Stapleton, Damien v Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association Western Australia Branch [1979] FCA 67

67/24

Copyright in the Commonwealth Government

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Industrial Division No. 16 of 1979

In the matter of -

THE CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION _ACT_1904

BETWEEN -

DAMIEN STAPLETON

fe OS Claimant ~ oN \ - and - RECEIVES \ -Z JUL 1979 AUSTRALIAN THEATRICAL AND FES" AMUSEMENT DMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

WESTERN AUSTRALIA BRANCH

~ ' Respondent

(Continued from 19/6/79 at Perth)

Coram: J.B. SWDENEY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEIDINGS

AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 20 JUNE 1979, AT 10.16 A.M.

WS (VB) Stap 67 20/6/79

to

HIS HONOUR: I have prepared a judgment in this matter which I

76A/PF Stap

will read onto the transcript. It is in these terms:

This is an application by Mr Damien Stapleton, the claimant, for an order pursuant to s.171l(c) with regard to the affairs of the Western Australian branch of the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association branch. It concerns an election in the branch of three officers on the branch executive held between the months of June and October 1978. When the matter came before me 'for directions an order was made for the service on the other branches of the association, and for an advertisement to be placed in The West Australian, the metropolitan daily newspaper, circulating in the state of Western Australia.

At this stage it was said that the elections had been uncontested but during the hearing it appeared there had been 10 nominations for eight positions on the executive and that there were, as a consequence, two defeated candidates. When this appeared the claimant proceeded to communicate with these two defeated candidates and each of them gave evidence before me that he was satisfied with and had no complaint about the conduct of the ballot. Turning to the irregularities, the rules of the organisation contain quite an elaborate and fair and suitable code for the conduct of elections, including those in branches. It is clear, however, that these rules were not adhered to. Whether these rules or any of them be treated as mandatory, requiring strict adherence, or directory, requiring only a sub- stantial adherence, I am quite satisfied that they were, in fact, neglected. There was neither substantial nor strict adherence to them.