In one of two related applications under s 66 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, the applicant, a member of the respondent union, sought interim orders against the respondent to prevent the respondent’s Council from considering and determining a Summons to Show Cause issued to the applicant. The Summons was issued under union rules pertaining to the suspension, removal from office, and expulsion of branch officers.

Chief Commissioner Kenner identified several issues suggesting a prima facie case. The Summons failed to explain how the alleged conduct related to the applicant's office as Vice President, as required by respondent’s rules. The rule requires that the Summons state the allegations and the evidence on which they are based. However, the Summons issued to the applicant did not adequately set out how the allegations related to her position as Vice President, nor did it specify the gross misbehaviour in relation to her office. Additionally, there were concerns about bias, as key individuals involved in the allegations were also part of the decision-making process.

The balance of convenience was found to heavily favour the applicant. The potential consequences for her, including removal from office and expulsion from the union, posed a risk of irrecoverable harm. The respondent did not establish any significant harm that would result from granting the interim orders. The extensive delay in issuing the Summons and the timing of events also raised concerns about possible manipulation.

The Chief Commissioner decided that an interim order should be made in favour of the applicant. The decision was based on the principles of equity and good conscience, considering the serious potential consequences for the applicant and the issues surrounding the issuance of the Summons.

The decision can be read here.