Electrical Trades Union of Australia v Waterside Workers Federation of Australia

[1982] FCA 32

Re: ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION OF AUSTRALIA
And: THE WATERSIDE WORKERS FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA
And: BY AMENDMENT: Re: ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION OF AUSTRALIA, AND AMALGAMATED
METAL WORKERS AND SHIPWRIGHTS UNION
And: THE WATERSIDE WORKERS FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA, CHARLES FITZGIBBON, NORMAN
DOCKER, T. SUPPLE, T. BULL, W. JENNINGS (1982) 59 FLR 78
No. 2 of 1979
Industrial Law - Conciliation and Arbitration
1 IR 349

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Bowen C.J.(1), Evatt(1) and Deane(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Industrial Law - application for cancellation of registration of Federation as an organization under the Act - eligibility for membership of skilled workmen under Rules of Federation - whether the relevant skilled workmen follow or intend to follow "the occupation of a waterside worker" - worker's relationship to particular functions or activities - operation of loading and unloading ships.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904 ss.132, 143(3C)

Conciliation and Arbitration - Registered organization - Application that respondent not enrol as members certain persons - Eligibility rules - Occupation of waterside worker - Skilled workmen - Mechanics and electricians - Relationship of duties to function of loading or unloading ships - Extrinsic evidence - Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), ss. 132, 143(3C).

HEADNOTE

By proceedings under s. 143 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 the applicants sought orders that the respondent federation observe the provisions of its rules by ceasing to enrol certain skilled workmen who performed duties of mechanics and electricians in and around conventional and container wharves in the maintenance and repair of mechanical and other equipment and who were eligible to become members of either of the applicant organizations. Persons eligible for membership under the rules of the respondent federation were: "Any person who intends to follow the occupation of a waterside worker . . . ."

Held: (1) Eligibility rules should be liberally construed.

R. v. Cohen; Ex parte Motor Accidents Insurance Board (1979), 141 CLR 577; Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd. v. Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia (1980), 49 FLR 355, referred to.

(2) In determining the meaning of the phrase "waterside worker": (a) the words should be construed objectively, that is, to give them the ordinary meaning which they bear generally among people concerned with industrial matters in relevant or related industries; (b) reference could be made to extrinsic material including provisions in Commonwealth statutes, the previous form of eligibility rules and suggested amendments thereto, reports of courts and commissions indicating what constituted a waterside worker, provisions of awards and oral evidence.

(3)(a) The function of loading and unloading ships lay at the heart of the occupation of a waterside worker. Such function was not restricted to the physical transportation of goods aboard or ashore. Re Queensland Branch of Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia (1933), 32 CAR 596; Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v. Adelaide Stevedoring Co. (1969), 128 CAR 523, referred to. (b) Modern tools of trade meant that a waterside worker was no longer an unskilled worker. Persons performing specialized servicing and mechanical work although not engaged in the immediate physical loading or unloading of ships could still be described as waterside workers.

(4) The words "occupation of a waterside worker" as used in r. 6 of the respondent federation's rules, should be construed as encompassing the occupation of any worker, whose predominant working activities are based on or in the vicinity of wharves and constitute part of the overall stevedoring operations of loading and unloading ships.

(5) Rule to show cause discharged.

HEARING

Sydney, 1982, March 26. #DATE 26:3:1982

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE.

The applicants sought orders that the first-named respondent observe the provisions of its rules and cease to attempt or purport to enrol as members certain workmen.

K.R. Handley Q.C. and R.C. Kenzie, for the applicants.

D.M. Bennett Q.C., J.W. Shaw and F.L. Wright, for the respondents.

Cur.adv.vult.

Solicitors for the applicants: Turner Freeman.

Solicitors for the respondents: W.C. Taylor & Scott.

T.J. GINNANE

ORDER

1. The Rule to Show Cause be discharged.

2. The Federation be released, as from now, from the undertakings given to the Court on the 28th February, 1979 that :-

"Subject to any Order which may be made under s.144 of the Act the Federation undertakes that it will not enrol or seek to enrol any person who by virtue of the nature of his employment is eligible for membership of The Electrical Trades Union of Australia or The Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union of Australia; Provided that The Waterside Workers Federation may enrol or seek to enrol any person who does or proposes to do work at a place of employment which work was, prior to 30 October, 1978, at such place of employment principally done by members of The Waterside Workers Federation. The Federation undertakes that it will advise the applicants of any application pursuant to s.144 of the Act served upon it."
Orders accordingly.

JUDGE1

At issue in these proceedings is the entitlement of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia ("the Federation") to enrol among its members two groups of skilled workmen who work or intend to work substantially full time in and around conventional and container wharves in the maintenance and repair of mechanical and other equipment. It is common ground that such persons are eligible to become members of one or other of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia ("the ETU") and the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union ("the AMWS") which are the claimants in the proceedings. The answer to the question whether they are also qualified to become members of the Federation depends upon the effect of the Federation's Rules.

The present proceedings are brought by the claimants against the Federation and a number of its officers. In form, the proceedings are proceedings pursuant to s.143 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904 ("the Act") for the cancellation of the registration of the Federation as an organization under that Act. Senior counsel for the claimants has, however, made it clear that the objective of the claimants in bringing the proceedings is to obtain an order, pursuant to s.143(3C), that the Federation observe the provisions of its Rules and cease to attempt or purport to enrol as members the skilled workmen in question. The Federation, for its part, concedes that it has attempted and purported to enrol such persons. It maintains that it is entitled so to do under its Rules. Some of the persons purportedly enrolled as members of the Federation were, or had been, members of-one or other of the claimants. The Federation does not dispute the standing of the claimants to bring the present proceedings or to seek the relief which they actually seek. The Federation and the claimants are all registered organizations under the Act.

The two groups of skilled workmen are defined in written admissions which have been made on behalf of the respondents. They are:

(i) electrical mechanics, electrical fitters or electricians who work or intend to work substantially full-time in or around conventional and container wharves in the maintenance of electrical equipment located in or around conventional and container wharves such as cranes, forklifts, straddle trucks, transtainers and portainer cranes, and in the connection and disconnection of containers holding refrigerated cargo to electrical points on or about the wharves;

(ii) mechanical fitters, motor mechanics, boilermakers, welders, shipwrights and electricians who work or intend to work substantially full-time in or around conventional and container wharves in the maintenance and repair of cranes, grabs, winches, and hydraulic equipment, the inspection and maintenance of mechanical equipment on electric wharf cranes, the adjusting of brakes bearings and gear boxes, the changing and repair of spreaders and in the changing of hooks, swivels, grabs and chains, all such equipment being located in or around conventional or container wharves.
We shall refer to the workers comprising group (i) as "the relevant electricians" and those comprising group (ii) as "the relevant mechanics". It is apparent that the two groups are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, an electrician working in the maintenance of cranes would expressly be included in each group. The explanation is to be found in an overlap between the provisions dealing with eligibility for membership in the rules of the respective claimants. Workers in group (i) are seen by the ETU as eligible to become members of it. Workers in group (ii) are seen by the AMWS as eligible to join its ranks.

The rule of the Federation which deals with eligibility for membership is r.6. That rule is headed "Admission to Membership". Subject to provisions as to formalities to be observed in relation to an application for membership and to the exclusion of employers of labour, the provisions of r.6 directly dealing with eligibility for membership are as follows:
"Any person who intends to follow the occupation of a waterside worker, who is of respectable character and of the age of at least 18 years and not exceeding 45 years and who is reasonably competent and able to perform all the duties of a waterside worker may become a member and be enrolled as such in a Branch of the organisation within the Commonwealth . . .".

Some reliance was placed, on behalf of the claimants, upon other provisions of the Federation's Rules (in particular the definition of "Member" and "Stevedoring Industry" in r.5 and the provisions as to cessation of membership in r.7) as aids to the construction of r.6. It was not disputed, however, that it is the provisions of r.6 which govern the question of eligibility or that those provisions would prevail in the event, for example, of discrepancy with the description of the industry in respect of which the organization is registered ("shipping") (see. R v. Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd; Ex parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union (1957) 97 C.L.R. 71 at pp. 86-7; R. v. Clarkson; Ex parte Victorian Employers Federation (1973) 131 C.L.R. 100 at p. 111). The existence of eligibility provisions in the rules of an organization of employees has long been a requirement of registration under the Act. Their purpose is to enable identification of the group or class of employees which a registered organization is entitled to represent. Such eligibility provisions may only be altered with the consent of the Industrial Registrar and constitute an important part of the foundation upon which the Act is structured in that they govern the capacity of a registered organization of employees to create, or to be a party to, a dispute (see, e.g., R v. Aird; Ex parte The Australian Workers' Union (1973) 129 C.L.R. 654). The qualification of a person to be admitted to membership falls to be determined by reference to whether he comes within the group or class specified in them. Under the scheme of the Act (s.132), that group or class will consist of employees engaged in or in connection with an industry or group of industries or employees engaged in an industrial pursuit or pursuits. (See, generally, Sims v. Australian Institute of Marine & Power Engineers (Sydney Branch) (1980) Law Book Co. Ind. Arb. Service 576; Co-Operative Bulk Handling Ltd. v. Australian Workers' Union (1980) 32 A.L.R. 541 at pp. 543-4).

The question which lies at the heart of the issue between the parties in the present case is whether it can properly be said of all or any of the relevant electricians and mechanics that they follow or intend to follow "the occupation of a waterside worker" within the meaning of those words as used in r.6 of the Federation's Rules. The answer to that question will plainly depend upon the meaning to be given to the words "waterside worker" in that rule. The Federation has been called "The Waterside Workers Federation of Australia" at all times since its registration under the Act on 1 July, 1907. The words "waterside worker" did not, however, appear in the provisions of the Federation's Rules relating to conditions of eligibility for membership until they were introduced by amendments which became effective on 15 June, 1932.

As was pointed out in Co-Operative Bulk Handling Ltd. v. Australian Workers' Union (supra, at p. 547), it is plain that the meaning of the phrase "waterside worker" in the Federation's name and eligibility provisions is not to be determined by dividing it into the two words which constitute it and seeking to define each word separately. The words "waterside worker" are used as a composite expression to define a class or classes of worker. That composite expression does not bear the meaning which literal interpretation of the words "waterside" and "worker" would convey, namely, any person who works in the immediate vicinity of the water. The precise meaning of the composite expression, as used in r.6, falls to be determined by reference to relevant usage and context and will largely turn upon the common understanding, among people concerned with relevant industries and particularly with industrial matters, of the manner in which the words are ordinarily applied. In that regard, it is permissible to take account of the context in which the words "waterside worker" had, from time to time, previously been used in the Federation's own Rules, of the manner in which the words have been used in awards, determinations, reports and other papers dealing with the industrial side of the shipping and stevedoring industries and of their use in statutory provisions relating to relevant industries which were operative either prior to, or at the time when, eligibility provisions containing them were adopted or amended (see, The King v. Hickman Ex parte Fox & Clinton (1945) 70 C.L.R. 598 at p. 613). It must however constantly be borne in mind that the eligibility provisions in the rules of a registered organization lie at the heart of the organization's charter and are a primary reference point by which courts, commissions, employers, employees and other organizations must determine the organization's proper coverage and field of operation. The words which the organization or its members have adopted, with the approval of the Industrial Registrar, to prescribe the conditions of eligibility for membership must be construed objectively, that is to say, they must be given the ordinary meaning which they bear generally among people concerned with industrial matters in relevant or related industries. The purpose of any permissible reference to extrinsic material of the type mentioned must be to ascertain that ordinary meaning.

Notwithstanding the submission to the contrary on behalf of the claimants, we think that little assistance is to be derived as to the meaning of "the occupation of a waterside worker" in the eligibility provisions from the context in which those words are used in r.6 or from other provisions in the Federation's existing current Rules. One must, perforce, look to extrinsic material. The extrinsic material to which one or more of the parties has urged us to look for assistance in ascertaining the identifying attributes of a "waterside worker" takes a variety of forms. It consists of:
(i) provisions in various Commonwealth statutes. In particular, the claimants have placed reliance upon definitions of "waterside worker" to be found in statutory provisions which established a system for registration of waterside workers and provided for the employment of registered waterside workers on the waterfront (see National Security (Shipping Co-Ordination) Regulations 1944, Part V and the Stevedoring Industry Acts of 1947, 1949 and 1956 (all repealed). The definition of waterside worker that can be traced through the Stevedoring Industry Acts now appears in s.81 of the Act;

(ii) the different forms which the eligibility provisions in the Federation's Rules have, from time to time, taken; certain suggested amendments to those provisions to which the Industrial Registrar did not consent; certain transcripts and correspondence relating to amendments and suggested amendments to those provisions; and certain decisions of the Industrial Registrar;

(iii) reports of courts and commissions indicating what constituted a waterside worker in the view of the particular Judge or Commissioner (see, for example, Re: Queensland Branch of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia ((1933) 32 C.A.R. 596); Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v. The Overseas Shipping Representatives Association ((1944) 52 C.A.R. 705); Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v. The Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association ((1950) 67 C.A.R. 169); Associated Steamships Pty. Limited v. Waterside Workers Federation of Australia ((1969) 127 C.A.R. 10); Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v. Adelaide Stevedoring Co. ((1969) 128 C.A.R. 523);

(iv) the actual provisions of awards (e.g., Waterside Workers Award (1932) 31 C.A.R. 23 at p. 51); and

(v) particular parts of the oral evidence given before the Court.

Obviously, care must be taken in the use of the abovementioned extrinsic material. The weight which can properly be attached to it varies considerably from item to item. Thus, we consider that considerable assistance is to be obtained from cases and decisions indicating what Judges and Commissioners, experienced in industrial matters, have understood to constitute the identifying attributes of a waterside worker and from the approach adopted in Commonwealth statutes which provided part of the context for more recent amendments to the Federation's eligibility provisions. On the other hand, for example, we think that less assistance is to be derived from the provisions of consent awards which were not primarily concerned with the scope of eligibility provisions and where the Federation may, without opposition from an employer, have been seeking to extend the ambit of its members' activities or from the fact that particular witnesses who gave evidence before us gave their occupation as "maintenance fitter" or "fitter and machinist" rather than "waterside worker". Subject to these qualifications, we have found the material to which we have been referred instructive and informative as to what constitute the identifying attributes of a waterside worker. Overall, the picture which emerges is a reasonably consistent one.

From the time of the original registration of the Federation, the essential attributes of a waterside worker have consistently been seen in terms of his relationship to particular functions or activities. Those functions or activities are the loading and unloading of cargo, stores, supplies or fuel into or from ships. The original constitution of the Federation provided that the purpose of the organization was "to combine in one body all persons engaged in the loading, discharging and coaling of ships". That purpose continued with a minor variation (the substitution of "vessels" for "ships") in the Federation's Rules for some time after the words "intends to follow the occupation of waterside worker" were introduced in the eligibility provisions by the 1932 amendments. Repeatedly, in the reported cases, one finds recognition that the function of loading and unloading ships lies at the heart of the occupation of a waterside worker (see, for example, Re: Queensland Branch of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, supra at pp. 557-559; Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v. Adelaide Stevedoring Co. supra at p. 526). The definition of "waterside worker" contained, previously, in the National Security (Shipping Co-Ordination) Regulations and in the various Stevedoring Industry Acts, and, presently, in the Act accepts the basic concept of a "waterside worker" as a person who accepts, or offers to accept, employment for work in the loading or unloading of goods into or from ships.

It is also clear that it has long, and consistently, been recognised that the function of loading and unloading ships is not restricted to the physical transportation of goods aboard or ashore. Thus, in Re: Queensland Branch of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia (supra at p. 598) Dethridge C.J., in considering the definition of work "ordinarily done by men, who, like the members of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, are, as its rules state, 'engaged in the loading, discharging and coaling of vessels'" considered what was involved in loading and discharging operations. "Loading operations", he said, "include not only the actual movement of goods on to a vessel, but also work done within the place of loading operations for the purpose of putting goods at a point or points within that place so as to facilitate the ultimate actual loading, and also the stacking or arranging them within that place of loading operations in such a form as to further their ultimate loading". His Honour continued that, conversely, "discharging operations include not only the actual moving of goods off a vessel, but also work done within the place of discharging operations, after goods have been so moved, for the purpose of putting them at a point or points within the place of discharging operations so as to facilitate their ultimate removal from that place, and also the stacking or arranging them in such a form as to further ultimate removal". In Co-Operative Bulk Handling Ltd. v. Australian Workers' Union (supra), a Full Court of this Court held that the relevant loading operations included, in the circumstances of that case, the prior handling, treating and storing of bulk grain at or in the vicinity of a wharf when that handling, treating and storing was to facilitate or was for the purpose of the ultimate shipping of that cargo. Senior counsel for the Federation pressed upon us the view that the decision in the Co-Operative Bulk Handling Case (supra), if followed, resolved the issue in the present case in the Federation's favour. We do not think that that is so. That decision, like the above comments of Dethridge C.J., is directly in point on the question where loading and unloading operations begin. While it provides guidance as to the approach to be adopted in the resolution of the present case, it does not, in the view we take, authoritatively determine what activities can properly be seen as involved in those operations.

At the time the Federation became registered under the Act, the work of a waterside worker was commonly seen as that of an unskilled labourer (see, for example, per Higgins J., Waterside Workers Federation v. Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association (1914) 8 C.A.R. 53 at p. 64: "The wharf labourers, whether working at general cargo or at coal, whether working in the hold or on the wharf, clearly belong to the category of unskilled labourers" but cf. per Beeby J. Waterside Workers Federation v. Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association (1932) 31 C.A.R. 23 at p. 28). Indeed, the original eligibility provisions referred to a person "reasonably competent to perform the duties of Wharf Laborer, Stevedore or Coal-Lumper". Stevedoring operations in those days were almost completely unmechanized. Loading and unloading was effected by the physical labour of the waterside worker assisted by the winches etc., which constituted the ship's gear and the hook, trolley, slings and nets which constituted the stevedore's own gear or equipment. All that has long since changed.

Over the years, the increased capacity of ships, the introduction of mechanization and, more recently, the advent and dominance of containerization, have transformed the operation of loading and unloading ships which constitutes the essential function of a waterside worker and which lies at the heart of the stevedoring industry. Reliance upon physical labour has dramatically decreased. The importance of the ship's own gear has diminished to the point of insignificance while the stevedore's shore based equipment has taken possession of the field. Loading and unloading is the function of the huge portainer crane or the smaller mechanized crane. Movement on the wharf is the function of the transtainer crane, the straddle truck and the fork-lift truck. Movement on the ship is the function of the fork-lift truck. Mechanization and containerization have led to a decrease in the overall numbers of waterside workers. They have not however led to a decrease in the responsibility of the waterside workers' job. The waterside worker, with the appropriate modern tools of trade, continues to perform, at or in the vicinity of the wharf the essential functions involved in the operation of loading and unloading ships. The tools of trade are no longer the hook, trolley, slings and nets. They are the complicated machines to which reference has been made. The approach that a waterside worker is no more than an unskilled worker is no longer tenable.

With the introduction of mechanization, the mechanical skills essential in the performance of stevedoring operations have taken a number of forms. There is the skill necessary to drive or operate the machinery used in loading and unloading operations. There is the associated mechanical skill necessary to keep machinery in operating condition. Some running repairs and servicing of equipment can plainly be seen as part of the task of operating it. Other servicing and repairing of equipment involve more specialized skill.

The role of the worker with special skills for repairing or servicing complicated machinery has steadily become more important on the waterfront. To some extent that role has been performed by men who acquired skill and training after they had commenced to follow the occupation of a waterside worker. To a significant extent, however, specialized servicing and mechanical work has been performed by qualified or semi-qualified tradesmen who have never been engaged in the immediate physical loading or unloading of ships. It is these men who constitute the relevant mechanics and the relevant electricians in the present case. It is plain that they cannot properly be seen as persons who actually load and unload ships. Can they properly be seen, for relevant purposes, as following the occupation of a waterside worker in that they are engaged in the overall stevedoring operation which takes place at the wharf and which encompasses what is involved in the activity of loading and unloading ships? In answering that question, it is important to bear in mind that the Court is not here concerned with a specific demarcation dispute or with the merits of the respective claims of claimants and Federation that particular jobs be filled by their members. Nor is the Court concerned with the question whether the relevant electricians and the relevant mechanics can properly be described as "tradesmen" or whether they are entitled to belong to one or other of the claimants. It is common ground that they can and are. The question is whether, accepting that they can properly be described as tradesmen and are qualified to be members of one or other of the claimants, the relevant electricians and the relevant mechanics are also properly to be seen as engaged in the overall operation of loading and unloading ships and as being qualified for membership of the Federation by reason of the fact that, for the purposes of the Federation's eligiblity provisions, they can be said to follow the occupation of a waterside worker.

Eligibility provisions, such as those contained in r.6 of the Federation's Rules, should not be construed narrowly or technically. Such provisions serve the function of defining the general area or areas of industry of industrial pursuit from which the membership of the relevant organization can legitimately be drawn and with which the organization can legitimately be concerned. Plainly, they should be liberally construed (R. v. Cohen; Ex parte Motor Accidents Insurance Board (1979) 141 C.L.R. 577 at p. 587; Co-Operative Bulk Handling Ltd. v. Australian Workers' Union, supra, at pp. 546-7). In particular, when they refer to an industrial pursuit, they should ordinarily be seen as referring to the performance of general functions rather than to the precise activities which may, in a particular place or at a particular point of time, be involved in the performance of those functions but which are liable, by reason of changing technology or advances in technique, to be displaced by substituted or varied activities.

It is plain that a tradesman who carries out repair or maintenance work on stevedoring machinery in a general mechanical business conducted away from the waterfront cannot properly be seen as engaged in stevedoring operations. Nor can a tradesman who merely comes to the waterfront to carry out particular repairs or servicing of a machine in the course of a general independent occupation of carrying out mechanical or electrical work on machines. On the other hand, the fact that a man is a skilled tradesman or that his work consists of mechanical or electrical work on machines used in stevedoring operations will not, in the view we take, necessarily preclude him from properly being seen as being engaged in the loading and unloading of ships in the relevant sense. In our view, the words "occupation of a waterside worker", as used in r.6 of the Federation's Rules, should be construed as encompassing the occupation of any worker whose predominant working activities are based on or in the vicinity of wharves and constitute part of the overall stevedoring operations of loading and unloading ships. Those activities include not only the physical transportation and storing of goods. They include, in the view we take, whatever is necessary, on or in the vicinity of the site of the actual loading and unloading, to prepare and service the mechanical equipment by which loading and unloading operations are effected and to maintain it in the condition necessary for the performance of its stevedoring functions. They include on site electrical and mechanical repair and maintenance work on the machines. They include the activities which predominantly constitute the occupation of the relevant electricians and mechanics.

At one stage during the course of argument, we inclined to the view that a distinction should be drawn between those of the relevant mechanics and electricians who were employed by the stevedoring companies and those who were employed by independent contractors. The fact that a man is employed by a stevedoring company is a factor which supports his being seen as engaged in the overall stevedoring operation of that company. Further consideration has however led us to the view that the electrician or mechanic who is engaged substantially full time, on the site of the loading and unloading of ships, in the on site servicing, maintenance and repairing of the machines which perform the essential stevedoring function should be properly seen as engaged in the stevedoring operation regardless of whether his employer is the stevedoring company or an independent contractor.

It should be mentioned that it was submitted on behalf of the claimants that the requirement in the eligibility provisions that a prospective member of the Federation should be "reasonably competent and able to perform all the duties of a waterside worker" necessitated a narrow, rather than an expansive, approach to the identification of the attributes of a waterside worker. We do not accept that that is so. The requirement should not, in our view, be construed as requiring that an applicant for membership of the Federation be capable of performing all the variety of duties which fall within the collective competence of the overall body of waterside workers engaged in a sophisticated stevedoring operation. It should be construed as requiring either that the applicant for membership be capable of becoming, through training or experience, able to perform such duties or, on what we consider to be the preferred construction, that the applicant for membership be competent and able to perform all of the duties involved in the particular position on the waterfront which he occupies or intends to occupy.

In the result, we are of the view that, for the purposes of the Federation's eligibility provisions, the relevant electricians and mechanics "follow the occupation of a waterside worker". Provided they comply with the other requirements of those eligibility provisions, they are qualified to be members of the Federation.

We discharge the Rule to Show Cause. The Federation is released, as from now, from the undertakings to the Court to refrain from enrolling or seeking to enrol the workers in question among its members.