R v Hibble; Ex parte Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd - [1921] HCA 15

HIBBLE AND OTHERS. Ex PARTE THE BROKEN HILL PROPRIETARY

COMPANY LIMITED. Industrial Arbitration-Special Tribunal-Jurisdiction-Dispute-Parties-Organ

ization- -Demand on behalf of members-De facto members-Rules of organ- ization - Construction - Conference-"Person"-Corporation- - Reference of SYDNEY,

dispute to Special Tribunal-Industrial Peace Act 1920 (No. 21 of 1920), April 4, 5,

secs. 4, 15, 18, 20-Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904- 1920 (No. 13 of 1904-No. 31 of 1920), secs. 19, 21A, 21B, 22, 29, 55. Knox C.J.,

Held, by Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy, Powers, Rich and Starke JJ., that the only capacity and power possessed by an organization registered under the Common- wealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act is to put forward claims on behalf of persons who have become members pursuant to its rules.

By the rules of an organization registered under the Commonwealth Concilia- tion and Arbitration Act membership was limited to "employees engaged in or in connection with the coal and shale industry." A company carried on the business of an iron and steel manufacturer, and in that business employed workmen who were engaged in converting coal purchased by it into coke for use in connection with the production of iron and steel.

29 CLR 291

Held, by the whole Court, that those workmen were not employed in or in connection with the coal and shale industry, and were therefore not eligible for membership of the organization.

Held, therefore, by the whole Court, that a claim made upon the company by the organization for wages and conditions of labour to be paid and granted to its members and an omission by the company to grant the claim did not constitute an industrial dispute between the organization and the company of which a Special Tribunal appointed under the Industrial Peace Act 1920 could have cognizance.

Held, also, by the whole Court, that on the evidence no industrial dispute existed between the company and its coke workers.

Per Higgins J.: For the purpose of a conference under sec. 18 of the Indus- trial Peace Act 1920 the word 'person does not include a corporation and for a reference of a dispute to a tribunal under sec. 20 the dispute must be stated, and the disputants named or indicated in some way-preferably by writing.

ORDER nisi for prohibition.

On 23rd December 1920 the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. received a document dated 21st December 1920, which was headed

Industrial Peace Acts 1920.-Coke Industry Special Tribunal.- In the matter of an actual, threatened, impending or probable industrial dispute.-Between the Australasian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation and the Illawarra and Western Coke Works Proprietors' Association, W. R. Black Ltd. (Queensland) and others." The document then proceeded "In pursuance of sec. 18 of the Industrial Peace Acts 1920 you are hereby summoned to attend a compulsory conference presided over by the chairman of the Coke Industry Special Tribunal," &. On 29th December 1920 the conference was held, and was attended by Henry Alfred Mitchell on behalf of the Company; and at its…

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 Hibble; Ex parte Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd 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: [1921] HCA 15
Decision Date: 26 April 1921

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an application for a writ of prohibition brought by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. (the Company) against the chairman and members of the Coke Industry Special Tribunal and the Australasian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation (the Federation). The dispute arose from a demand made by the Federation on the Company for improved wages and working conditions for its employees. The Company sought to prohibit the Tribunal from proceeding with the matter, arguing that no valid industrial dispute existed between the parties.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the employees of the Company engaged in coke production were eligible for membership in the Federation under its rules, and consequently, whether the Federation's demand constituted a genuine industrial dispute of which the Special Tribunal had jurisdiction. The Court was required to interpret the rules of the registered organisation and the scope of the "coal and shale industry" as defined by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Industrial Peace Act 1920.

The Court reasoned that an organisation registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act possesses the sole capacity to advance claims on behalf of individuals who have become its members in accordance with its rules. The rules of the Federation limited membership to "employees engaged in or in connection with the coal and shale industry." The Court held that the Company's employees engaged in converting coal into coke for the purposes of iron and steel manufacturing were not employed in or in connection with the coal and shale industry, but rather in the iron and steel industry. Therefore, these employees were not eligible for membership in the Federation. Consequently, the demand made by the Federation did not constitute an industrial dispute between the Federation and the Company, as the Federation could only act on behalf of its legitimate members. Furthermore, the Court found that there was no evidence of a real and genuine industrial dispute existing between the Company and its coke workers.

Accordingly, the rule nisi for prohibition was made absolute, prohibiting the Coke Industry Special Tribunal and the Australasian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation from further proceeding in relation to the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd.

Orders