When may the administrative authority order correction of a trade union's rules, resolutions or dispositions, and when does it first need an interested party's application?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In a practice file of this kind we read the union's own rules, the resolution or disposition said to breach them or the labour relations laws, any application by an interested party, and the Labour Relations Commission's resolution, because each bears on a condition the provision attaches.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading keeps the two paragraphs and their objects apart: the authority may order correction of the union's rules themselves where they breach the labour relations laws, and of a resolution or disposition where it breaches those laws or the rules, with a Labour Relations Commission resolution needed for both; the proviso then limits only the second paragraph, so a rule-violation ground for correcting a resolution or disposition follows where an interested party has applied, while an order correcting the rules themselves carries no such requirement.
Another reading works from the word 'may': even where the commission has resolved and a ground exists, the provision says the authority 'may' order correction, so the commission's resolution does not itself produce an order, and the provision leaves open who counts as an interested party for the proviso and how a breach is shown.
Your judgment
When the ground for correction is said to lie in the union's rules, what in the file could show that the applicant is the interested party the proviso speaks of?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the provision is amended to change which corrections require an application or who may apply, or if a Labour Relations Commission decision or court ruling defines an interested party for the proviso.