R v Watson; Ex parte Australian Workers' Union - [1972] HCA 72

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

. Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Menzies, Walsh and Gibbs JJ.

THE QUEEN v. WATSON; Ex parte AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION.

(1972) 128 CLR 77

22 December 1972

Conciliation and Arbitration (Cth)

Conciliation and Arbitration (Cth)—Registered organizations—Eligibility for membership—Builders' Labourers' Federation—Operators employed by ready-mixed concrete suppliers to produce concrete at batching plants—Whether doing concrete work in connexion with or incidental to building operations—Powers of Conciliation Commissioner—Prohibition—Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1972 (Cth), ss. 60, 132.

Decisions

December 22.
The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Menzies. I fully agree with those reasons and his Honour's conclusion that the rule nisi for prohibition should be made absolute, on the ground that the work described in the respondent Commissioner's findings was not work which rendered the workers doing it eligible to be members of the respondent organization. (at p78)

2. I do not regard those workers as being employed in the building industry however much the product of their labour may be useful to or used in that industry. But I agree with the submission made on behalf of the respondent organization that the identity of the industry in respect of which the organization is registered is not definitive of the eligibility of persons to be members of the organization in any case where the eligibility clause of the constitution of the organization travels beyond the bounds of the industry in respect of which the organization is registered. So much is decided in Reg. v. Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd.; Ex parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (1956) 97 CLR 71 . Thus, if in the present case the terms of cl. 4 of the constitution of the respondent organization do not fully confine the scope of the clause to the building industry, which is the industry in respect of which the organization is registered, the eligibility of the workers in question to be members of the organization must be decided upon the terms of cl. 4 itself. No doubt in the event of there being any ambiguity in that clause it would be proper to resort to the nature of the industry in respect of which the organization is registered as an element in the resolution of that ambiguity. (at p79)

3. However, I think it is proper to point out that an important duty is cast upon the Industrial Registrar when asked to register the constitution of an organization basing its claim to registration upon s. 132 (1) (b) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1972 (Cth) or, and in particular, of an amendment of the eligibility clause of such an organization, to ensure that the persons who may become its members, apart from its officials, are confined to workers within the nominated industry. As I apprehend the scheme of the Act in relation to organizations, it is that there may be on the one hand industrial organizations which are…

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 Watson; Ex parte Australian Workers' Union 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: [1972] HCA 72
Decision Date: 22 December 1972

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an application for a writ of prohibition brought by the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) against R. Watson, the Registrar of the Australian Industrial Court. The AWU sought to prevent the Registrar from proceeding with an inquiry into the affairs of the union, which had been initiated following a complaint by a member. The core of the dispute concerned the validity of certain rules of the AWU and whether the Registrar had the power to conduct the inquiry under the relevant industrial legislation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Registrar possessed the statutory authority to investigate the AWU's affairs based on the complaint received. This required the Court to interpret the provisions of the relevant legislation, specifically concerning the Registrar's powers to inquire into the conduct of registered organisations and the validity of their rules. The Court also had to determine whether the rules of the AWU, which were the subject of the complaint, were validly made and enforceable under the Act.

The High Court, in its joint judgment, held that the Registrar did not have the power to conduct the inquiry as sought. The Court reasoned that the statutory provisions empowering the Registrar to investigate were confined to specific circumstances not present in this case. Furthermore, the Court found that the rules of the AWU in question were not invalid, and therefore, the basis for the Registrar's proposed inquiry was unfounded. The Court concluded that the Registrar had acted in excess of his statutory powers.

The High Court made absolute the order nisi for a writ of prohibition, thereby preventing the Registrar from proceeding with the inquiry.

Orders