Industrial Law (Cth)—Conciliation and Arbitration—Industrial dispute—Scope—Whether any dispute between employees and employers about terms of employment and conditions of work included—Demand on behalf of employed social workers—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xxxv)—Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), s. 4(1) "employee", "employer", "industrial dispute", "industrial matters", "industry".
Decision
June 9. THE COURT delivered the following written judgment: - This order nisi for prohibition, certiorari and mandamus made by Brennan J. raises for decision the important question whether a dispute between the prosecutor, which is an organization of social workers, and their employers, Community Youth Support Scheme Committees ("the Committees"), about their terms and conditions of employment is an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of s. 51(xxxv) of the Constitution. The prosecutor submits that the Court should reject the notion that s. 51(xxxv) looks to a dispute in an industry and decides that any dispute between employer and employees about the terms and conditions of employment is an "industrial dispute" according to the constitutional conception of that expression. A related question is whether the dispute is an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth), as amended, ("the Act"). (at p301)
2. On 10 July 1979 the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ("the Commission") made a finding of an industrial dispute under s. 24 of the Act between the prosecutor and a number of Committees. The dispute arose out of the non-acceptance of a log of claims served by the prosecutor relating to the pay and conditions of project officers employed by the Committees. The Committees, supported by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (who intervened), sought a revocation of the finding on the ground that neither the Committees nor the project officers were engaged in or in connexion with an industry, that project officers were not engaged in work of an industrial nature and that the eligibility rules of the prosecutor do not embrace project officers employed by the Committees. The application for revocation of the finding was rejected by Mr. Deputy President Isaac. On appeal, the Full Bench of the Commission (Coldham J. and Mr. Commissioner Turbet, with Cohen J. dissenting) allowed the appeal and set aside the finding of dispute on the ground that the activities of the Committees were not incidental to industry. (at p302)
3. The relevant facts are conveniently reviewed in the decision of Mr. Deputy President Isaac and in the decisions of the members of the Full Bench. The Community Youth Support Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "CYSS" or "the Scheme") was inaugurated in 1976 with the authority of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. There is a hierarchy of Committees in each State, ranging from State Committees, down through Electorate Committees, to the Local Committees. Members of 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 Coldham; Ex Parte Australian Social Welfare Union
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Coldham; Ex Parte Australian Social Welfare Union [1983] HCA 19
Case
[1983] HCA 19
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia heard an application for prohibition and certiorari brought by the Australian Social Welfare Union (the applicant) against Mr. Coldham, the Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and the Commission itself (the respondents). The dispute concerned the validity of a decision made by Mr. Coldham in relation to an industrial dispute involving the applicant and the Commonwealth of Australia. The applicant sought to quash the Deputy President's decision and prevent him from further proceeding in the matter.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Deputy President had jurisdiction to make the award he did. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the dispute, as defined and dealt with by the Deputy President, was a dispute within the meaning of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) and if the Deputy President had acted within the scope of his powers in making the award. The applicant contended that the Deputy President had exceeded his jurisdiction by making an award that was not authorized by the Act.
The Court, in a joint judgment, held that the Deputy President had acted in excess of his jurisdiction. Their Honours reasoned that the dispute before the Deputy President was not a dispute concerning industrial matters within the meaning of the Act, but rather a dispute concerning the interpretation and application of an existing award. The Court applied the principle that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's jurisdiction is limited to preventing or settling industrial disputes, and it cannot entertain proceedings that are merely for the interpretation or enforcement of an award, unless such interpretation or enforcement is part of the settlement of an industrial dispute. As the Deputy President had purported to make an award in circumstances where the Act did not grant him jurisdiction, his decision was invalid.
The High Court made absolute the order nisi for prohibition and quashed the award made by the Deputy President.