Krantz, Harry David v Federated Clerks Union of Australia [1985] FCA 421

ow b \ we "he ' fo ) Sa = \ a] CATCHWOPLS ANZ / Sa a

a

Industrial law - registered organization - validity of rules - adjournment to allow opportunity to alter rules - amendments made to cure defects - whether proper to consider validity of

amendments other than those made to cure defects.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, s. 140., s. 133A, s. 139.

Federal Court Rules o. 33 r. 5.

Luckman v. Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union (1978)

28 A.L.R. 393.

HARRY DAVID KRANTZ v. FEDERATED CLERKS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA GRAY J. 24TH MAY, 1985

ADELAIDE.

& vy S IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) a & 1 } y SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTPICT REGISTRY ) vo fl ) eee INDUSTRIAL DIVISION ) S.A. No. T4_of 1984

BETWEEN: HARRY DAVID KRANTZ and OTHERS

Applicants

AND:

FEDERATED CLERKS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA

Respondert

JUDGE: GRAY J.

io

ATE: 24TH MAY, 1985

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 21st December 1984 the Court delivered judgment in this matter. It was held that the rules of the Federated Clerks

Union of Australia failed to make the provisions required by 5s.

133A of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. Pursuant to

the power given by s. 140(6) of that Act, the matter was

adjourned to give to the organization an opportunity to alter its

rules. Subsequently, the matter was further adjourned on two

occasions and comes on before me today.

There is before me an affidavit of Terrence William

- 2 ~ Sullivan sworn on 15th May 1985, in whach evidence is given of var1cus amendments made to varicscus rules of the organization, those amendments having been certified by the Industrial

Registrar pursuant to s. 133(4) of the Act om 29th April 1985.

Dr. Jessup, on behalf of the organization, has submitted to me that amongst those amendments to the rules are new provisions, which have the effect of overcoming the defect which the Court found to exist in the rules of the organization, in its jucegment given on 21st December 1984. Mr. Heywood-Smith on behalf of the applicants in the proceeding does not dispute that the rule amendments do overcome the defect which was found to exist. He contends, however, that the organization has taken advantage of the adjournment to alter its rules ina number of respects, and that some of the amendments which have been so made themselves raise other difficulties of compliance with 5s. 140(1) of the Act. In particular, Mr. Heywood-Smith desires to draw attention to a number of features of the amendments which he says made provisions which are in contravention of s. 140(1)(c) of the Act, in that they impose on members of the organization conditions, obligations or restrictions which, having regard to the objects of the Act and the purposes of the registration of