t ee ° a ne es ee IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) . NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. 18 of 1985 "F INDUSTRIAL DIVISION ) IN THE MATTER of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1980 BETWEEN : PAUL ANTHONY BASTIEN Applicant res AND: J.A. LANGTON, M.J. MALCOLM, B. BEER, N. RICHARDSON, D. CAMERON, D. GOODGER, A. HART, D. NICHOLS, D. ROLLAND, J. ROYLE, B. McLEOD, R. SULLIVAN, J. WALLISS, R. WILLIAMS, T. THORPE, 5B. GRENFELL, M. BOURKE, J. BOYS, N. BUTCHER, L. BRINGOLF, L. CAMPBELL, C. FISHER, E. FLETCHER, I. HARRINGTON, E. PETERS, R. McCARTHY, C. MUNDIE, N. MURRAY, H. PAINE, H. SESSIONS, D. SMITH, G WARDELL AND THE AMALGAMATED METAL WORKERS' wy ares eta . fn Ad . , = tye f Cc % + he ff UNION Respondents CORAM: Evatt J I DATE: 31 October 1986 IPECEIVED 3 i: PLACE: Sydney no RG 286 re MINUTE OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondents and each of them perform and observe the rot 2. Rules of the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union as treating the Returning Officer's declaration of Mr McCarthy, the 26th named respondent, as elected to the position of New South Wales State Organiser, Division 1 as being null and void and take no further steps in pursuance of that declaration. 2. The matter stand adjourned to a date to be fixed for directions as to the election to fill the said position of New South Wales State Organiser, Division 1 within the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. Ww rary eee oe om pee pie IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY INDUSTRIAL DIVISION CORAM: DATE: PLACE: Evatt J. 31 October Sydney ) No. 18 of 1985 IN THE MATTER of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1985 BETWEEN : PAUL ANTHONY BASTIEN Applicant AND: J.A. LANGTON, M.d. MALCOLM, B. BEER, N. RICHARDSON, D. CAMERON, D. GOODGER, A. HART, D. NICHOLS, D. ROLLAND, J. ROYLE, B. McLEOD, R. SULLIVAN, J. WALLISS, R. WILLIAMS., T. THORPE, B. GRENFELL, M. BOURKE, J. BOYS, N. BUTCHER, L. BRINGOLF, L. CAMPBELL, C. FISHER, E. FLETCHER, I. HARRINGTON, &. PETERS, R. McCARTHY, C. MUNDIE, N. MURRAY, H. PAINE, H. SESSIONS, D. SMITH, G. WARDELL AND THE AMALGAMATED METAL WORKERS' UNION Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT By rule to show cause dated 25 September 1985 the applicant, Paul peer ene pec ae A Anthony Bastien, a member of the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union, ("the organization"), an organization of employees registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act ("the Act") sought orders pursuant to s.141 of the Act against several personal respondents. The first named respondent is a member of the organisation and at all relevant times held the position of the New South Wales Returning Officer for the said organization, whilst the remaining respondents constitute the New South Wales Council. The orders sought are: 1. That the respondents and each of them perform and observe the Rules of the organization by treating the Returning Officer's declaration of Mr McCarthy as elected to the position of State Organizer Division 1 as being null and void and take no further steps in pursuance of that declaration. 2. That the firstnamed Respondent perform and observe rule PART "E" 2{c) (sic) of the organization by accepting P. Bastien's nomination for the abovementioned position in accordance with the said rule. 3. That the firstnamed Respondent perform and observe the Rules of the organization by arranging for the conduct of a ballot for the abovementioned position in accordance with rule PART "E" 7 (sic) of the organization. oT 7 a =e on The so-called rules PART "E" 2(c) and PART "E" 7 are in fact divisions or paragraphs of certified rule 2 of the organization. Briefly, the circumstances leading up to the application for the rule to show cause are as follows. The incumbent of the office of New South Wales State Organizer Division 1 was due to retire in June 1985 in accordance with the rules of the organization. The State Council had appointed that incumbent to carry out the duties of the office for a short period of time thereafter in order that he might complete certain negotiations with various employers with which he was familiar. At the date of such appointment, it was anticipated that he would have completed those negotiations by approximately 12 July 1985. Nominations were called by the Returning Officer, Mr Langton, the first named respondent, for the filling of the said office some time in June 1985, the last date for the lodging of nominations being 5 July 1985. At the close of nominations the Returning Officer had received two nominations only, that of the applicant, Mr Bastien, and that of Mr McCarthy, the 26th named respondent. Before a ballot was set in train Mr McCarthy challenged Mr Bastien's nomination on the basis that Mr Bastien's qualifications did not comply with rule 2, PART "E", 2(c). Relevant parts of that sub-rule reads: poe e . mas a ere a + Ne wr. Lt branes rf 1-7 oo aR. phe Sr gn ren oe , , RULE 2 ELECTIONS AND VOTING PART "E" STATE ORGANISERS 1. The State Returning Officer shall, once each four years, conduct an election for each office of State Organizer. 2. A member of a branch in the State may be nominated as a candidate under the Rule if: (a) he has been a member of the Union, for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the closing date for lodging nominations and during the period of twelve months immediately preceding the closing date for lodging nominations, was not unfinancial for a period longer than three months; (Emphasis added) (bd) eee. (c) he was, for a period of not less than twelve months immediately before the closing date for lodging nominations: (Emphasis added) (i) employed in the State as an employee ina trade or calling or branch thereof in or in connection with which the Union is registered; (ii) unemployed in the State on account of iliness, incapacity or inability to obtain employment; or (4ii) engaged ina full-time office of the Union after having been elected or temporarily appointed thereto. As a result of Mr McCarthy's objection to Mr Bastien's nomination the Returning Officer wrote to Mr Bastien on 23 July 1985 as follows: "Bro. McCarthy and yourself are the only two candidates and he has challenged your eligibility under Rule 2, sub-clause 2(c). Your eligibility being raised I have sought legal advice and ask that you give me a written submission in answer to the challenge. The challenge and your submissions will be put to Counsel before I make a decision. The matter is urgent and I have informed Bro. McCarthy what I am doing so that he is aware of the facts." Mr Bastien supplied the information sought ina letter to the Returning Officer dated 7 August 1985. Thereafter the Returning Officer rejected the nomination of the applicant and by letter dated 16 August 1985 wrote to the State Secretary purportedly pursuant to rule 2, sub-rule 6(a) as follows: "Having sought legal advice relative to the election of New South Wales State Organiser Division 1 and having considered the advice given by Counsel I have ruled Brother Bastien ineligible. It is my duty therefore to declare Brother R McCarthy elected to the position of New South Wales State Oganiser, Division 1." Thereafter on or about 26 August 1985 the applicant appealed to the State Council against the decision of the State Returning Officer in accordance with rule 35, which makes provisions for internal complaints and appeals. The notice of appeal set out the grounds of appeal. This notice of appeal together with the letter from the Returning Officer dated 16 August were mentioned before the State Council at its meeting of 28 August. The Council resolved that both —e SR ee ete ee oe a rn Si Chir . pomwoeto oe 5 wo ee rr ae Ve vorcres ee wee ee stn, e soycyryer Re TyTN matters be stood over for consideration by it at its September meeting due to be held on 27 September. On 17 September 1985, Mr McCarthy wrote to the State Council (copied to Mr Bastien) claiming that the purported appeal under rule 35 was improper as rule 35, on its proper construction, did not permit appeals from decisions of the Returning Officer to the State Council. The letter then sought an undertaking from the State Secretary that the Council would not proceed with any purported appeal. Failing such undertaking Mr McCarthy indicated that he intended to "commence proceedings in a proper court to ensure that my rights are protected". No such undertaking was given by the State Secretary to Mr McCarthy. On 27 September State Council resolved that neither the appeal nor the Returning Officer's letter of 16 August be dealt with pending legal advice. As stated above, the applicant was granted the rule to show cause herein on 2 October 1985. As it was apparent from the applicant's points of claim that a challenge may be made to the validity of rule 2 PART "ER" 2(c) under s.140(1)(c) of the Act, the Court directed that the Analgamated Metal Workers' Union (the organisation) be added as a respondent to the proceedings. Ak, el rie ahd a os Ww On 7 November 1985 the applicant sought interim orders under s.141(2) of the Act restraining the respondents and any of them until further order from giving effect to the Returning Officer's said letter of 16 August 1985 to the State Secretary of the State Council. At that hearing, Mr Moore of Counsel appeared for the applicant; Mr Rothman of Counsel appeared for all respondents, including the organisation, other than the 26th named respondent, Mr McCarthy, who was represented by Mr Lance Wright of Counsel. The Court after hearing evidence granted the interim orders as asked and after giving certain directions stood the matter over for hearing. When the matter came of for hearing the appearances were as above. In addition to the affidavit evidence filed, evidence was given viva voce by Mr Bastien; by a Mr Bruce McLeod; by Mr McCarthy, and by a Mr Adrian Hart, another State Organiser. The latter two witnesses were called by Mr Wright. Mr McLeod had formerly been the New South Wales Branch Secretary of the Federated Shipwrights and Ship Contractors Association of Australia, an organisation registered under the Act before its amalgamation with the organisation. Mr McLeod was himself a qualified shipwright. He gave evidence in relation to the history of the shipwright industry in Sydney over a period of many years up until the present time and the method of pick-up by employers of casual shipwrights at Sydney and the workings of a oe fea ee es on, . te ae we er ete een 2 tee pert s at a rr ee i book te to Sn th roster system presently run by the organisation for that purpose and the keeping by him of a roster book. The evidence, which is accepted, shows that the shipwright industry, especially casual labour shipwrights on the waterfront at Sydney, has over recent years gradually diminished so that the total number of shipwrights who are presently members of the organisation is in the order of a mere 470 men, of whom but some 30 to 50 regularly roster for casual work. The practice at relevant times was for employers to ring the organisation when seeking casual shipwrights. Such calls were as a matter of practice dealt with by Mr McLeod who would allocate work to members from the roster. The evidence discloses that casual shipwrights are taken up for varying periods by various employers. As stated, the number of such shipwrights doing casual work is a relatively small number. From time to time such casual workers might decide to take holidays or a break from work. There is no set pattern for this and the duration of such breaks often depended upon the wages earned during a particular spell of engagement but the practice had grown up for the casual shipwrights when intending to take such "leave" to inform Mr McLeod accordingly. It should be noted, and the Court takes notice of the fact, that the organisation itself is what one might call a "hybrid union" wpe tae ee, ee me A : - awe 1 eo meets stots boas 7 ae Fe nyt owe won cece ween oY soe erm oo ee ee ee ene eee oe Pras ~ oot . : arn made up of anumber of other former registered organisations which have come together over the years by means of amalgamation with the former Amalgamated Engineering Union (the A.E.U.) to form the present Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union. Such former organisations include the Boilermakers' Society, the Sheetmetal Workers' and the Shipwrights' Federation, which latter organisation amalgamated with the organisation in or about 1976. Evidence in respect of Mr Bastien which is accepted, shows that he has been a member of the organisation since 27 January 1977; that thereafter he worked either as a casual shipwright; or engaged in a full-time office within the organisation having been appointed from time to time to such office for varying periods or, during the relevant period, was on "leave" for a period of some five months ona overseas trip. Mr Bastien claims that during any relevant period when he made himself available for work as a casual shipwright any period during which he was not picked-up he nevertheless was still "employed" as ai casual shipwright within the meaning of paragraph (c) (i) of rule 2 PART "EB" 2. This claim is discussed later herein. Regarding the overseas trip which occurred between the months of October 1984 and March 1985, Mr Bastien accompanied his father (who was gravely i11) ona flight to Europe. His father was anxious to visit certain parts of Europe and Mr Bastien accompanied him during this part of the trip. After some two months, his father boarded a ship to return to Australia. Being — or on omens gone ees wo. - = woop Ye omg ee a eee, Sn ion oe tg ae er ee eg eer eee 7 yey 7 oe 10. satisfied that his father would receive proper medical attention on the sea voyage home, the applicant decided to stay on in England and Europe. Overall, the applicant was absent from Australia for about five months, being on his own for the last three. Prior to setting out on this trip, Mr Bastien spoke to Mr McLeod, as the custodian of the roster book, seeking from Mr McLeod leave of absence from the roster for the purpose of going overseas for some months. It is accepted that such leave of absence was granted to the applicant by Mr McLeod. Accordingly, it is accepted that during the whole of the twelve months immediately before the close of nominations (ie from July 1984 to 5 July 1985) Mr Bastien either worked as a casual shipwright; was employed in a full-time position within the organisation or was overseas from late 1984 through to early 1985 for some five months. It was this period of five months which the Returning officer ruled prevented Mr Bastien from qualifying as a candidate for the office of a State Organiser. In this regard, the applicant's first submission was that the Court was entitled to conclude that Mr Bastien was during this period of five months on "leave"; that on its proper construction, the expression "employed" referred to in sub-rule (c)(i) of PART "E" 2 included any "leave" taken whilst so employed and that the said period of five months should en rcs a Sey Sg reer er or ll. be treated as such leave so as to be included when assessing any period of employment prior to the close of nominations. In support of this argument Mr Moore pointed out that if a person who was employed in the sense of being a party to a subsisting contract of employment in the State of New South Wales and took a period of extended leave, say for three months, then there would be no argument that such a person would be employed in the State as an employee in the trade or calling during such leave. It was submitted that where a person such as Mr Bastien was engaged on a casual basis working on and froma roster then any period that that person takes off on "leave" from the roster should be treated as employment. The reasoning for this submission, as the Court understands it, is that to be "employed" in the State as an "employee" in paragraph (c)(i) of rule 2 PART "E", does not necessarily mean that the employee has to be employed at all times under a subsisting contract of employment. That such was necessarily so was the apparent view of the Returning Officer. Such a construction, it was submitted, is far too narrow for employees working in the trade of a shipwright as a casual worker on and from the roster run by the organisation. It was argued that in the circumstances of this particular case a more liberal or generous interpretation of the rule should prevail. Accordingly it was submitted that in order for a casual shipwright to fall within the category of being "employed", all that was necessary was that he be ready, willing and able to work in the trade. This, so it was said, would be demonstrated by - ee, vere a ep ae eran oF ae a ae, ~ Tee SIT cee oe 7 ae ae ' ee an 12. placing his name on the roster. Here, it is accepted in respect of the 12 month period between July 1984 and July 1985 that apart from the time when he was on "leave" or working as an official in the organisation, Mr Bastien was at all times ready, willing and able to be picked-up from the roster in order that he carry out casual shipwright work. The Court is well aware of the nature of "casual employment" that has prevailed in the maritime industry in Sydney for decades. One has only to look at the superseded Stevedoring Industry Act 1973 to ascertain that a person who was registered as a waterside worker was deemed to be employed in the industry for the purposes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (see s.42 Stevedoring Industry Act 1973). This highlights the position that one could be an "employee" in the maritime industry without a subsisting contract of employment by merely being registered for work. The evidence discloses that, so far as work in the shipwright industry is concerned, this practice still prevails in respect of casual shipwrights at Sydney. Reference was also made to Bielski vy Oliver & Ors (1958) 1 FLR 258 where the Court had to consider what the words "engaged in manual labour" ina particular eligibility rule meant. At page 262, Spicer C.J. and Morgan J. said, The word "engaged" in rule 6 does not, we think, require that a person should be in actual employment in the calling at the time of his application if his calling or occupation can be said to be within the specified classes. However, this may ow 13. be, the phrase "engaged 1n manual or mental labour in or in connection with any of the following industries or callings" which appears at the beginning of rule 6, cannot in our opinion cover a person who had been engaged about nine months earlier in one of the prescribed industries or callings, but who has abandoned the calling, and has become engaged in quite another industry or calling not specified in the rule. Further, it is clear that the Act itself has a number of provisions which clearly provide for a generous interpretation of the word "employee" and "employment". Compare s.4 (definition of ""employee") s.132(4) and s.144 (3). Iam of the view that the submissions of the applicant in this regard should be upheld. Here, the applicant had been a member of the organisation for some eight years during which time he has worked as a casual shipwright working on and from the roster book. This meant that there were periods of varying lengths when he offered for work but was not picked-up. Nevertheless, in my view, he was then "employed" as an "employee" within the meaning of these words in rule 2 (c)(i). In addition, throughout these years, Mr Bastien had been appointed to a full-time office within imes the organisation at various - for varying periods. From time to time he had taken leave of absence from the roster. Any leave taken by such a casual shipwright need not of course be taken within the State. The question for determination in my view is simply whether the person concerned is taking a period off work with the clear intention of returning to casual shipwright work by placing his name back on the roster on his return. In Mr Bastien's case this was clearly the position when An Loyee ry 2 at" A Los Sane ~1 ome Pome me re te ee Caan . ae cee 7 14. he went overseas. Accordingly, inmy view, Mr Bastien did qualify for nomination to the position of State Organiser at the relevant time and his subject nomination should have been accepted. Further, on the assumption that the Court was against him as to his first submission, Mr Moore secondly submitted that the period of 12 months referred to in paragraph (c) of rule 2 PART "RE" 2 need not be a continuous period of 12 months. It was submitted that when one looks at the whole of rule 2 one sees that the draftsman, when it was intended that a period should be continuous, specifically said so, or uses the words "the period of" as in "the period of 12 months immediately preceding" as in rule 2(a). This expression has to be contrasted with "a period of" used in rule 2(c) where the draftsman has used the words "a period of not less than 12 months immediately before". It is noted that the present qualifications set out in PART "E" 2 (a) and (c) are, so far as is relevant, in identical terms to the various qualifications required by members when nominating as candidates for all official offices within the ogranization (see rule 2 PART "A" - National Officers, including National President, National Secretary, Assistant National Secretaries, and National Organisers; PART "B" - State Officers; PART "C" - Regional Delegates to National Conference; and PART "D" - Zone Representatives to State Conference). - ra T 4 We sree cmon en ee ee t, seosopagnm ey enc ty ; are - 15. Rule books covering earlier periods from 1959 were tendered to show the history of the particular rule. These were accepted without objection as showing the relevant rules of the organisation as certified at the particular periods referred to therein. The present rule 2 PART "E" 2(c) set out earlier herein is to be compared with the rule as it stood in 1959. Then, the rule dealing with the qualifications for office of Divisional Organiser was rule 2, sub-rule 12(f) which provided that those qualifications were "the same as those applied to the President, except that candidates must be members of a Branch and worked at the trade for the whole of the 12 months as defined in (a)"... Sub-rule 12(a) made provision for qualifications for President. That sub-rule provided (inter alia) that "all candidates for President must, during the whole of the 12 months immediately prior to the date of nomination have either been working" ... (with certain provisos). The 1959 rules which formed the basis for the present certified rules were the former A.E.U. rules before the amalgamation with other Unions discussed earlier herein. Again, the rules in force as at May 1979 show that the qualifications and conditions for nominating for the office of a State Organiser were the same as applied to the office of National President except such candidates were to have "at least five years continuous membership, be members of (the particular) SORT a cent cere te ee ae yf nm Cypress sree we [etna ae 16. Branch and have worked at the trade for the whole preceding 12 months in the State concerned" (Rule 2, sub-rule 6(f)). The September 1983 Rule book shows that the relevant rules were then the same as those agreed by the parties to be the rules relevant to the subject election and which have heen set out earlier herein. It is clear that between 1959 and 1979 the words "the whole" in the expression "during the whole of the 12 months" were dropped and the expression "have worked at the trade for the whole preceding 12 months in the State concerned" substituted. Further, it is clear that between 1979 and 1983 the rule was further amended so as to drop the requirement of a continuous or whole period of 12 months and substituting the words "a period of not less than 12 months". Such amendment in my view lends assistance in determining the proper construction to be placed on the whole of the rule in its present form. In the present sub-rule 2(a) the draftsman uses the expression "has been a member ... for a continuous period", whereas in paragraph 2(c) the draftsman uses the verb was" in the phrase "he was fora period of not less than 12 months". Again, paragraph 2(a) talks of "the period of 12 months" whilst paragraph 2(c) talks of "a period of not less than 12 months". These changes, it was argued, supported the argument that paragraph 2(c) in its present form did not require that the period referred to was necessarily a continuous period of not less than 12 months. merge neo poarode 17. Mr Wright submitted that if Mr Moore was correct in his submissions in this regard then the words "immediately before" in paragraph 2(c) had no work to do. In reply Mr Moore submitted these words certainly had work to do, namely a candidate nominating for State Organiser had to show that either immediately before the date of the close of nominations, that is for some reasonable time before and up to that date, he had been working or engaged in a trade or calling or branch thereof in or in connection with which the Union is registered or alternatively that he was then entitled to one or both of the qualifications set out in (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (c). What is meant by a reasonable period in this regard was, so it was argued, a question of fact. Accordingly Mr Moore submitted that it was not necessary for such a candidate to show that he was employed or engaged in such a trade continuously for the whole of the 12 months immediately before the close of nominations. If he was able to show that during a period totalling 12 months back from the close of nominations he was either engaged in such a trade, and/or was entitled to the benefit of the qualifications in paragraph (c)(ii) and/or (c)(iili) then he should not be disqualified if in ascertaining such a_period of 12 months it was necessary to include periods outside the period of 12 months immediately before the close of nominations. Further, so it was argued, in determining whether a member was "employed as an employee" in wt ce vee a ae y * 18. such a trade, consideration should be given to whether the member was "engaged" in the particular trade or calling in the sense used in Bielski's case (supra). Mr Rothman, who appeared for the organisation itself and all the personal respondents other than the 26th named respondent, supported the submissions of Mr Moore. On the other hand, Mr Wright submitted that the expression in paragraph (c), "for a period of not less than 12 months immediately before" is clear and unambiguous and means exactly what it says, namely that for the continuous period of or for the whole of the 12 months immediately before the closing date of nominations a candidate for State Organiser necessarily had to fall within the qualifications set out in (c)(i) and/or be entitled to the qualifications referred to in (ii) or (iii) of that paragraph. Additionally, Mr Wright submitted that the words "employed" and "employee" appearing in paragraph (c)(i) should not be read down in any way. Again, I am of the view that Mr Moore's submissions as_ to the proper construction of rule 2(c) should in all the circumstances of this case be accepted. It is clear on the evidence that if the period of five months between October 1984 and March 1985 is not to be included in calculating a period of not less than 12 months before July 1985 then Mr Bastien's earlier work history is that he was infact engaged in a full-time office within the ye % feo wre, tyrNe were ie een ee seri - . ns ta Fs 19. organisation from 14 November 1983 through to September 1984 when he sought casual shipwright work from the Sydney roster for some little time before leaving to go overseas with his father. So that during a period totalling well in excess of 12 months back from July 1985 and commencing in November 1983 he fell within the required qualifications referred to in paragraphs 2(c)(i) and (c)(iii) as construed above. Accordingly, in my view it is clear that Mr Bastien satisfied the qualifications set out in the rule as so construed and his nomination as a candidate for State Organiser should, if this had been the necessary test, have been accepted. In saying this it is not to be taken that the Court reflects upon the Returning Officer's conduct in any way. He did everything that he should have done. It was proper in the circumstances to seek legal advice as to whether or not the facts as supplied by Mr Bastien qualified him as a nominee for the subject office and having obtained Counsel's opinion he had every right to act upon it as he did. Mr Moore finally submitted that if the Court were against him on both his first and second submissions then the Court should hold that the subject rule was invalid as being contrary to s.140(1)(c). This was, so it was argued, on the basis that the rule, having regard to the objects of the Act and the purposes of the registration of the organisation under the Act, was oppressive, unreasonable or unjust. Broadly his submission was pyar eres ween, ee . my eet ee 20. that if the suggested liberal interpretation of the rule was not accepted then any casual shipwright who took any leave or holidays or breaks between taking up any contract of employment during the whole of the 12 months immediately before nominations closed would be disqualified from nominating. This would be Giscriminatory against the trade or calling of a casual shipwright and accordingly would be unreasonable or unjust. In view of the Court's expressed view as to the proper construction of the sub-rule I find it unnecessary to express any view as to Mr Moore's submission in this regard or those of Mr Wright in his rebuttal thereof. Accordingly, in all the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the applicant Mr Bastien is entitled to an order that the respondents and each of them perform and observe the rules of the organisation in treating the Returning Officer's declaration of Mr McCarthy as elected to the position of State Organizer Division 1 as being null and void and that the respondents take no further steps in pursuance of that declaration. Orders should be made accordingly. The Court proposes to adjourn the matter to a date in the near future to hear submissions from the parties as to further directions in respect of the subject election. That date may be arranged between the parties in consultation with my Associate. eae qe opt ers 7 a eos Soa ae oy . ae terre haat Le @ al. I certify that the preceding tiveaky pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr Justice Evatt falalloses Associate Datea: 3/-|0-66 weegar Fn Ferme one = wp ane ~ : IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. 18 of 1985 INDUSTRIAL DIVISION IN THE MATTER of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1980 BETWEEN : PAUL ANTHONY BASTIEN Applicant AND: J.-A. LANGTON, M.J. MALCOLM, B. BEER, N. RICHARDSON, D. CAMERON, D. GOODGER, A. HART, D. NICHOLS, D. ROLLAND, J. ROYLE, B. McLEOD, R. SULLIVAN, J. WALLISS, R. WILLIAMS, T. THORPE, B. GRENFELL, M. BOURKE, J. BOYS, N. BUTCHER, L. BRINCOLF, L. CAMPBELL, C. FISHER, E. FLETCHER, I. HARRINGTON, BE. PETERS, R. McCARTHY, C. MUNDIE, N. MURRAY, H. PAINE, H. SESSIONS, D. SMITH, G. WARDELL AND er op ee a ee re rn THE AMALGAMATED METAL WORKERS' UNION Amendment to the dated 31 October Page 10, Line 14: Page 13, Line 21: Respondents CORRIGENDA Judgment of the Honourable Mr Justice Evatt 1986. Omit the word "Union". Should read "at various times for varying periods" instead of "at various and for varying periods". J.M. HARRIS Associate to Evatt J. ee en pre ee we oo ee = » oN a ra oe