The Commission dismissed the applicant's claims, emphasising the validity of the expulsion, as the respondent acted within its rules and the applicant failed to utilise available avenues for his defence and appeal.

The case centred around an incident at Wandoo Rehabilitation Prison on 26 November 2020, involving the applicant, a prison officer accused of threatening a colleague who was the partner of the respondent's Secretary. The applicant, seeking clarification, wrote to the respondent on 23 December 2020, but the response lacked detail. An investigation was reopened on 11 January 2021, with the applicant alleging the respondent's Secretary influenced it. On 2 March 2021, the respondent's President informed the applicant of his expulsion as a union member for non-attendance at a State Council meeting on 20 January 2021.

The applicant argued denial of natural justice, accusing the Secretary of misusing his influence. He claimed the respondent failed to observe its rules and sought an acknowledgment of the expulsion's unfairness and $80,000 in legal costs. The respondent contended the applicant’s claims were without merit   and he failed to adhere to its rules.  It contended the State Council, after investigating, upheld the complaint, leading to the expulsion. The respondent argued the applicant had sufficient information, was given an opportunity to defend himself and failed to appeal within the stipulated time.

The Chief Commissioner dismissed the applicant's claims, citing a lack of jurisdiction to award compensation under s 66(2) of the Act. The decision emphasised that the State Council had discretionary power to provide a member with legal assistance, and the applicant's expulsion rendered him ineligible. The Commission found the expulsion valid, concluding that the respondent acted within its rules, and the applicant failed to utilise available avenues for his defence and appeal.

The decision can be read here.