The Rules of the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees, West Australian Branch were altered to maintain consistency with the operation of the federal counter body, pursuant to s 62(2) and in accordance with its Rules.

The Commission ordered that the applicant’s Rules be altered to change its name and its rules regarding office bearers and the eligibility for membership, as such changes fell within the Commission in Court Session’s jurisdiction, were proposed in accordance with the applicant’s Rules and no objection was made by the applicant’s members.

Background

ARTBIU, federally registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth), had two branches in Western Australia, the West Australian Branch and the West Australian PTA Branch. Membership of either branch was dependent upon the nature of the work performed by the member concerned.

On 3 March 2022, the rules of the ARTBIU were altered to merge the two existing West Australian branches into a single branch, to be known as the Western Australia Branch, taking effect from 1 January 2023. As a result, members of the former two branches became members of the new federal branch and elections for office bearers of the new, merged Western Australian Branch, commenced.

Contentions

The application, made under s 62(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), sought to alter the applicant’s Rules to maintain consistency with the operation of the ARTBIU. The proposed alterations to the Rules were extensive, including changes to the applicant’s name, eligibility for membership and rules regarding office bearers and who may hold office.

In compliance with its Rules, the applicant gave evidence that a letter was sent to all members of the applicant’s Executive by email, containing written notice of the proposed alterations to the Rules. The letter specified that the meeting of the Executive to consider the proposed alterations to the Rules would be convened on 21 September 2022. On this date, the Executive unanimously endorsed the proposed alterations to the Rules. All the applicant’s current members were notified of the proposed alterations and the reasons for the proposed alterations and were provided with the opportunity to object. Finally, the applicant deposed that no objections were raised by members.

Despite many additional proposed alterations not falling within s 62(2), the applicant contended that the Commission in Court Session had a general residual jurisdiction to deal with any matter the Registrar could deal with concerning alteration to the rules of an organisation.

Findings

The Commission in Court Session was not persuaded that it can exercise the powers of the Registrar generally, in relation to the alteration of organisations’ registered rules, in the exercise of a general residual jurisdiction and power.

The Commission's jurisdiction is limited to specific matters outlined in s 62(2) and any proposed alterations beyond those matters need to be the subject of a separate application to the Registrar.

The proposed alterations within the Commission in Court Session’s jurisdiction under s 62(2) were changes to the applicant’s name, eligibility for membership and the rules regarding office bearers and the persons who may hold office. The Commission in Court Session found that such alterations to the applicant’s Rules were authorised in accordance with its Rules. No objection was made to the proposed alterations to the Rules, nor to the proposed change of name of the applicant, by members of the applicant, who have been provided with a reasonable opportunity to do so.  Accordingly, ss 55(4)(b), 55(4)(c), and 55(4)(d) of the Act were complied with. Further, s 55(5) was complied with and no statutory issues were raised. Thus, the Commission in Court Session ordered that such alterations be made to the applicant’s Rules.

The decision can be read here.