Amalgamated Engineering Union v Alderdice Pty Ltd - [1928] HCA 38

Foil

Di»c

OvrrAfera/

^pplAmalffi’

Timber mated Cloth- Longy

Trades Empl

Worî /j mg A Allied Chû s oyers Assoc \

Union v WA I fades Union Australian Co Amalgamated

SawmiUen' y D E A m alli.U d ( m S )

CLR 143

Assoc

43CLR 185

402 HIGH COURT

[1928.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

THE AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION

Cl a im a n t ;

ALDERDICE PROPRIETARY LIMITED AND

R e s p o n d e n t s .

OTHERS

: )

I n r e t h e m e t r o p o l i t a n GAS COMPANY AND OTHERS.

H. C. o r A. Industrial Arhitmtion— Industrial dispute—Demand by orgaiiization of employees —

1928. Awards and agreements fi.ving hours for certain work in respect to one union— Subsequent award to another union fixing fewer hours for similar work— Former

M e l b o u r n e , union not party to subsequent award—Ineffectiveness of later award to affect

Oct. 9, 10.previous award to other union—“ Otherwise order”— Meaning of—Decrease of hours by Full Arbitration Court in respect of members of union having earlier

S y d n e y ,

award—Effect of—Jurisdiction of Full Arbitration Court to reduce hours— Nov. 26.Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1928 (No. 13 of 1904—

Knox C.J.,

No. 18 of 1928), secs. 21aa , 28 (2), 31 (1).

Isaacs, Higgins,

Gavan Duffy,

Powers and

The applicant companies employed certain persons, who were members of the Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union, as fitters, turners and black smiths. By certain aw'ards and agreements the hours of such employees were fixed at 48 hours per week. Subsequently the Amalgamated Engineering Union obtained an award providing that the hours of (inter alia) fitters,, turners and blacksmiths should be 44 hours per week. The Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union was not a party to this award. A summons was issued by one of the applicants asking for an interpretation and, if necessary, for a variation of the latter award. At the time of the hearing of that summons the FuU Court of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration had varied the awards and agreements of the Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union by reducing the hours of (inter alia) fitters, turners and blacksmiths from 48 to 44 hours per week, but this alteration was not brought to the notice of the Judge who heard the summons. The Judge held that as a result of the Amalgamated Engineering Linion’s award the hours of fitters, turners and blacksmiths who were member's of the Federated Gas Employees

Starke

J J .

41 C.L.R.l OF AUSTRALIA.

403

Industrial Union were reduced from 48 to 44 although the Federated Gas

H . C . O F A .

Employees Industrial Union was not a party to such award. The applicants

1928.

then took out a summons under sec. 21aa of the Commonwealth Conciliation

A m a l

and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Amalgamated Engineering Union v Alderdice Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Amalgamated Engineering Union v Alderdice Pty Ltd [1928] HCA 38
Case: [1928] HCA 38
Decision Date: 26 November 1928

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and Alderdice Pty Ltd concerning industrial awards. The Amalgamated Engineering Union sought to enforce an earlier award that stipulated specific working hours for its members. This award was in place before a subsequent award was made by the Full Arbitration Court, which fixed fewer hours for similar work performed by members of a different union. The Amalgamated Engineering Union was not a party to this later award.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the subsequent award, which granted reduced working hours for a different union, could effectively alter or override the pre-existing award that applied to the Amalgamated Engineering Union. The court was required to determine the legal effect of the later award on the earlier award, particularly in circumstances where the union bound by the earlier award was not a party to the proceedings that led to the later award. The interpretation of the phrase "otherwise order" within the relevant industrial arbitration legislation was also a key consideration.

The High Court reasoned that an award made by the Full Arbitration Court could not unilaterally diminish the working hours stipulated in an earlier award that bound a different union, especially when that union was not a party to the later proceedings. The court held that the later award was ineffective to alter the terms of the earlier award concerning the Amalgamated Engineering Union. The principle applied was that industrial awards bind the parties thereto, and a subsequent award cannot prejudice the rights or conditions established by a prior award for a non-party. The court found that the phrase "otherwise order" did not grant the Full Arbitration Court the power to override existing awards in such a manner.

Orders