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

[1984] FCA 153

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 of 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 of 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 i

r

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. v. Adam P . Brown Male Fashions Pty. Limited

(1981) 148 C.L.R. 457

Fencot t v. Muller (1983) 46 A.L.R. 41

The ueen v. Clarkson; Ex parte The Victor ian Employers ,

I + Fe 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 l

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 OF ORDER: -_- 13 June 1 9 8 4

WHERE M E :	Sydney
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. 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 of 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 7 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 as

they may be advised .

I

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 a 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 )

i

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 OF AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent

.I

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 of

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

1

.

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

l'3. A 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, as 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 a

member o f the Meat and All ied Trades Federa-

t i o n of Australia, an 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 an o rgan i sa t ion bound by 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 . A 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 as 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 a 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 by 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 in suppor t 2nd

t h e p o i c t s of c l a im f i l ed on i t s behal f may be accepted .

To 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 EO 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 so far as It 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 of 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

I

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 - at 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 c losed du r ing 1982 bu t 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

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' N ~ w 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-

I

.

.

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 share 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 share c a p i -

I

_ I

t a l i n Asnagraze Limited.

On 6 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 an 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 on 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

of 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, I , I , 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 it is 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 , as 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 , 2s 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. "

I

l

, .

On 29 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 , by consent , made an award under the

Act LT~s-,.. as the Federal Xeat Ixduscr-/ Award ("the 1981

award"). Clause 2 of 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 no 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 be a f f e c t e d by

I,

such supersession.

!

!

Clause 3, headed "Extent of Award", p rovides , so f a r as

I

- material fo r p re sen t pu rposes -

-

" (a ) This award shal l be 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 of

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 t x bexef ics

5

conta ined in 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 of

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,

on 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 of .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, on 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 of 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 of 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 up 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

6

o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , were employees o f both companies with

the consequence in e i the r case cha t t hey were e n t i t l e d t o

-.

the ba-i.ezrzs of 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, to be bound by 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 by vir tue of 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 an 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 of 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 o r

t aken ove r t he bus iness o f such a 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

-

I 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 by

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 ia t h e s a i d award", t he na tu re of

the d ispute be 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 ia 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 as not bindir.g

.L~agraze Limited " in resgect of any o f the s a i d :sn?an;~' S

7 .

emp~oyees" , nay , fo r present purposes , be taken as

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 of 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 an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a n m a r d .

( 2 ) 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

an award may be made by t h e H i n i s t e r o r an

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

on 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." rr

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 is an o rgan iza t ion bound by 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 an 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 of 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 , Ex ~ 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 to

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 a

"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 t

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 on s e c t i o n 32 of 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

, I

j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Court i s invoked.

r

I

On 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 by 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 , I am 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 it 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 is arrived a t i ndependen t ly o f any opera t ion which

.

s e c t i o n 32 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 my o p i n i o n , w i t h t d e c i s i o n s e of ..

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

on 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

be 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. I

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 I 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 I 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 an interpreta-

1976 award because of the provis ions of sub-

s e c t i o n 110(2) of the A c t a n d t h e a s s e r t i o n by che app l i can t ,

as 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 by 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 as 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 on 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

I

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 by 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

I	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 of the 1981 award m2y be character ised

as a 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 at

i n separate proceedings for t h a t

r e l i e f ) does not mean that the same question cannot be

considered as p a r t o f the process o f interpreting the 1981

award. .

;

But, in 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

!

I n that case i t was a rgued tha t , because of 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 to th i s Cour t , t he Cour t had no 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 of 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 3e 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

an 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 by 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

r

t o s e e k a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of 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 of 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 be 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 is ? 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 of

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

-.

be found ia t h e 1 9 7 6 award (a ques t ion which the i1Tst res-

pondent contends should be answered in 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 be cha rac t e r i s ed as t h e I

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

I

r e q u i r e a 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 so 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

is 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 a p a r t i c u l a r p a r t y i s o r is not

bound by an award is- n o t a 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 , ;

- I

of the award and re ference is aga in made t o s u b - s e c t i o n 110 (2 ) . I

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 j

of 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 an a p p l i c a n t i s bound by 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

by an 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, be t h a t a s it 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 so much whether .hagraze L i m t s d

1 4 .

, ' !

I

.

!

I

i s bound i n any respect by 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 , as

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

I

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.

On i t s f a c e t h e 1981 award appears to be b 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 m. 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 so as 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 of 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

of 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 is 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 I 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

I

being bound by the 1 9 7 6 ava rd in r=.laE;on cc ~ : 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 an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e

1981 award within the meaning of t h a t e x p r e s s i o n i n

s e c t i o n 110 of the Act and the Cour t , therefore , has no

I

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

I

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 be a s c e r t a i n e d

n o t by 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 by

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 by 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 .

I should add tha t the ques t 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 is 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 do 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 an

the 1981 award -<ould go beyond :he proper

bounds of t h a t power.

J

c

For these r easons the ob jec t ion to the juris-

d ic t ion o f 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 , I 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 on

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 of defence f i led

on beha l f o f t he f i r s t r e sponden t do 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 to r a i se .

no 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 so as 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 . I 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

21 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e of 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 on 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 by 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 be f i l ed wi th in

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 on 2 days ' no r i ce for a z y v a r r s t i s n of

1 7

.

I ,

! !

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 2s 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 a 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

of the Reasons for Judgment here in of the '

Honourable Mr. Just ice Neaves

Dated: 13 June 1984

Assoddate