Constitutional Law (Cth)—Conciliation and arbitration—Jurisdiction of Commission—Log of claims by professional engineers—Employment described by reference to professional qualifications—Engineers employed by State governments, agencies of State governments or municipal bodies—Governmental character of employers—Whether inconsistent with work being industrial in character—Jurisdiction where some employees described in log not industrially employed—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xxxv.)—Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904- 1958 (Cth), s. 4 (1), definitions of "industry" and "industrial dispute".
Decisions
September 9. DIXON C.J. The Association of Professional Engineers, Australia, is an organization of employees registered under Pt VIII of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1958 (Cth). To be a member it is necessary to have a professional qualification in engineering. It appears that in October 1956 the Federal Council of the body resolved upon a log of claims to be served upon employers with respect to the salaries to be paid for professional engineering work. The document adopted is that with which this Court dealt in Reg. v. The Association of Professional Engineers of Australia ; Ex parte Victoria (1957) 100 CLR 155 The Judgment of the Court contains a full description of the instrument, a discussion of its effect and an account of the classification of professional engineers upon which it appears to be based. It is unnecessary to repeat what is there said. It is enough to say that the log concerns rates of salary and that two minimum rates are specified. For a "qualified engineer" a minimun of 1,650 pounds per annum : for a "chartered engineer" a minimum of 2,200 pounds per annum. These are defined terms; they depend on the attainments and experience of the engineer. The actual rates payable in a particular case are left to the agreement of the parties but there is a demand that the professional engineer should be at liberty to invoke the Association to represent him in the negotiation and of course the rate agreed may not go below the appropriate minimum. The work in respect of which the demands are made is described simply as professional engineering duties but these words are defined to mean "duties carried out by a person in any particular employment the adequate discharge of any portion of which duties requires qualifications of the employee as (or at least equal to those of) a graduate of The Institution of Engineers, Australia". There is a long schedule of the recognized qualifications. They are described in the judgment of the Court to which reference has already been made and nothing more need be said about them now. What is important for present purposes is that there is nothing to indicate the place which the performance of these duties may have in industry or to distinguish the kind of employment in which the professional skill of the engineer may be called for or applied.…
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 Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association [1959] HCA 47
Case
[1959] HCA 47
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association* concerned an application for a writ of prohibition brought by the Professional Engineers' Association against the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The Association sought to prevent the Court from proceeding with a compulsory conference and subsequent arbitration concerning a dispute between the Association and certain employers. The core of the dispute revolved around the eligibility of certain individuals to be members of the Association, and consequently, their eligibility to be represented by the Association in industrial proceedings.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the rules of the Professional Engineers' Association, as registered under the relevant legislation, were such that they validly admitted to membership persons who were not engineers, thereby potentially rendering the dispute outside the scope of the Court's arbitral powers. The question also touched upon the interpretation of the rules of registered organisations and the extent to which the Court could inquire into the validity of membership based on those rules.
The High Court, in its judgment, reasoned that the rules of a registered organisation, once registered, are determinative of its membership and its capacity to have industrial disputes dealt with by the Commonwealth Court. The Court held that the rules of the Professional Engineers' Association, as registered, did not restrict membership solely to persons who were engineers by profession. Consequently, the dispute brought before the Commonwealth Court, which involved individuals whose eligibility for membership was based on the broad terms of the Association's rules, was within the Court's jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that the validity of the rules themselves, as registered, was not a matter for collateral attack in prohibition proceedings; rather, the Court's jurisdiction was engaged if the dispute, as presented, fell within the ambit of the registered organisation's rules.
The application for a writ of prohibition was accordingly dismissed.