the Applicant v the Respondent
What happened
the Applicant, 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 the Respondent, Joseph Patti, Frank Vari, and Michael Mitten. 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. the Applicant sought interim relief under s 209 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.
What was decided
The Federal Court dismissed the Applicant'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 the Applicant'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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.