Background

Members of the respondent union, the Australian Nursing Federation (ANF), filed applications under s 66 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) alleging the respondent’s non-compliance with its rules. The applicants sought relief under s 66(2)(a) of the Act for their claim that the respondent breached its rules. The claims were initially unspecified and similar, leading to a consolidation and further directions for particulars.

Procedural History

After a directions hearing, the applicants were directed to provide specific details of their claims, and the respondent filed an amended response contesting the allegations. The respondent subsequently sought dismissal of the claims under s 27(1)(a) of the Act, arguing that the grievances presented by the applicants were not within the scope of s 66 and amounted to a complaint about the respondent’s management rather than a breach of rules.

Contentions of the Parties

The respondent, in its application to dismiss, contended that the claims were trivial, lacking substance, and essentially represented a challenge to legitimate decisions made by the respondent’s Council. It argued that the applicants, who were unsuccessful candidates for election, were attempting to involve the Commission in the day-to-day management of the union.

Specifically addressing the individual claims:

1. Claim 1: The respondent argued that Ms Reah, the Secretary, met the eligibility criteria for membership.
2. Claim 2: The respondent contended that Ms Reah was a financial member, and her eligibility was not in question.
3. Claim 3: The respondent asserted that the persons mentioned were not members of the union and not eligible, contradicting the applicants' claims.
4. Claim 4: The respondent argued that this claim was an attempt to re-litigate issues already addressed in a previous case.
5. Claim 5: The respondent defended its actions related to annual general meetings, citing pandemic-related restrictions and logistical challenges.
6. Claim 6: The respondent disputed allegations of improper exercise of powers, including the authorisation of signatories.

Consideration

The Chief Commissioner noted that Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 raised substantial issues that required examination on their merits. The Chief Commissioner expressed scepticism about the triviality of the claims and emphasised the importance of addressing serious questions of compliance with the respondent’s rules. The Chief Commissioner dismissed the application to dismiss these claims.

However, regarding Claim 4, which alleged non-compliance with Rule 3 of the respondent’s rules, the Chief Commissioner found that it had no prospect of success and dismissed this particular claim. The claim concerned orders that the Chief Commissioner made in Registrar WAIRC v Australian Nursing Federation Industrial Union Workers Perth [2022] WAIRC 00681; (2022) 102 WAIG 1315; [2022] WAIRC 00684; (2022) 102 WAIG 1327, which were the subject of proceedings in Fenn v The Australian Nursing Federation, Industrial Union of Workers Perth and Ors [2023] WAIRC 00806; (2023) 103 WAIG 1793

The Chief Commissioner ordered that the applications, except as to Claim 4, proceed to be heard on a date to be fixed, with a directions hearing to facilitate the hearing of the applications on their merits.

The decision can be read here.