Meat & Allied Trades Federation of Australia v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union

C A T C H W O R D S

I	P r a c t i c e 2nd Procedure - Federal Court	of Australia -
!

J u r i s d i c t i s n

o f

A v p h c a t i o n f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

air^

award

made

under

t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n a n d A r b i t r a t i o n

Act

1904

"Matter"

a r i s i n g u n d e r f e d e r a l

l a w

Scope

or'

s i n g l e

cont roversy

Extent

a c c r u e d j u r i s d i c t i o n .

I n d u s t r i a l Law

(Commonwealth)

Award

- Appl ica t ion €or

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

"F la t t e r " a r i s ing unde r f ede ra l

l a w

Scope

o f

s ing le con t rove r sy

Extent

o f a c c r u e d j u r i s d i c t i o n

C o n s t i t u t i o n , s e c t i o n s

76 (ii)

77 (i)

C o n c i l i a t i o n

and

A r b i t r a t i o n Act

1 9 0 4 ,

s e c t i o n

110

Seamen's Union of Australia v. Matthews

(1957)

96 C.L.R.

529

The ueen v. The

Confnonwealth

I n d u s t r i a l C o u r t ;

E x parte

+	T e Australian Coal	and	Shale Employees' Federation
(1960) 103 C.L.R.	1 7 1

P h i l i p Morr i s Inc.

Adam

P .

Brown Male

Fashions Pty. Limited

(1981) 148 C.L.R.

457

Fencot t v. Muller (1983) 46 A.L.R.

The

ueen v. Clarkson; Ex parte The Victor ian

Employers

era t ion

(1973)

103

C.L.R.

100

No. 4 of 1984

HEAT AND ALLIED TUDES FEDEXAXON OF AUSTRALIA v. TIE AUS-

TRALASIAN ?EAT INDUSTRY EXPLOYEES ' -ilXIO2J ir ;>TO?,.	l
Neaves J.

13 Jcne	1984
Sydney

3 E T . E N :

E A T AND

ALLIED

TRADES

FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant

T'Z

AUSTWSI.4.H

NEAT

IhiUSTBP EXPLOYEES ' UNION

F i r s t Respondent

THE

FEDERATED

COLD

STORAGE

ANXI PEAT -3RESERVI3G EXPLOYEES'	I
UNION OF AUSTRALIA

S e c o n d ' Xespondent

JUDGE W I N G ORDER:

Neaves J.

DATE

ORDER:

-_-

13 June

1 9 8 4

WHERE M E :	Sydney
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The object ion

t o the

j u r i s d i c t i o n of

the Court.

t o entertsiin

the

a p p l i c a t i o n be

o v e r r u l e d .

2 .

T h e

c o s t s

o f

the

h e a r i n g on

the

j u r i s d i c t i o n a l

issue b e reserved.

3 .

The

f irst

r e s p o n d e n t

f i l e and

serve

anended

p o n t s o f

d e f e n c e w i t h i n

Ii d z y s

a f t e r

the

d a t e

o f t h ~ s

o r d e r

4 .

The

f i rs t respondent

f i l e and

serve w i t h i n

2 1

d a y s a f t e r t h e

date

t h i s

o r d e r a f f i d a v i t s

s e t t i n g ou t

any

e v i d e n t i a r y

material

on which

L t wishes

t o r e l y i n s u p p o r t

o f

t h e i s s u e s

r a i s e d

i n

t h e

amended

p o i n t s o f d e f e n c e .

5 .

The

a p p l i c a n t

f i l e

a d serve

any

affidavits i n

r e p l y w i t h i n

d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e r e f e r r e d t o

i n t h e

las t

preceding order .

6 .

The parties have

l i b e r t y t o appl;r

on 2

days '

n o t i c e f o r

any

v a r i a t i o n o f t h e d i r e c t i o n s

now

g i v e n o r f o r a n y f u r t h e r o r o t h e r d i r e q t i o n s

they may

be advised .

7 .

The

p a r t i e s be

a t

l i b e r t y

t o

a p p r o a c h

the

R e g i s t r a r o f t h e C o u r t t o

f i x

d a t e f o r

the

fur ther he-ar ing

o f

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n .

2 .

PEV 9x73 rJ/LES DISTRICT REGISTRY )

No. 4 o f 1984

)

I?:DL:ST?,:I...L DIVISION

)

BETVEEN :

E A T AND ALLIED TRABES

..	FEDERATION OF AUSTRALLA

Applicant

First Respondem

THE FEDEMTED COLD STOMCZ.

AND >EAT PRESERVING

ENTLOYEES

U N I O N

AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent

C O W Y :

DATE :	13 June 1984
MASONS FOR JUDGXENT

A preliminary question has arisen whether the

Court has jurisdiction to entertain an applicatlon brought

before It by the Feat 2nd Allled Trades Federation

Australia ("the applicant") .

The applicatlon names as

respondents The Australasian

>!eat Ir.dus:=-./ Employees'

Unlon ("the f l r s t respondanc") and The '2lsrar2d

Col2

Storage

2nd

Keat

Preserving Employees' Union of

Australia

("the

s cond

respondent").

The

s cond

respondent

has

not

I .

e n t e red	E	I	~	appearance and has	taken	no	p a r t	i n t h e p r o -
ceedings .

The

a p p l i c a n t s e e k s

t h e f o l l o w i n g d e c l a r a t i o n s

( n m b e r e d 3 a n d

i n

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n )

l'3.

d e c l a r a t i o n

t h a t

upon t h e true meaning

and

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f p a r a g r a p h

( i i ) of

sub-

c l a u s e

( a )

of Clause 3 , Extent of Award, o f

t he Fede ra l

Meat

Indus t ry Award,

1981, as

v a r i e d , t h e

said

award

i s b inding on

the con-

pany

known

on 8th February, 1984,

h a g r a z e

L i a i t e d ,

howsoever

t h e r e a f t e r named,

be ing

member

o f

the Meat

and All ied Trades Federa-

t i o n of Australia,

o r g a n i s a t i o n of

employees

r e g i s t e r e d

u n d e r

t h e

C o n c i l i a t i o n

and Arbitra-

t i o n A c t

1 9 0 4 ,

and

the Regula t ions

made

there-

unde r ,

be ing

o rgan i sa t ion

bound

t h e

s a i d

award,

i n r e s p e c t of

a l l of

t h e said company's

employees	i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d	in	the
s a i d award.

4 .

d e c l a r a t i o n

t h a t

upon t h e true meaning

and

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

subc lause

(a) o f

Clause

2 , App l i ca t ion ,

o f

the F. J.

Walker

Queensland

Meatworks

I n d u s t r i a l Agreement-Award

1976

made on 6th September,

1976,

2nd

v a r i e d

t h e r e a f t e r , the said award ss so made

and so

varied has not

been

and

i s not b inding on

t h e company known on 8th February, 1984, as

h a g r a z e L i m i t e d ,

howsoever

t h e r e a f t e r named,

i n r e s p e c t of	any of	t h e said company's
employees ."

The

a p p l i c a t i o n as

f i led

seeks

number

o f

o t h e r d e c l a r a -

t i ons bu t on the hea r ing

o f

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n c o u n s e l f o r

t h e a p p l i c a n t d i d n o t p r e s s

for

t h e making

o f

t hose

dec-

l a r a t i o n s ,

Fo r

the pu r?ose o f cons ide r ing the

ju r i sd i cc iona l

q u e s t l o n t h e a l l e g a t i o n s

o f

f a c t

made

t h e a p p l i c a n t i n

i t s

a p p l i c a t i o n ,

t h e a f f i d a v i t s f i l e d

suppor t

2nd

t h e p o i c t s

c l a im f i l ed on

i t s behal f

may

be accepted .

s2:7

z k r , hovever , 1 s n o t

t o

make any

f ind ing

i n

r e l a c i c n

t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s

and

what

f o l l o w s

i s

in tended

o n l y t o s - m a r i s e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s

made

far

i s

necessary	t o do	s o i n o r d e r t o d e a l	with t h e jurisdictional
ques t ion .

The

app l i can t

1s an organiza i ion

em?loyers

r eg i s t s r l -d pu r suan t

t o

the Conc i l i a t ion and Xrb ic ra t ion

Act

1 9 0 4 ( " the A c t " ) .

Amagraze

Limited

i s a

company

incorpora ted in Queens land which s ince October

1 9 6 0

has

been 2 member o f

t he app l i can t . Tha t

company

has

a t

a l l

m a t e r i a l

times

owned

o r

leased land and

has

owned

b u i l d i n g s ,

plant and equipment

B i l o e l a in t h e S t a t e of Queensland.

Since October

1 9 6 0 , ' except dur ing per iods of c losure , the

company has opera ted

on t h a t l a n d

a bus iness ?mown as

the

B i l o e l a a b a t t o i r .

The

aba t to i r

losed

ing

1982

has

r e c e n t l y

begun

ope ra t ing aga in .

F. J. Walker Limited

i s a company incorpora ted

i n New

South

Wales.

A t a l l tiines

from

about

14 November

1972

to about September 1983

that

company

c z r r i e d on

the

bus iness

o f

o p e r a t i n g a b a t t o i r s

a t

S tua r t

(Townsvi l le)

2nd

Maryborough

i n

t h e

S t a t e

o f Q u e e n s l a n d . c e r t a i n a b a t t o i r s

I n t h e S t a t e

or'

South ?;ales

other

meat

processing

e s t a b l l s h m e n t s i n t h e S t a t e

of Yeir

South.

!;ales,

z 2 2 c

<.:hole-

s a l i n g and

r e t a i l i n g o p e r a t i o n s

i n t h e S t a t e o f

New

South

Wales aEd w i t h tkp_ z2regoing.	Queensland and	a c t i v i t i e s	i n o r in	connec t ion
r

In o r abourr. the

month

of Januzry 1973

F.J.

Wzlker

L imi t ed and ce r t a in d i r ec to r s t he reo f becane

t h e r e g i s t s r e d h o l d e r s o f

a l l t h e i s s u e d

c a p i t a l

i n

Amagraze

Limited.

Recent ly

F.J.

Walker Limited has divested

i tself

o f t h e b e n e f i c i a l o w n e r s h i p

or'

t h e

issued

c a p i -

_ I

t a l i n Asnagraze

Limited.

September

i 9 7 6

the Conc i l i a t ion and Arb i t r a -

t i o n Commission, by consent,

made

award under

t h e Act

known as Agreement-Award, 1976 (" the 1976 award").

t h e

F.J .

Walker Queensland Meatworks

Industr ia l

Clause 2 of-

tha t

award i s headed

"Application". '

Sub-clauses

(a) and

(bT of

t h a t	clause,	which	&e	n o t b e e n v a r i e d s i n c e	the	award
-

was made,

provide f

"(a)

This agreement-award i s binding

T h e

Austral-

asian Meat Industry Employees

Union,

i t s o f f i c e r s

and

i t s members

and on

F . J .

Walker L t d i n r e s p e c t

a l l t h e i r

employees

i n

t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s

conta ined here in , whether

members of

t h e s a i d

Union

o r n o t ,

employed a t the

fol lowing works

i n

Queensland:-

F. J . Walker Ltd

S w i f t Meat

Dlv i s ion

- S t u a r t

(Townsvi l le)

I ,

1 ,

I ,

- Maryborough

h a g r a z e	Limited	-	B i l o e G
-	H a m i l t o n
(Br i sbane)

Cairns Meat

Export

Co.

? t y L t d .

- Cairns

(b)

This

agreement-award

shal l

apply

i n r e l a t i o n

t o

any

employment

to vhich

a p p l i c a b l e

t o

t h e e s -

c l u s i o n

o f

t he p rov i s ions

o f

t he Fede ra l

Meat

I n d u s t r y

I n t e r i m h a r d , 1 9 6 5 ,

v a r i e d .

t h e

Neat ?recessing

I n t e r i m

. b a r d ,

1 9 7 2 ,

v a r i e d , o r

a n y a v a r d v a r y k g

o r r e p l a c i n g e l c h e r	of	the	sa id	2 :~a rds o r any o the r
award. "

, .

September 1981 the Conci l la t ion

and

Arbi-

, .

t r a t i o r . C o m i s s i o n ,

consent ,

made

award

under

the

Act

LT~s-,.. as

the Federal Xeat

Ixduscr-/

Award

("the 1981

award").

Clause

that

2ward,

headed

"Previous

Awards

Superseded",

provldes -

"This

2ward

supersedes ,

i n r e s p e c t o f

t h o s e

employers who

a t t h e d a t e

o f making

t h i s award

o r

a t

any

time

s u b s e q u e n t t o t h a t d a t e

are

o r

become members

o f t h e

Meat

and Al l i ed Trades

Federat ion of

Australia and

those employers

whose

names

appear

i n the schedu le to th i s award ,

The

Feds ra l Meat

I n d u s t r y I n t e r i x

Aw2rd

1965, and

a l l

v a r i a t i o n s

t o

t h a t

a w a r d , b u t

risht,

o b l i g a t i o n

o r

l i a b i l i t y

acc rued o r i ncu r red

m a e r

t h e s a i d

a w a r d , o r v a r l a t i o n t h e r e t o s h a l l

a f f e c t e d

such supersession.

Clause 3, headed

"Extent

of Award",

p rovides ,

so f a r as

material fo r p re sen t pu rposes

" (a )

This

award

shal l

binding

on:

(i) The h s t r a l a s i a n Heat

Industry

Employees

Unioq,

i t s branches

and

i ts members; and

(ii) The Meat and

All

ied

Trades

Federat

ion

Australia

2nd

i t s members

i n r e s p e c t of

a l l t h e i r

employees

i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s

conta ined here in whether

members

o f t h e

union o r n o t ;

and

I '

. . . .

The

award

i s t o a p p l y

i n t h e S t a t e

o f Queensland

(clause 4 ) .

The	ma t t e r i n d i spu te be tween the app l i ca t and

the r e sponden t s

i s

w h e t h e r h a g r a z e L l a i t e d

and

the employees

o f

t h a t

company

who

a r e employed

a t

t h e a l l o e l a 2 b 2 t t o i r

and who

f a l l

r r i t h i n

t h e

r e l e v 2 n t c l a s s ~ f i c a t i o n s a r e

- .

s u b j e c t

t o

t h e o b l l g 2 t i ~ n s 2nd

e n t i t l e c ;c

bexef ics

conta ined

t h e

1 9 7 6

award

o r

t h o s e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e

1981 ar.;erd.

That

t h l s i s the

a n b i t

o f

the ma t t e r

i n

dis?cte

i s made

p l a i n by

t h e t e r n s o f

the

p o i n t s

de fence f i l ed on beha l f o f

t he

f i r s t respondent and

the

e l a b o r a t i o n o f t h a t

document during

the course of

argument.

The

a p p l i c a n t c o n t e n d s

t h a t

the

1976

award,

i t s

t r u e c o n s t r u c t i o n , r e l e v a n t l y a p p l i e s o n l y

t o

employees

( i f any) of

F . J .

Walker

Limited

employed

a t

t h e B i l o e l a a b a t t o l r

and not employees

.hagraze Limited

employed a t those

p remises .

I t

f u r t h e r

c o n t e n d s

t h a t

i f

t h e

1976

award,

i t s p rope r cons t ruc t ion , d id

immedia t e ly

p r i o r t o

the

coming

i n t o e f f e c t

t h e 1 9 8 1

award bind

Amagraze Limited

i n r e l a t i o n t o

i t s employees

a t the

B i l o e l a a b a t t o i r , t h a t

award

has

ceased

t o have any opera-

t ive

e f f e c t

i n

r e l a t ion to

those employees because

i t s

provisions have been superseded by those

the 1981

award , t ha t award b ind ing hagraze L imi t ed

i n

r e i a t i o n t o

a l l

i t s

employees

i n t h e

relevant

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g

a l l such employees w i ths t and ing c l ause 2 (b ) o f

a t

t h e B i l o e l a a b a t t o i r

and

t h i s n o t -

the

1976

award.

The

f irst

r e sponden t con tends

tha t

t o 1982

w h e n t h e B i l o e l a a b a t t o l r c e a s e d o p e r a t i o n s t h e p e r s o n s

who were t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n t n e

employed

a t

t h e B i l o e l a a b a t t o i r

2nd

f e l l w i t h i n

1976

award

were

employees

05 F. J. Walker L i m t e d and z o t of h-.agraze

L l s l t e d

o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y ,

were

employees

o f

both

companies with

the

consequence

the

case

cha

t hey

were

e n t i t l e d t o

the

ba-i.ezrzs

t h e

1 9 7 6 award.

.&nagraze L ~ ; i l i ~ e d a s

the

present

e=?loyer

o f

those enployees

cont inues ,

s o

t h e

f i rs t

respondent

contends,

bound

t h a t

zward

i n r e l a t i o n

t o t h o s e e q l o y e e s 61(d) of

vir tue

t h e o p e r a t i o n o f

s e c t i o n

the Act

which provides

tha t

award determining

a n i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e

i s

b inding on ,

i n

the case

employers,

any

successor

to ,

or any

assignee

o r

t r a n s m l t t e e

3 5 ,

t n e

busmess of

2 p a r t y t o

t h e

d i s p m e o r o f a

par ry 5ourrd by

the award , inc luding any corpora t~on which has

acquired

t aken ove r

bus

iness

such

p a r t y .

The

f l r s t respondent

fu r the r con tends tha t t he employees o f hag raze L in i t ed

employed

a t

t h e B i l o e l a a b a t t o i r

are

n o t s u b j e c t t o

the

provis

ions of

the

1981

award.

I -

Although

the

f irst

o f t he dec la ra t ions sough t

t h e a p p l i c a n t s p e a k s o f t h e

1981

award binding

Amagraze

Limited

" in

r e s p e c t o f a l l

o f

t h e

s a id

company's

employees

i n

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d

t h e s a i d

award",

t he na tu re

the

ispute

tween

the

par t ies

i s

such tha t

t he ques t ion

arises

o n l y

i n

r e l a t i o n

t o

t h o s e

e m p l o y e e s o f

h a g r a z e

Limited

who

are

w i t h i n t h e r e l e v a n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s

znd

are

performing

work

a t

t h e B i l o e l a

a b a t t o i r . S i m i l a r l y ,

t he second dec la ra t ion sough t ,

t ha t

r e l a t i o n t o t h e

1976

award,

although

r e f e r r n g

t o t h a t a . ~ a r d

not

bindir.g

.L~agraze Limited " in resgect

any

o f

the

s a i d

:sn?an;~' S

7 .

emp~oyees" , nay ,

fo r

present

purposes , be

taken

r e f e r r i n g o n l y t o

t h o s e e m p l o y e e s

i n

the

r e l e v a n t

classi-

ficati0r.s

?erforming

work

a t

t h e B i l o e l a a b a t t o i r .

The

a p p l i c z n t ' s

argument

i n scppor t

o f

the C o u r t ' s

j u r i s d i c t i o n

t o

entertain

t h e 2 p p l i c a t i o n

has

i t s

founda t ion

in s e c t i o n 110

the Act.

That

s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s

" (1)

The Court i s empowered,

s u b j e c t

t o

this

s e c t i o n , t o g i v e

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

o f

a n m a r d .

( 2 )

a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

award may

be made by

t h e H i n i s t e r o r

o r g a n i z a t i o n o r p e r s o n

bound

t h e

award.

(3)

The

dec i s ion o f

t he Cour t

upon

the

app l i -

c a t i o n i s

f ina l

and conclusive and

i s

b inding

a l l organizat ions and persons bound by

rhe

award which

o r who have been given

an oppor-

tuni ty

be ing

o f

hea rd

by the Court."

The Court referred t o

in that

s e c t i o n i,s

the

F e d e r a l C o u r t

o f Australia

(see s G t i o n 118A o f che A c t ) .

A s t he 1981

award is an award made under the

Act

and

t h e a p p l i c a n t

o rgan iza t ion

bound

that

award

(see s e c t i o n 6 1 o f

t h e A c t ) , s e c t i o n

1 1 0 ,

i n

terms,

en t i t l e s

t h e a p p l i c a n t t o s e e k f r o m t h e C o u r t

inter-

p r e t a t i o n

o f

i t .

The

j u r i s d i c t i o n w h i c h

i s

confe r r ed upon

the

Cour t by sec t ion

110

t o i n t e r p r e t a w a r d s j u d i c i a l l y

i s

j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r m i n g p a r t o f t h e j u d i c i a l

power

t h e

Commonwealth:

Seamen's Union of A u s t r a l i a v. Matthews

(1957) 96 C.L.R.

529 a t p . 5 3 4 ; The queen v. The Commonwealtt:

I n d u s t r i a l C o u r t ,

~ a r t e

The Austral ian Coal

and Shale

Employees'

Federation

(1960)

103 C . L . R .

171

a t p .

173.

a .

Section 110 is a law made by the Parliament in the exercise 55 the power conferred upon it by section 77(i)

o f t3.e Coxscitution to define the jurisdiction

of any

federal court other than che High Court with respect

any or' the macters mentioned in sections

75 and 76 of the

Constitution. It is unnecessary for present purposes to look beyond section 76(ii) which mentions any matter arislng under any laws made by the ?arliament. Section

110 (read with section

l l8A) is, ther21roret a

l a w which

defines the jurisdiction of

thls Court with respect to

"matter" mentioned in section 76(ii) of the Constitution

It is not suggested by the first respondent that section

110 of the Act is other than a valid exercise

of th power

conferred upon the Parliament

by the provisions of the

Constitution to whic-h reference has been made.

The applicant submits that, the Court's juris-

diction having been attracted by the application under

section l10 of the Act for an interpretation

of the 1981

award and the issue so raised being an integral part of

a single matter or controversy between the parties, the

ambit of the jurisdiction conferred

by section 110, read'

in the light of the

r levmt constitutional provisions,

extends to the hearing 2nd determination

of the whole

o f

that matter or controversy. In making this submission the applicant r e l i e s particularly or? the decisions azd reasoning

of the 3igh Coxrt III

T h ~ l . 1 ~

?!-!orris

i n c . v.

A 6 2 z 2 . 3ro-T?.

Male Fashions

Pty.

Limited

(1981)

148 C.L.R.

457,

Fencot

v. >!uller

(1983)

46 A.L.R.

4 1 and Stack v. Coas t Securities

(KO. 9 ) ?v.

Limited

(1983)

49 X.L.R.

193.

The

a p p l i c a n t

a l s o r e l i e s

s e c t i o n

the Federal Courc

o f

A u s t r a l i a

Act

1976 which

i s expressed

t o c o n f e r j u r i s d i c t i o n on

t h e

Court

i n r z s p e c t o f

matters

n o t o t h e r w i s e

within

its

j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t

are

a s soc ia t ed wi th

matters

i n which

the

j u r i s d i c t i o n of

the Court

i s invoked.

the assmpt ion (which

i t will

be n e c e s s a r y

h e r e a f t e r t o j u s t i f y ) t h a t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n e x p r e s s l y

confe r r ed upon

the Cour t

s e c t i o n 110 of t h e Act

has

b e e n a t t r a c t e d b y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n h e r e i n ,

o f

o p i n i o n

t h a t t h e C o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r a n d d e t e r m i n e

the whole of the

mat-ter

or cont roversy be tween

the

p a r t i e s

namely, whether

is t h e p r o v i s i o n s

o f t h e 1976 award

o r t h o s e o f t h e 1 9 8 1 a w a r d t h a t r e l e v a n t l y p r e s c r i b e

t h e award cond i t ions as between Amagraze Limited and

those

o f

i t s employees within

the

relevant

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s

who perform

work

a t

t h e B i l o e l a

a b a t t o i r . T h a t

c o n c l u s i o n ,

which

arrived a t i ndependen t ly o f

any

opera t ion which

s e c t i o n

o f

t he Fede ra l Cour t o f Aus t r a l i a

A c t

1976

may

have ,

acco rds ,

i n

o p i n i o n ,

w i t h

d e c i s i o n s

t h e High d e c i s i o n s e s t a b l i s h t h a t

Court

t o which

reference has

been

made.

Those

"when

j u r i s d i c t i o n

i s

confe r r ed

the Federal

Court v l t h r e s p e c t t o

a matter,

t h e COW^

has

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e

a l l

the ques t ions which

form p a r t o f t h a t themsel-ces would not

nat tsr

inc lud ing ques t ions

vhicfr

i n

f e d e r a l

i n

x a t u r e ,

and which

accordingly the Federal

Court

would not have had

juris-

d i c t i o n t o

determine

i f

they had ar i sen

i n

s e p a r a t e

proceedings"

(see Stack v. Coast Securi t ies (No.

9) Pty.

Limited (supra) per

Gibbs

C . J .

a t p .

202.

In t h e

p r e s e n t

c a s e t h e a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s s a i d t o

form

an.

i n t e g r a l

p a r t o f

t h e m a t t e r

i n

d i s p u t e a r e

t h e m s e l v e s f e d e r a l

ir?

n a t u r e .

I n r each ing the conc lus ' i on s t a t ed

have

rejected

t he a rgumen t s t o

the

con t r a ry advanced on beha l f o f t he

first

respondent and

should s ta te my

r e a s o n s f o r d o i n g

so.

The

f i r s t respondent submits

that

the Cour t has

no j u r i s d i c t i o n t i o n o f t h e

i n

t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s t o g i v e

interpreta-

1976

award because

the provis ions of sub-

s e c t i o n

110(2)

the

A c t

a n d

t h e

a s s e r t i o n

che

app l i can t

p a r t o f

i t s case

t h a t n e i t h e r

i t n o r Amagraze

Limited

i s bound

t h a t award.

The

f irst respondent also

submits

t h a t

no ques t ion a r i s e s

t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e

1976 award i n t h e t e r m s o f t h e

because

it i s conceded

t h a t there i s noth ing

award which

can

b e cons t rued as makrng

t h e award binding

Amagraze

Limited.

The

o b l i g a t i o n o f

Imagraze Lmi ted

to ab lde

b y

t h e

c z n s o f

tha2:

arjard i n

r e l a t i o n t o

i t s ernployees

a t

t h e S i l o e i 3

abetcoir

a r i s e s ,

l i .

so the sect ion 61(d)

first respondent submits,

from

the o p e r a t i o n o f

of the

Act and not from the te rns

o f the

award

i t s z l f .

It may

be a

su f f i c i en t answer

t o t h e f i r s t

o f

these argtrments t o say that

reason o f the re la t ionship

between the two awards it may become necessary i n in t e r -

pret'ing the

1981 2ward t o have regard t o , and i f necessary

place

an in te rpre ta t ion upon,

the 1976 award par t icu lar ly

as t o the extent t o whlch tha t award governs the relations between Amagraze Limited and i t s employees a t the Biloela

aba t to i r

and

as to the scope

and

e f f ec t of

clause

2(b)

purporting t o give the

1976 award primacy over l a t e r awards.

" -

The circumstance that

a question that

may

a r i s e i n a pro-

ceeding properly brought under section

110 of the Act

for

the in te rpre ta t ion

the 1981 award m2y

be character ised

question as

to the in te rpre ta t ion

o f the

1976 award

(and, as the sui t of thls appl icant

such,

outside

the

j u r u d i c t i o n o f =he Court

i n

separate proceedings

for

t h a t

r e l i e f ) does not mean that the

same question cannot

considered as

p a r t o f the process

o f

interpreting the 1981

award.

;

But,

any event, t o accept

the argument put by

the f i rs t respondent

would,

i n my

opinion, mount

t o

accept-

ing an argument c lear ly re jected

by th2 Sigh CourE i n

Steck v. Coast Securiziss (:lo.

9) Pt-7. Lialted

( s m r a ) .

12.

I n that

case

i t was

a rgued tha t , because

the

t e rms

i n

which	sect ion	86	o f	t he	T rade	P rac t i ces	Act	1974	granted	1 .
,

j u r : . sd i c t i sn

th i s Cour t ,

t he Cour t had

j u r i s d i c t i o n

t o h e a r

an2

de tern ine o ther c la ims forming

p a r t

t h e

e n t i r e l i t i g i o u s c o n t r o v e r s y o f

which

t h e

claim

under

t h e

Trade

Pract ices

Act

1974

was

an i n t e g r a l p a r t .

The

reason-

I .

ing which

led

t h e High Cour t t o r e j ec t

that

argument

seems

t o me

t o be

equa l ly

app l i cab le he re .

It may

conceded

t h a t

t h e a p p l l c a n t c o u l d n o t

i n s e p a r a t e p r o c e e d i n g s

f o r

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n or'

t h e

1976

m 2 r d

r e l y

i n p o i n t o f J u r i s -

d i c t i o n on sec t ion

110 of

t h e Act

reason of

the

circm-

stance that it is nat bound by t h a t award.

But t h e fact

tha t

t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s

s.een

f i t t o c o n f e r j u r i s d i c t i o n

t o

s e e k a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

an award only

where

the

a p p l i -

c a t i o n	is	made	by	a	person or organiza t ion answer ing one
-

o f

the

d e s c r i p t i o n s i n s e c t i o n

110

does no t

have

t h e con-

sequence

or'

l i m i t i n g t h e a c c r u e d j u r i s d i c t i o n

which

t h e

Court

may

e x e r c i s e o n c e t h e C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n

i s

a t t r a c t e d by

an app l i ca t ion p rope r ly

made

i n

accordance

w i t h t h a t s e c t i o n .

The

second

the

above

2rguments

should

also

b e r e j e c t e d f o r

i t

p o s t u l a t e s t h a t t h s a c c r u e d

ju r i s -

d i c t i o n which

may

exercised I n r e l a t i o n t o

the

a p p l i -

cation

f o r

a n i n t e r 7 r e t a t i o n o f t h e

1981 award

i s

l imited

t o

Jurisdiction

to g ive an

lnEerpr2 tz t ion

o f

t3.e

1 9 7 6

zward.

But, once

Ehe

j u r l s d l c r i o n o f

t h e C o r r t

? r o p e r i y

13.

a t t r a c t e d , t h e C o u r t

may

hea r

and

determine

the whole

t h e

i s s u e s

t h a t

ar ise

i n

t h e

r e l e v a n t

matter.

Even i f

the

quesz

ion

whether

the opera t ive award condi t ions

are

t o

found

t h e 1 9 7 6 award

(a ques t ion which the

i1Tst

res-

pondent

contends

should

answered

the

a f f i r m a t i v e )

goes beyond i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

what

may prope r ly

cha rac t e r i s ed

t h e

the	1976	award	tha t ,	o f	i tself ,	does not	, .
I ,

r e q u i r e

nega t ive

a n s w e r

t o b e g i v e n t o t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r

the ambi t

o f

t h e

Court's

j u r i s d i c t i o n e x t e n d s

far.

Turning

t o

t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

p rope r ly desc r ibed

as.

an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a -

t i o n of	t h e	1 9 8 1	a w a r d ,	t h e	f i r s t	r e s p o n d e n t	takes	the	point	I
W -

t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r

p a r t i c u l a r p a r t y i s o r

not

bound by

award

is- n o t

q u e s t i o n a s t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

4 ,

;

the award and re ference

aga in

made

t o s u b - s e c t i o n

110

(2 ) .

That

sub - sec t ion

i s

s a i d

t o

i m p l i c i t l y

remove

from

t h e

s c o p e

t h e s e c t i o n ,

i f

i t were o therwise wi th in

i t ,

the

q u e s t i o n

whether

a p p l i c a n t i s bound

t h e award

o f which the

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s sought . I t i s , of cour se , true t o say t h a t who i s bound by an award i s t o be determined by ref-

erence t o s e c t i o n

6 1 of t h e A c t so

t h a t it may

n o t b e

u n i v e r s a l l y c o r r e c t t o s a y t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n

who

i s

bound

award

w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

the

award.

However,

i t

seems

t o n e

t h a t

i t may

do so.

But,

t h a t a s

may,

t h e q u e s t i o n v h i c h

t h e s p p l i c a n t

s e e k s t o a g i t a t e

1 s

zlot

much

whether

.hagraze

L i m t s d

1 4 .

i s bound

i n any

respect

the 1981 award but

the ex ten t

to sjhicfi i t i s bound.

The

answer

t o

c h a t

q u e s c l o n ,

was	s a i d 3y Her?zies J. i n The Queen v. Clarkson; Ex 1 a i ~ 2

The

Vic tc r lan

Emloyers

Federa t ion

(1973)

1 0 3 C.L.R.

100

a t pp.

108-9,

depends

upon

the

terns of the award.

i t s f a c e t h e

1981 award appears

inding

on Amagraze L i m i t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o

its

employees who

2r2

a t present smployea a t

t h e B i l o e l a a b a t t o i r

and

who

fall

k - i t h i n

t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s s e t o u t

t h e

award

because

t h a t company

i s a member

o f t h e a p p l i c a n t .

It will

o p e r a t e

i n that r e g a r d unless

i t s language i s t o b e

read

i n a more

r e s t r i c t e d sense

to-exc lude

those

employees

f rom-i t s

ambit .

The f i rs t respondent

submits

that

because

it does

n o t d i s p u t e

that

the

language

the 1981 award

i s

a p t t o

i n c l u d e Amagraze

Limited

i n r e l a t i o n t o

i t s employees

a t

t h e B i l o e l a a b a t t o i r t h e a p p l i c a t i o n c a n n o t p r o p e r l y b e c h a r a c t e r i s e d as an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

the

1981

award.

None

t h e

l e s s

t h e

f i r s t

respondent

asserts

t h a t t h e

award does not have opera t ive e f fec t

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

t h e w i d t h

o f

i t s language.

This

conclu-

s i o n is

s a i d t o

ar ise by

reason of

circumstances extraneous

t o t h e 1 9 8 1 f a c t u a l material

award

including

the

1976 award

2nd

c e r t a i n

which

no t be fo re the

Courc

b u t

t o

t h e g e n e r a l n a t u r e

o f

which

have

a i ready adver ted .

These

considerations

a r e

s a i d

t o r e s u l r

i n : I m a g r a z ~ L i x i t e d

being bound by the 1 9 7 6 ava rd

r=.laE;on

~ : I O S P x i t h i n

1 5 .

t h e relevant

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s whom

i t

a t p r e s e n t

employs

a t

i t s

S i l o e l a

a b a t t o i r .

The

argument

i s

t h a t

t o

d e t e r s i n e

these

;~eszlons i s n o t

t o g i v e

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e

1981

award

within

the meaning

t h a t e x p r e s s i o n i n

s e c t i o n

110

the Act and

the Cour t ,

therefore

has

j u r s i d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n

now

before

it.

Whi l e hav ing the a t t r zc t ion o f s impl i c i ty the

argument

f a i l s

t o t a k e a c c o u n t o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t

t h e t r u e s e a n i n g

and

e f f e c t o f t h e

award

must

a s c e r t a i n e d

n o t

c o n s t r u i n g t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d i n i s o l a t i o n b u t

cons t ru ing

tha t

l anguage

i n

i t s

s e t t i n g a n d

i t s

context

- and

i n t h e l i g h t o f

a l l t h e relevant

sur rounding c i rcm-s tances ,

The

r e s o l u t i o n

o f

t h e m a t t e r

i n

d i s p u t e b e t w e e n t h e p a r i i e s

namely whether the employees of Amagraze Limited

who

are

employed

a t

the

B i l o e l a a b a t t o i r

are governed i n t h e i r

r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h

tha t

company

the 1976

award

o r t h e

1981

award

seems

t o m e

p l a i n l y t o i n v o l v e t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

of the t h e r e f o r e ,	1981	award.	The	j u r i s d i c t i o n of	the	Court	i s ,
a t t r a c t e d .

should add tha t

the

ques

ion

which

the

appl

icant

s e e k s t o

raise

i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e 1 9 8 1 a w a r d

no t

hypo-

t h e t i c a l 2nd

t h e

l i m i t a t l o n s m h e r e n t

1x1

t h e j u d i c i a l

power

n o t a s s i s t

t h e

f i r s t

respondent

i n

a s s e r t i n g , a s

i t d o e s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of

t h a t

t o e n t e r t a i n

t h 2 p r e s e n t a p p l i c a t i o n f o r

the

1981

award

-<ould

go beyond :he proper

bounds

t h a t

power.

For

these r easons

the ob jec t ion to

the

juris-

d ic t ion

t he

Cour t

i s ove r ru l ed .

The

c o s t s

o f

the

hear iEg

o n

t h e j u r l s d i c t i o n a l s o i n t a r e r e s e r v e d .

It IS

appropr lace ,

t h i n k ,

t o g i v e

f u r t h e r

d i r ec t ions conce rn ing the hea r ing o f t he app l i ca t ion on

t h e merits.

It became apparent

dur ing

the argument

t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p o i n t t h a t t h e p o i n t s

defence

f i led

on beha l f o f

t he f i r s t

r e sponden t

n o t r e f l e c t z d e q u z t e l y

what a re There i s , for example,

the

l s sues wh ich

tha t

r e sponden t

s eeks

r a i se .

asser t ion

that

the

enploy-ees

who were

enployed

a t t h e B i l o e l a a b a t t o i r p r i o r

t o

the

1982 c l o s u r e were

employees

o f F.J .

Walker

Limi ted ( o r ,

a l t e r n a t i v e l y were

employees of both

that

company and .

Amagraze

L i m i t e d ) .

E q u a l l y ,

t h e

f a c t u a l

basis

for

the

c o n t e n t i o n

t h a t s e c t i o n 6 1 ( d ) o p e r a t e s

t o

make

t h e

1976 award between Amagraze Limited and

t h e r e l e v a n t

award govern ing the re la t ionship

Its

employees

a t

t h e

B i l o e l a

a b a t t o i r

i s

n o t

s t a t e d .

I ,

t h e r e f o r e ,

d i r e c t

t h a t

t h e

f i r s t r e s p o n d e n t f i l e

and serve anended points of defence

w i t h i n

1 4

d a y s a f t e r

t h e d a t e o f

t h i s o r d e r .

f u r t h e r

d i r e c t

that

the

f irst

r e s p o n d e n t f i l e a n d s e r v e w i t h i n

d a y s a f t e r

t h e d a t e

t h i s o r d e r a f f i d z v i t s s e t t i n g

ou t

any

e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l

which

i t w i s h e s t o r e l y

i n s u p p o r t

o f

t h e i s s u e s r a i s a d

t h e

amended

p o i n t s o f

defence.

Any

a f f i d a v l t s m

r e p l y should

f i l ed

a f u r t h e r period 3f 7 days .

The pa rzzes

a r e

t o ~ E V Z

l l b e r t y t o

a o p l p

days ' no r i ce

for

a z y v a r r s t i s n

1 7

! !

the

d i r e c t i o n s now

g i v e n o r

for

any

further o r o t h e r

d l r e c t i o x

they may be advlsed End t o have

l i b e r t y

t o 2 p ~ r o a c h t h e R e g i s t r a r t o

f i x

date

f o r t h e f u r t h e r

hear ing

0 2

t h e m a t t e r .

I c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s and t h e p r e c e d i n g seventeen ( 1 7 ) pages are a true copy

the

Reasons

for Judgment here in of

the

Honourable Mr. Just ice Neaves

Dated:

13 June 1984

Assoddate

[1984] FCA 153

13 Jul 1984