the Applicant v the Respondent
Citation: [2002] FCA 116
What happened
Michael Haritou, Divisional Branch Secretary of the FFTS Union Division (a division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union), was charged with breaches of union rules, including procuring an industrial agreement without proper endorsement and making a false statutory declaration. A hearing was scheduled before the Divisional Branch Executive, comprised of Leo Skourdoumbis, Joseph Patti, Frank Vari, and Michael Mitten (the respondents). Prior to the hearing, the Divisional Conference passed resolutions referring the charges to the conference itself and instructing the executive to refrain from further action. Haritou sought interim relief under s 209 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.
What was decided
The Federal Court dismissed Haritou's application for interim relief. The court found that the Divisional Conference’s resolutions did not strip the Divisional Branch Executive of its authority to hear the charges, referencing a previous decision in Skourdoumbis v Maher. The court also rejected Haritou's claim of 'invincible bias' against the respondents and found his arguments regarding natural justice were insufficient to warrant interim relief. The matter was adjourned for further directions.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure that internal dispute resolution processes are fair and adhere to relevant rules and regulations, particularly within unionised workplaces. Decisions made by committees or executives must have proper authority and jurisdiction.
What it means for employees
Employees facing disciplinary action within a union should understand their rights regarding natural justice and legal representation. However, interim relief is not guaranteed, and previous court decisions can significantly impact the outcome of disputes.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2002/2002fca0116Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →