Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association v Federated Seaman's Union of Australasia

The Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria. The appellant had charged the Federated Seamen's Union of Australasia (the respondent) with breaching an award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration by aiding "job control" exercised by some of its members in relation to the S.S. Coolana. The Petty Sessions Magistrate had dismissed the information, and the appellant sought to have that decision reviewed.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the actions of the Victorian Branch of the Union, or its secretary, in relation to the S.S. Coolana constituted "job control" and, crucially, whether such actions could be attributed to the respondent Union as a whole, thereby rendering the Union liable for a breach of the award. The award prohibited the claimant organization from ordering, encouraging, or aiding any strike or "job control" by its members.

The Court considered the rules of the respondent Union, which established a hierarchical structure with a governing body of members in general meetings and a Committee of Management. Branches were established for operational purposes, but the rules stipulated that the overall governance and control of the Union rested with general meetings of its members. The Court found that the evidence did not establish that the actions of the Victorian Branch or its secretary were taken with the authority of the respondent Union. The rules did not confer power on a Branch meeting or its secretary to act on behalf of the Union in a manner that would bind the Union to a breach of the award. The Court noted that even if the actions of the Branch could be considered an attempt to settle a local dispute, such actions would need to be legal, and no act of an agent could impose criminal liability on the principal unless the principal itself participated in or authorized the breach.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent Union had ordered, encouraged, or aided the "job control" in question. The Court concluded that the actions of the Victorian Branch and its secretary, while potentially constituting "job control" by individual members, could not be attributed to the Union as a whole under its rules, and therefore no breach of the award by the Union had been established.