R v Taylor - [1949] HCA 24

THE KING

TAYLOR; Ex PARTE THE FEDERATED IRONWORKERS ASSOCIATION

OF AUSTRALIA.

THE COMMONWEALTH; Ex PARTE THE AUSTRALASIAN COAL AND SHALE

EMPLOYEES FEDERATION.

THE COMMONWEALTH; Ex PARTE THE AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION

(AUSTRALIAN SECTION). Constitutional Law (Cth.)-Conciliation and arbitration-Industrial dispute-Coal-

mining industry-Strike-Financial assistance-Prohibition-Funds drawn from bank accounts by industrial unions-Order directing payment thereof into Court-Statute-Order-Validity-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12),

79 CLR 334

3. 51 (xxxi), (xxxv.), Emergency (Coal Strike) Act 1949 (No. 20 of 1949), 8. 9*-Coal Industry Act 1946 (No. 40 of 1946).

The National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act 1949 is within the power conferred upon the Commonwealth Parliament by S. 51 (xxxv.) of the Constitution to make laws with respect to conciliation and arbitration in industrial disputes, and is also within the "incidental" powers conferred by S. 51 (xxxix.).

Industrial organizations, which had withdrawn from their respective bank accounts funds which, upon a reasonable inference, were to be used for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act 1949, were ordered by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to pay the moneys SO withdrawn to the Industrial Registrar.

Held, that the orders were authorized by S. 9 of the Act. PROHIBITION.

An order was made on 2nd July 1949 by his Honour Chief Judge Kelly, in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, at Sydney, restraining the Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia from committing acts constituting a breach of the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act 1949 and, in effect, prohibiting that Association from making any contribution to assist a strike then being engaged in by members of the Australasian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation: and on 5th July a further order was made by his Honour under S. 9 of the Act directing the Association to pay to James Edward Taylor, the Industrial Registrar, a sum of £25,000, being funds of the Association which it had withdrawn from its bank account immediately prior to the coming into force of the Act.

The Association and three of its officers applied to the High Court for an order nisi for a writ of prohibition directed to Chief Judge Kelly, the Industrial Registrar and the Commonwealth restraining each of them from further proceeding with the applica- tion made by the Industrial Registrar and the Commonwealth, or, alternatively, from enforcing the order made on 5th July.

An order was also made by the Chief Judge directing the Aus- tralasian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation to pay to the

* The National Emergency (Coal

strike and for other purposes", by S. 9 Strike) Act 1949, which is " an Act to prohibit, during the period of

" (1) The Court shall have jurisdic- National Emergency caused by the

tion to make such orders for present General Strike in the Coal-

injunctions as it thinks neces- Mining Industry, the contribution,

sary for the purpose of ensur- receipt or use of funds by organiza-

ing compliance with the pro- tions registered under the Common- wealth…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [1949] HCA 24
Case: [1949] HCA 24
Decision Date: 6 July 1949

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, industrial organisations and their officers, sought orders nisi for writs of prohibition against Chief Judge Kelly of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, the Industrial Registrar, and the Commonwealth. The dispute arose from orders made by Chief Judge Kelly under the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act 1949, directing the applicants to pay substantial sums of money, withdrawn from their bank accounts shortly before the Act came into force, to the Industrial Registrar. These orders were made in the context of a coal mining industry strike and aimed to prevent financial assistance to the strike.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act 1949 was within the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth Parliament, specifically under section 51(xxxv) (conciliation and arbitration) and section 51(xxxix) (incidental powers), and whether the orders made by Chief Judge Kelly under section 9 of the Act were within his jurisdiction. The applicants also contended that the Act was an invalid amendment to the Coal Industry Act 1946 and that the orders constituted an acquisition of property without just terms, contrary to section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.

The High Court held that the National Emergency (Coal Strike) Act 1949 was validly enacted under section 51(xxxv) of the Constitution, or alternatively, under the incidental powers provided by section 51(xxxix). The Court reasoned that the Act's purpose of preventing financial assistance to a strike was a legitimate measure to support the objects of conciliation and arbitration. Furthermore, the Court found that section 9 of the Act, which grants the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration jurisdiction to make necessary injunctions to ensure compliance, authorised the orders made by Chief Judge Kelly. The Court inferred that the funds were withdrawn to defeat the Act's provisions and that the orders, whether negative or positive, were necessary to restore the status quo and ensure compliance. The Court also dismissed the arguments regarding the Act being an invalid amendment and the orders constituting an acquisition of property.

Consequently, the High Court refused the applications for orders nisi for writs of prohibition. The Court found no substance in the grounds raised by the applicants, concluding that the Act and the orders made under it were within the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth Parliament and the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.

Orders