United Firefighters' Union of Australia v United Firefighters' Union of Australia, Union of Employees, Queensland (No 2)
Citation: [2022] FCA 240
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 4
What happened
The Applicant applied under section 167 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 for declarations that four firefighters had been continuous members of the UFUA. The firefighters were Paul Hagger, Lam Pham, Daniel Feeney, and Scott Neumann. The State-based United Firefighters' Union of Australia, Union of Employees, Queensland (UFUQ) contested the application or the dates of membership. All four had completed double-sided membership forms that purported to enrol them in both the federal and state unions, but documentation had been affected by workplace flooding in 2011.
What was decided
The court made declarations that the four firefighters had been continuous members of the UFUA since specified dates. For two firefighters (Feeney and Hagger), the court made declarations of membership from specified dates or 'no later than' the stated date, reflecting uncertainty about exact joining dates caused by loss of original documentation. The court found the precise dates immaterial to the outcome the Applicant had originally sought (membership from 30 April 2013).
What it means for employers
Union membership can be declared retrospectively if evidence supports continuous membership, even where documentation is incomplete or dates uncertain.
What it means for employees
Firefighters' union membership rights are protected and can be declared by court order. Loss of documentation does not defeat membership claims if other evidence establishes continuous membership.
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/2022/2022fca0240Want 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 →