R v Alley; Ex parte NSW Plumbers & Gasfitters Employees' Union

The High Court of Australia considered an application for prohibition by the New South Wales Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees' Union (the Union) against an order made by Alley, a Deputy Industrial Registrar, under the provisions of the *Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904* (Cth). The dispute concerned the Union's application to register an alteration to its rules, specifically an amendment that purported to extend its membership eligibility to include persons employed in or in connection with the plumbing and gasfitting industry, regardless of whether they were engaged in plumbing or gasfitting work. Alley had refused to register this alteration, finding that the amendment was not a genuine alteration of the rules of the organisation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Alley had erred in law in refusing to register the rule alteration. This required the Court to determine the proper interpretation of section 133(1)(d) of the *Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904*, which stipulated that an organisation could apply for registration of an alteration of its rules, provided that the alteration was a "proper” alteration of the rules of the organisation. The Court also had to consider the scope of the Registrar's power to refuse registration under this section, particularly in relation to whether the Registrar was entitled to look beyond the form of the alteration to its substance and purpose.

The High Court, by majority, held that Alley had not erred in law. The majority reasoned that the Registrar was entitled to consider whether an alteration to an organisation's rules was a "proper" alteration in substance and not merely in form. In this instance, the Court found that the amendment did not represent a genuine alteration of the Union's rules but rather an attempt to broaden its membership base in a way that was not contemplated by the Act. The Registrar was therefore justified in refusing registration because the alteration was not a proper one, as it did not reflect a genuine change in the organisation's rules but rather an attempt to circumvent existing membership criteria.

The application for prohibition was dismissed.