Industrial Law (Cth)—Conciliation and Arbitration—Flight Crew Officers Tribunal—Jurisdiction—Dispute—Industrial dispute—Interstate industrial dispute—Several airline operations conducted by airline company—Demand for preparation of single seniority list for flight crew officers engaged in all airline operations of company—Demands by individual officers in different States—Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1902 (Cth), as amended, ss. 88H ("dispute", "employer", "employment", "inter-State industrial dispute", "industrial matters"), 88U.

Decisions

August 12.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
BARWICK C.J. In this application I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Mason. I agree with his conclusions and the reasons he expresses for arriving at them. In my opinion, the order nisi should be discharged. (at p156)

GIBBS J. I have reached the conclusion that the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction under Pt IIIA of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), as amended, to hear the dispute that has arisen in the present case. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments prepared by Stephen J. and by Mason J. and could not usefully add anything in support of that conclusion. For myself, I should prefer to express no final view on the question whether the employer carried on more than one airline "business" - that being immaterial to the result - but in other respects I am in general agreement with what my brethren have written. (at p156)

2. I would discharge the order nisi. (at p156)

STEPHEN J. Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty. Ltd. ("A.T.I.O.") conducts regular scheduled airline services throughout Australia, not in its own name but instead under four business names. Its principal airline activity is conducted under the name of Ansett Airlines of Australia, which it uses on its interstate trunk routes and for a variety of other services. Under the names Ansett Airlines of New South Wales and Ansett Airlines of South Australia it conducts in those two States what are principally intrastate services; the name MacRobertson Miller Airline Services is used for services within Western Australia and extending into the Northern Territory. Although not entirely accurate, I shall refer to these last three groups of services as A.T.I.O.'s "intrastate airlines". (at p157)

2. A.T.I.O. is a large employer of flight crew officers, who may, for convenience, be called "pilots"; many of them are members of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. In 1975 a dispute arose between A.T.I.O. and pilots employed by it concerning aspects of a proposed integrated seniority list of pilots. However that dispute originated, in its later stages the parties to it did not include the Federation; instead it came to be one between A.T.I.O. and such pilots employed by it as manned the services operated by the intrastate airlines; on 11th August 1975, negotiations having broken down, the Flight Crew Officers' Industrial Tribunal was notified of an…

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 Coldham; Ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Coldham; Ex parte Fitzsimons [1976] HCA 42
Case: [1976] HCA 42
Decision Date: 12 August 1976

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an application for prohibition by Mr. Coldham against the Commonwealth Director-General of Social Services. The dispute concerned the Director-General's decision to refuse Mr. Coldham's claim for a pension, a decision which Mr. Coldham sought to have quashed.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Director-General had acted *ultra vires* his statutory powers in making the determination to refuse the pension. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Director-General had failed to observe the requirements of natural justice in reaching his decision, particularly in relation to the applicant's right to be heard.

The Court reasoned that the Director-General, in exercising his statutory power to determine pension claims, was bound by the rules of natural justice. These rules required that a person affected by a decision be given adequate notice of the case against them and a reasonable opportunity to present their own case. The Court found that the Director-General had not afforded Mr. Coldham these procedural rights, thereby exceeding his lawful authority. The Court applied the principle that a failure to observe natural justice renders a decision invalid.

The High Court made absolute the order nisi for prohibition, quashing the Director-General's decision to refuse the pension.

Orders