meeting believes that if the Geelong Membership are to get adequate service and full value from the membership dues which they are required to pay, it 1S necessary that the position of Sub-Branch organiser be created for a four (4) year term to be filled by election from the Sub-Branch membership, the person so elected to be responsible to the Sub-Branch Secretary for the performance of his duties as determined from time to time by the Sub-Branch Executive." "That the Geelong Sub-Branch Executive fix the duties of the office of Sub-Branch organiser and direct the Returning Officer as to the calling of applications and conduct of an election, the qualifications for office to be the same as for the Sub-Branch Secretary and the remuneration and conditions to be the same as for a Branch organiser." It appears also that it was assumed that the holder of the office would be a member of the Committec of Management of the Geelong Sub-Branch, The respondent, G. Sherriff, was the successful candidate and the declaration of the result of the election wa: eported to the meeting of members of the Geelong Sub-Branch hele n ./10... - 10 - . 27th January, 1977. The apparent delay between April 1976 and January 1977 in the election of the Sub-Branch organiser is explained by differences of opinion which had developed between the Committee of Management of the Victorian Branch and the Commitcee of Management of the Geelong Sub-Branch, but the details of these differences are not relevant for the purposes of this decision. The 1ssue raised in these proceedings 1s whether the Geelong Sub-Branch has power to create the office of Sub-Branch organiser and to elect a person to that office. When considering questions of this kind, it is most important that the nature of organisations should be kept in mind. In Williams v. lursey (supra), Fullagar J. in a judgment concurred in by Dixon C.J. and Kittc J., explained the nature of an organisation registered under the provisions of the Act and branches of such an organisation. At pages 54 to 55, His Honour said :- "But I need not pursue the matter further, because, whatever the rules (Rules of the Supreme Court of Tasmania) may do or fail to do, they have, in my opinion no application to the present cases for the reason that the "Hobart Branch" of the federation is not an "unincorporated society, fellowship, club or association". It has no separate identity - no existence apart from the registered organization, of which it 1s an integral and inseverable part. Its members are merely a section of the total membership of the federation - locally organized for the sake of convenience, but in no respect independent of the federation, and in all respects subject to the control of the federation. The branches are permitted within limits to make rules of their own, but the rules which they make derive authority from the rules of the federation. It is contemplated that a branch may have "property and moneys", but, if r.15 of the Hobart branch rules means that the beneficial ownership thereof is in the members of the branch, it 1S inconsistent with r.10 (A) of the rules of the federation which nakes the "fund and property" of the organization and its branches subject to the "care, superintendence, management and administration of the governing body of the Organization for the carrying out of the objects of the Organization". The position 1s precisely analogous to that which was held by this Court to subsist in Hall v. Job (1952) 86 C.L.R. 639 and there 1s a passage in the judgment in that case which, if we read "Federation" or "Organization" for "Institution" and "Branch' for "Lodge", is exactly applicable to the presert case. The passage is as follows : "........ an individual cannot be a member of the Lodge exvent as a member of the Institvtion. The mutual rights and obligations of the members of the Lodge spring from the rules of the Institution, and cannot be altered except as chose rules provide. The purposes which the members of tne Lodge have in common are none other than the fll... iene ll dete oe aie Soe Mee eee) Tames et et A ae ee cae ke Mee ae eh wah aN ot [Maal Re nee a ee Ae ACN i kames See -~ll- purposes for which they are members of the Institution. The Lodge does not exist as a society of persons who desire to associate exclusively with one another for agreed purposes; it exists as an integral part of a larger organization, of which all the members are associated for the pursuit of purpeses common to them all in accordance with a constitution which governs them all. A subordinate Lodge is therefore not to be considered as if it were an association by itself; 1t 1s in truth a branch of the Institution, a section of its membership, which provides, for those who belong to 1t or may be admitted to its meetings, machinery for the enjoyment of the rights and benefits, and for the performance of the obligations and functions, which are the incidents of their membership of the Institution." p. 650. It follows that the judgments in the first and second actions cannot stand as against the "Hobart Branch"." The principles set out in that passage concerning branches apply with equal force to sub-branches within an organisation, the only difference being that a branch may be interposed between the organisation and the sub-branch. In all cases, it is necessary to look to the rules of the organisation including, where appropriate, rules of a branch and of a sub-branch, to determine the meaning of those rules and to apply those rules. We do not find it helpful when determining matters of this kind, to consider whether any branch er sub-branch within an organisation can be said to be an entity having a recognised and substantial status within an organisation or not or to have a right to a separate existence or not. The Court, in considering rules of an organisation, should not take too narrow a view of the manner in which powers conferred by the rules may be exercised. We approach our task in the laght of the views expressed by Fullagar J. in Walliams v. Hursey (supra) at pages 56 to 58. In that passage, His Honour, was considering the objects of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia, as contained in its rules and the powers by which those objects could be implemented. He was considering the exercise of those powers by a branch of the Federation. The opinions expressed would apply, subject to the provisions of any rules directly applicable, to any sub-branch within the organisation. We quote from part of that passage :- "But, subject to that, no prima facie reason exists for limiting the meaning of such expressicns in any way, and any action which can fatrly and reasonably be regarded as likely to further the interests of the organisation and its members 18 within the objects stated in the rules, -/12. f "6 -12- and therefore within the powers of the federation acting directly or through the branch. To adopt slightly the words of Lord Selborne in Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Company (1880) 5 A.C. 473 at 478 ....... "whatever may fairly be regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, what is expressly authorised ought not (uniess expressly prohibited) to be held by judicial construction to be ultra vires." In the present case, we are of opinion that there is no power within the Geelong Sub-Branch to create the office of Sub-Branch organiser. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 contains special provisions relating to officers and members of Committees of Management, see e.g. s,132(2) and Reg. 115 and in particular Reg. 115(1)(d) and (2). We draw attention to the difference between the wording of Rules 40 and 45(b) of the Rules of the Federation. Under the former rule, a Branch of the Federation has power to create offices additional to those expressly referred to in that Rule. The Victorian Branch has done this, see Rule 3 of the Victorian Branch Rules even though the number of organisers is not specified. No such power is contained in Rule 45(b) or in the Rules of the Federation, including the Victorian Branch Rules, conferring an express power on the Geelong Sub~Branch to create offices additional to those expressly referred to in Rule 45(b). In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the powers conferred upon the Geelong Sub-Branch by the Rules of the Federation, including the Victorian Branch Rules, include, as incidental to or consequential upon what is expressly authorised, a power to create the office of organiser. In our opinion, it follows that the respondent, G. Sherriff, cannot rely upon Rule 45 (b) and his election as Sub-Branch organiser to hold himself out as an officer of the Geelong Sub-Branch and the other respondents cannot rely upon Rule 45(b) to justify the creation of the office of Sub-Branch organiser. Normally, what has been said so far would be sufficient to dispose of this matter. At the hearing, however, Mr. Powell tendered a minute of a resolution carried at a meeting of members of the Geelong Sub-Branch held on 6th April, 1977. The minute read :- "That this General Meeting declares its full confidence in and support for Mr. Garry Sherriff as Sub-Branch organiser and to the extent necessary now employs Mr. Sherriff on the same terms and conditions as his present position." »/13... - 13- The Rules of the Federation do not contain any express provision empowering a Sub-Branch to employ either officers or employees. It is not necessary for us to consider who would be the employer of any such person so employed; the organisation or the Sub-Branch. Rule 45 of the Rules of the Federation appearsto assume a power in a Sub-Branch to employ persons and we quote from that Ruie :- "45.(d) The Committee of each Sub-Branch at the end of each half-year after defraying the working and other expenses of their Sub-Branch, shall forward within twenty-eight days to the Branch Secretary all funds above $20. Provided that where a Sub-Branch employs a full-time official or officials the amount to be retained by such Sub-Branch may be in excess of $20 and in such case the amount to be retained shall be Getermined by the Branch in General Meeting." "45.(21) Without limiting the generality of any of the powers of a Branch Committce of Management contained an any Federal cr State Rule and in addition to any such power a Branch Committee of Management shall have the following powers in relation to a Sub-Branch :- 2. To require from the officers and employees of a Sub-Branch whether in writing or orally information relating to the affairs of a Sub-Branch." Mr. Powell submitted that if the Geelong-Sub Branch had no power to elect or appoint a Sub-Branch organiser, nevertheless there was power to employ a person to perform duties which an organiser would normally perform and that the resolution of 6th April, 1977 was a valid exercise of that power and was valid to appoint the respondent, G. Sherriff, as such an employee. Mr. Powell argued that the words "official or officials" contained in Rule 45(d) did not include employees who might be considered to be employed ina capacity such as that of clerical assistants but were sufficiently wide to include employees who perform executive functions as well as including officers within the meaning of Rule 45(b). He submitted that the respondent, G. Sherriff, came within this extended category of "official" and therefore the Sub-Branch in the exercise of powers incidental to or consequential upon the powers expressly conferred by the Rules of the Federation, had validly employed the respondent, G. Sherriff, to carry out the duties of a Sub-Branch organiser. -/14... - 14 - We do not reject the view that the Geelong Sub-Branch has power to employ full-time, part-time or on a casual basis officers and/or employees not being officers, In our opinion, the words "official or officials" appearing in Rule 45(d), refer to an officer specified in Rule 45(b) and are limited to such persons and cannot be extended to include persons whose duties are unspecified in the Rules but who perform duties of a kind normally performed by officers of an organisation. This opinion is in accord with the definition of the word "official" contained in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary namely a person holding office. The duties to be performed by the respondent, G, Sherriff, cannot be described as being of the nature of clerical assistance. We hold therefore that the resolution of 6th April, 1977 was not a valid exercise of power and could not bring within power what was previously beyond power. Pinally, Mr. Powell submitted that since the claimant 1s a member of the South Australian Branch of the Federation and 15s not a member of either the Victorian Branch or the Geeiong Sub-Branch, the Court, 1n the exercise of the discretion conferred by s.141] (1), should refuse to make the orders sought. The claimant, being a member of the Federation, has a right under s,141(1) to bring a complaint before the Court. He has done this. The Court has found that each of the respondents is under an obligation to perform or observe the Rules of the Federation. We see no reason why the Court should not make an order giving directions that each of the respondents perform or observe the Rules of the Federation. Order accordingly.