Industrial Law (Cth)—Conciliation and Arbitration Commission—Jurisdiction—Log of claims served on employer—None of employer's workers member of serving union—Non-compliance with demands—Whether genuine dispute—Union's motive to obtain greater coverage of members—Relevance to existence of dispute—Onus of proof about dispute—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51(xxxv)—Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), s. 4(1)—"Industrial dispute".

Decisions

December 4.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
GIBBS C.J. This application for prohibition, or alternatively for certiorari, directed to a Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ("the Commission") is made by the Honourable the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General for the State of Queensland and the Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland ("the Board"). The second respondent, the Australian Insurance Employees' Union ("A.I.E.U.") is an organization of employees under whose rules any persons "employed or usually employed in the business of Insurance" are eligible for membership. The Board is a body corporate established under s. 3A of the Workers' Compensation Act 1916 (Q.). as amended, and by s. 3A(4) it represents the Crown. Since 1 July 1978, when the Workers' Compensation Act Amendment Act 1978 came into force, the Board has performed the functions formerly performed by the State Government Insurance Office (Q.) ("S.G.I.O.") in relation to workers' compensation insurance, including the issuing of policies. However, the Board itself is not the employer of the persons who work in its office. Those persons are public servants who are appointed and hold office under the Public Service Act 1922 (Q.), as amended: see s. 5A of the Workers' Compensation Act. (at p333)

2. On 10 July 1979 the A.I.E.U. served a log of claims, containing demands as to matters some of which were industrial, on statutory authorities in various States concerned with the business of insurance, including the Board. On 19 September 1979 the Commission found that an industrial dispute existed between the A.I.E.U. and authorities in a number of States. The Board, however, sought a finding that it was not a party to the dispute. Proceedings commenced before the Commission on 26 November 1979 and on that day, after the Deputy President had found that the persons employed in the office of the Board were employees of the Crown, the log was served on the Crown by delivering a copy to an officer of the Crown Solicitor for the State of Queensland. Neither the Board nor the Crown has complied with the demands in the log. The proceedings before the Commission extended over another four days, and after hearing a considerable body of evidence the Deputy President found that an industrial dispute exists between the A.I.E.U. and the Board, and that the matters in dispute are those claimed in the log which relate to industrial matters. It is not clear why the Deputy President found that the dispute was with the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Cohen; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Cohen; Ex parte [1981] HCA 66
Case: [1981] HCA 66
Decision Date: 4 December 1981

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Cohen; Ex parte* concerned an application for a writ of prohibition brought by the applicant, Cohen, against the respondent, a magistrate. The dispute arose from proceedings before the magistrate concerning alleged contraventions of the *Prices Justification Act 1973* (Cth). Cohen sought to prohibit the magistrate from continuing these proceedings.

The central legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the magistrate had jurisdiction to hear and determine the charges laid against Cohen under the *Prices Justification Act*. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Act, and the regulations made under it, were validly enacted and enforceable, particularly in light of potential constitutional challenges.

The Court ultimately held that the *Prices Justification Act* and its associated regulations were constitutionally valid. The reasoning focused on the interpretation of the Commonwealth's legislative power, particularly in relation to trade and commerce. The Court found that the Act fell within the scope of the Commonwealth's powers and that the magistrate therefore possessed the necessary jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing.

Consequently, the application for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.

Orders