Federated Engine-Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia v Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited (No 3)

The Federated Engine-Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia (the claimant) brought an industrial dispute before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration against numerous employers, including the Northern Collieries, Southern Collieries, Broken Hill Companies, and Adelaide Employers. The dispute involved claims regarding wages and conditions of employment. During the proceedings, several respondents sought to be dismissed from the plaint, arguing that agreements they had entered into with the claimant organisation settled the dispute and thus precluded further arbitration. The case was stated to the High Court of Australia for its opinion on several legal questions.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the agreements entered into between the claimant organisation and various respondents constituted "industrial agreements" within the meaning of Part VI of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1911, and if so, whether these agreements were a bar to the arbitration proceedings. The court was also asked to determine if it had the power to proceed with the hearing of the plaint in light of these agreements and whether the agreements were valid and enforceable under the Constitution.

The High Court held that the agreements in question were not "industrial agreements" within the meaning of Part VI of the Act. The Court reasoned that Section 73 of the Act, which governs industrial agreements, contemplates agreements specifically for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. The agreements before the court, while purporting to settle terms of employment and containing provisions for dispute resolution through a conciliation board and the Deputy Industrial Registrar, were not primarily designed for the prevention and settlement of disputes through conciliation and arbitration as required by Section 73. Therefore, these agreements did not operate as a conclusive bar to the arbitration proceedings.

Consequently, the High Court answered the questions posed by the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. It determined that the respondents were not entitled as of right to be struck out of the proceedings based on these agreements. The Court affirmed that it was the duty of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to proceed with the hearing of the plaint, taking into consideration the fact, nature, and circumstances of the agreements, and to determine their effect at common law if they did not operate under the Act.