Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v The Australian Industrial Relations Commission

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (the Union) against orders made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's (the Commission) powers to deal with a dispute arising under a certified agreement. The Union sought to challenge the Full Court's decision to issue prohibition against the Commission.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether section 89A of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (the WR Act) limited the powers of the Commission in discharging its functions under section 89(b) of the WR Act and section 170MH of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) (the IR Act), and whether provisions within a certified agreement extending beyond section 170MH rendered the entire provision invalid. The Court also considered whether a statutory disentitlement to costs under section 347(1) of the WR Act applied to proceedings for prohibition under section 75(v) of the Constitution.

The High Court reasoned that section 89(b) of the WR Act authorised the Commission to exercise functions under clause 22 of the certified agreement that were derived from section 170MH of the IR Act. It held that section 89A of the WR Act did not limit the powers exercisable by the Commission in discharging these specific functions. Consequently, the Full Court of the Federal Court had erred in issuing prohibition. Regarding costs, the Court determined that relief by way of prohibition under section 75(v) of the Constitution is not a matter arising under the WR Act, as the right and duty in issue derive from the Constitution itself, not the statute. Therefore, section 347(1) of the WR Act did not apply, and the Court had the power to award costs.

The High Court allowed the Union's appeal with costs, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court and dismissing the application for certiorari and prohibition with costs. The application for special leave to cross-appeal was also dismissed with costs.