Strugnell v Community and Public Sector Union [2004] FCA 629

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Strugnell v Community and Public Sector Union [2004] FCA 629 SUZANNE ELIZABETH STRUGNELL V COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNION SPSF GROUP TASMANIAN BRANCH NO. T 14 OF 2004 HEEREY J 13 MAY 2004 MELBOURNE (BY VIDEO LINK TO HOBART)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY T14 OF 2004

BETWEEN: SUZANNE ELIZABETH STRUGNELL

AND: COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNION SPSF GROUP TASMANIAN BRANCH

JUDGE: HEEREY J

DATE OF ORDER: 13 MAY 2004

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY T14 OF 2004

BETWEEN: SUZANNE ELIZABETH STRUGNELL

AND: COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNION SPSF GROUP TASMANIAN BRANCH

JUDGE: HEEREY J

DATE: 13 MAY 2004

PLACE: MELBOURNE (BY VIDEO LINK TO HOBART)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I am asked to grant an interlocutory injunction which would have the effect of preventing the respondent union proceeding with the election for the office of president, that being an office for which the applicant wishes to stand. It is accepted by the union that there is a serious question to be tried as to the eligibility of the applicant to be a member of the union or indeed, as to whether she remains a member, and whether or not she has been invalidly treated as having ceased to be a member. However, as a matter of discretion I do not think it would be appropriate to grant an injunction. The main reason for that is that the applicant has not taken reasonable steps to enforce what she says are her rights. 2 It is accepted that when she resigned as general secretary of the union last August she knew that union subscriptions would no longer be paid by way of deduction from her salary. By the very latest on 29 March 2004 she was advised by the union that it considered she was not a member and had ceased to be a member following her resignation. Although she had been in receipt of legal advice and although her solicitors sent a letter on 1 April 2004 threatening action to rectify the register of members by the following Monday, 5 April, no proceeding was in fact launched until 7 May 2004. 3 In the meantime the Australian Electoral Commission, at the request of the union, set in train the steps for an election as follows: opening of nominations on 15 April; closing of nominations on 6 May; opening of ballot on 27 May and closing of ballot on 17 June. It would be a serious thing, in my opinion, to interrupt that process, particularly when it is something that the applicant might reasonably have anticipated would occur. 4 Counsel pointed out par 51 of her affidavit where she says that on 15 April she became aware that the Australian Electoral Commission was conducting an election in respect of the office bearing positions of the union. I was told that elections for these offices are conducted every two years. Since the applicant had been a secretary of the union herself, it is reasonable to infer that she would have expected that an election was in the offing. The delay of the election will, as counsel for the union pointed out, have the effect of delaying the program for election of delegates to federal council and further delegates to the federal executive, which in turn will affect the election of the president. Therefore, I decline to grant an injunction I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey.