Krantz, Harry David v Federated Clerks Union of Australia [1985] FCA 687

eo.

%d| SS . 9 Gt

mn

CATCHWOPE

Incustr.ial law - registered organizatior - validity of rules -

adjournment to allsw cpportunity to alter rules - amendmerts made

ea

m

to cure def - wh. roper to consider validity of

wm n

i]

r

2er

ie]

amenements other than those made to cure defects.

[s) He hs io ir cr rs 1s] cr tre oO Sj Red Ir? faaive} °o > . mM te p> Qo . wo v LoS) uw > uw Bw is w

Conciliation an

Fecgeral Court Rules o. 33 ©. 5.

Luckman v. Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union (1978)

22 A.L.R. 393.

HARRY DAVID KRANTZ v. FEDERATED CLERKS' UNION OF AUSTRALIA

GRAY J. 24TH MAY, 1985

ADELAIDE.

- 2 -

Sallzvan sworn en l5cth May 1985, in which evidence 15 given of

varicus amendments made t3 various rules of the organization,

Deen certified by the Industrial

Pegistrar fpursuart to s. 179(4) of the Act cn 29th April 1984.

Dr. Jessup, on behalf of the organizatior, has submitted tome '$thst amongst those amendments to the rules are new

oming the defect whach

oO

pravisions, which have the effect of over

the Court found to exist in the rules of the organization, in —ts '

sudgmenz given on @21ist December 1984. Mr. Heywood-Snith on

behalf of the applicants in the proceeding does not dispute that

the rule amendments 20 cvercome the defect which was found to G@xXist. He contends, however, that the organization has taken advantage of the adjournment to alter its rules in a number of respects, and that some of the amendments which have beer so made themselves raise other difficulties of compliance with s. 140(1) of the Act. In particular, Mr. HYeywood-Smith desires to draw attention to a number of features of the amendments which he says made provisions which are2 in contravention of 5s. 140(1)(c) of the Act, in that they cimpose on members of the organization conditions, obligations sr restrictions which, having regard to the objects of the Act and the ecurposes of the registration of x