Merchant Service Guild of Australasia Claimant; and Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association (No 1)

The Merchant Service Guild of Australasia (claimant) filed a plaint in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on 21 March 1919, seeking specific wage rates from the date of filing. Subsequently, in 1920, the claimant made new claims for higher wages. The claimant then applied to the High Court under section 21AA of the *Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1918* for a determination on whether the dispute concerning the 1919 plaint still existed as an industrial dispute extending beyond the limits of any one State.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether an industrial dispute, as defined by the Act, could exist in relation to wages for a period that had already passed, particularly when new, higher wage claims had been subsequently made and a dispute concerning those new claims had already been determined by the High Court. The court was required to consider whether the earlier claims had been abandoned or superseded by the later claims, and whether the existence of a dispute about future wages precluded a finding that a dispute still existed regarding past wages.

Higgins J. reasoned that the *Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act* defines an industrial dispute broadly to include disputes as to industrial matters, which encompass wages. He found no provision in the Act limiting disputes to future wages only. The court was satisfied on the evidence that an industrial dispute existed on 21 March 1919, concerning the wage rates claimed in the plaint. The fact that new, higher wage claims were made in 1920 did not, in itself, constitute an abandonment of the earlier claims, especially as some claims from the 1919 plaint had not been repeated in the 1920 claims. Therefore, the court held that a dispute could still exist regarding the wages claimed in the 1919 plaint for the period from 21 March 1919 onwards, up to the commencement of the 1920 claims.

The court ordered that the alleged dispute existed as to the matters claimed in the plaint of 21 March 1919, for the period from that date onwards. However, this decision was confined to respondents not subject to a previous award, and the court reserved its decision regarding respondents claiming exemption from jurisdiction based on "State instrumentalities" or covering clause V of the Constitution, pending further Full High Court decisions.