Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees' Union of Australia v Melbourne Corporation

The case involved a dispute between the Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees' Union of Australia and various municipal corporations, including the City of Melbourne. The Union sought an award from the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration concerning work performed by its members employed by these corporations. The municipal corporations objected to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court, arguing they were instrumentalities of the State governments and therefore exempt from Commonwealth legislation under section 51(xxxv) of the Constitution. The dispute specifically related to operations of the municipal corporations that involved the making, maintenance, control, and lighting of public streets.

The High Court was asked to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether municipal corporations, in relation to their functions of making, maintaining, controlling, and lighting public streets, were considered instrumentalities of State government and thus immune from Commonwealth legislation. Secondly, the Court considered whether an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of the Constitution and the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act required the undertaking in question to be an industry, trade, or business carried on for profit.

A majority of the High Court (Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy, Powers, and Rich JJ.) held that municipal corporations were not instrumentalities of State government in respect of the specified operations and were therefore not exempt from Commonwealth legislation. The Court reasoned that while municipalities perform functions for the public good, they are not direct agents of the Crown in a way that would grant them immunity. Furthermore, a majority (Isaacs, Higgins, Powers, and Rich JJ.) determined that an industrial dispute did not necessitate the undertaking being conducted for profit. The Court concluded that the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration had the authority to determine the dispute by award.