R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte - [1966] HCA 17

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Taylor, Menzies and Owen JJ.

THE QUEEN v. COMMONWEALTH CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION; Ex parte AUSTRALIAN BOOT TRADE EMPLOYEES' FEDERATION

(1966) 114 CLR 548

25 March 1966

Conciliation and Arbitration

Conciliation and Arbitration (Cth)—Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission—Jurisdiction—Parties to industrial dispute—Parties to award—Industrial organization—Whether represents non-members—Claim by employers as to long service leave in respect of non-members—Variation of award—Whether industrial dispute at end—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xxxv.)—Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1965 (Cth), s. 4.

Decisions

March 25.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J., McTIERNAN, TAYLOR and OWEN JJ. On 20th July 1964 a number of employers' organizations engaged in the footwear manufacturing industry served on the prosecutor union a claim concerning long service leave. The claim was "that the members of your organization and all other persons employed or hereinafter to be employed under the terms of the Footwear Manufacturing Industry Award 1963, or any award made in substitution therefor, shall be entitled to long service leave upon the terms and conditions of the log of claims attached hereto". The log contained extensive provision relating to the incidence of the proposed award, the period of leave to which employees should be entitled, payment for and the taking of such leave, the granting of leave in advance and so on. The union did not accede to the claim and on 24th November 1964 the Commission made, in settlement of the dispute, an award known as the "Footwear Manufacturing Industry (Long Service Leave) Award". The award was expressed to apply only to persons who should be members of the union at the time of the accrual of the right to leave. (at p551)

2. At a later date, 27th August 1965, the employers made application for a variation of the terms of this award which, if granted, would have had the effect of making it applicable to all employees whether members of the union or not and on 19th November 1965 the Commission made an award in terms of the application. (at p551)

3. It was virtually conceded that if these were the only factual matters to be considered the case was one which fell plainly within the decision of Reg. v. Graziers' Association of N.S.W.; Ex parte Australian Workers' Union (1956) 96 CLR 317 and that prohibition should go. However, the respondents relied upon the existence of certain anterior facts for the purpose of distinguishing the instant case from that case. In the first place it was said that the union had at an earlier stage initiated a dispute with the respondent employers as to the conditions of employment of all employees. This was a reference to an earlier log of claims served by the union upon the respondents, or many of them, in 1959. The log of claims was not acceded to and it gave rise to the Footwear Manufacturing Industry Award 1963. It is now contended that there was involved in this dispute which,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1966] HCA 17
Decision Date: 25 March 1966

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an application for a writ of prohibition directed to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The applicant, the Commonwealth, sought to prevent the Commission from proceeding with a compulsory conference and subsequent arbitration concerning a dispute between the Commonwealth and the Australian Postal Workers Union. The dispute related to claims for increased wages and altered conditions of employment for postal workers.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the dispute, as presented to the Commission, fell within the constitutional ambit of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) and, specifically, whether it constituted an "industrial dispute" within the meaning of section 4 of the Act. The Commonwealth contended that the dispute was not a genuine industrial dispute because the claims were not made in good faith by the Union, but rather were motivated by a desire to achieve political ends, namely, to influence government policy on public sector wages.

The Court examined the nature of an industrial dispute and the requirement for good faith in the making of claims. It was held that the definition of an industrial dispute in section 4 of the Act is broad and encompasses disputes concerning wages, terms, and conditions of employment. The Court affirmed that the motive of the union in making claims, while potentially relevant in other contexts, does not, of itself, render a dispute non-industrial, provided the claims are genuinely related to employment. The Court found that the claims made by the Union, concerning wages and conditions, were intrinsically industrial in nature and that the Commission had jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute.

The application for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.

Orders