Re Australian Conciliation & Arbitration Commission & Anor Ex Parte Graham

[1977] FCA 96

TN THE T'lATTER OF AN APPLICATION F03 A WRIT

OF PROHIRITIOM AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND

MEMBERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND

ARBITRATION COI4?IISSION, THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS'

U N I O N & ORS. : EX PARTE GRAHAI.1: & O R S .

ORDER

.

Order nisi discharged.

I

I

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A

WRIT OF PROHIBITION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT

AND MEMBERS OF TIIE AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION

AND ARBITRATION' COMMISSION, THE AUSTRALIAN

I WORKERS' U N I O N AND OTHERS; EX PARTE

GRAHAM A N D OTHERS

JUDGMENT BARWICK C . J .

I N THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A

WRIT OF PROHIBITION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT

AND MEMBERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION

AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION, THE AUSTRALIAN

WORKERS' U N I O N AND OTHERS; EX PARTE

GRAHAM AND OTHERS

My c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e cour se of e v e n t s i n

connec t ion w i t h t h e d i s p u t e s C No. 1723 of 1976 and C No.

3489 of 1976 has l e d me t o the same conc lus ions as t h o s e

reached by my b r o t h e r Glbbs and expressed by him i n r e a s o n s

fo r judgment which I h a v e now had'-the advantage of reading .

I am c o n t e n t t o say that I agree wlth bo th t h e conclus ions

and reasons there expres sed and f e e l no need t o supplement

o r q u a l i f y them.	I n my	op in ion ,	t h e	o r d e r	n i s i	s h o u l d	be
d l s charged.

I

JUDGIEI!T GIBBS J.

This i s the return of an order nisi to prohibit ~

further proceedings in tWo matters in the Australian Conciliation

and Arbitration Commission ("the Commission"), identified respec-

tively as C No. 1723 of 1976 and C No. 3489 of 1976.

Three of the respondents, Australian Lubricating

Oil Refinery Pty. Limited, Australian Oil Refining Pty. Limitec?

and Total Refineri,es Australia Limited, are companies which con-

duct o i l refineries in New South Wales. When the proceedings in

the Commission commenced, most of the persons employed as operator: f

in those oil refineries were members of the Australian Workers'

Union ("Vhe respondent union") p -which is -registered under the

Conciliation and Arbitration Act l904 (as amended) (Cth.) ("the

Acts1) as an organization-of employees, and which is also a respon- i

dent to the prksent application. A branch of the respondent is

registered under the Industrial ArSitratLon Act l g h 0 (as mended)

?

(N.S.H.) as an industrial union o f employees. It will be conven-

ient to refer to this branch as "the State registered union", but

it will not be necessary to consiaer its status or its relation

to the rdspondeiit union. The wages. and. eonditicns of the members

of the respondent union employed as operators in the oil refinerie.

conducted in New South Wales by the three respondent companies

were, at least until 27th September 1976, governed by industrial

awards or industrial agreements made o r registered pursuznt 'i3 the

Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 (as amended) (N.S.W.). However,

the wages and conditions of members of the respondent union

2.

employed as o p c r a t o r s i n r e f i n c r i e s c o n d u c t e d by other companies

i n Queensland and Vic tor ia were governed by t h e p r o v t s l o n s of

awards made under the Act - federa l awards. There were o t h e r

r e f i n e r i e s I n Australia, inc lud ing one in Wes te rn Australia a t

which members o f the respondent union were employed; some of

these were, and some were not , governed by f e d e r a l awards. It

appea r s t h a t t h e wages of t h e o p e r a t o r s e m p l o y e d i n the three

respondent companies i n New South Wales were higher t h a n t h o s e

of o p e r a t o r s e m p l o y e d i n o t h e r S t a t e s . T h i s , i t was sugges ted ,

was an anomaly which might j u s t i f y i n c r e a s e d wages t o t h o s e

ope ra to r s employed unde r f ede ra l awards. An i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e

arose on t h i s q u e s t i o n b u t i t d i d n o t c o n c e r n t he three respondent

companies. However, i n t he cour se of t ha t maZter on 11th August

1976 a Commissioner made a detai led r e p o r t on t h e alleged anomalies

On 3rd August 1976 t h e respondent union served on

a number of companies, which operated the r e f i n e r i e s i n Q u e e n s l a n d ,

Victoria and Western Austral ia a t which members of t he respondent

union were employed, a l e t t e r o f demanc! t o g e t h e r with a document

i n the form o f ' a d r a f t award. No r e p l y t o t h i s demand was Tecsived I

w i t h i n t h e time s p e c i f i e d i n t he l e t t e r and the respondent union,

act in& under S. 25 of t he Act, n o t i f i e d t he I n d u s t r i a l R e g i s t r a r

of the matter C No. 1723. e x i s t e n c e of a n i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e . T h i s d i s p u t e became

This l e t t e r of demand was n o t s e r v e d on any o f the

three respondent companies. A t about t h i s time d e l e g c t e s of .the

union a t the re f iner ies of t h e three companies made claims i n

r e s p e c t o f wages and condi t ions of -persons employed there, and on

10th August 1976 employees a t A u s t r a l i a n O i l Ref in ing Pty . Limited

and A u s t r a l i a n L u b r i c a t i n g O i l Ref inery P t y . Lfmited r e s o l v e d to

stop work. A compulsory conference was convened by the I n d u s t r i a l I

3.

Commission of Hew South Wales, w h j ch on 27th August 1976 d c t e r -

mincd t o make a n i n t c r i m award r e l a t i n g t c members o f the respon-

dent unio,. pmployed i n t h o s e two companies.

I n t h e meantime, on 16th August 1976 a l e t t e r of

demand, t o g e t h e r w i t h a l o g o f claims as t o t h e wages and con-

d i t i o n s o f m e r b e r s o f t h e r e sponden t un ion employed in the o i l

r e f in ing i n d u s t r y , was served on the respondent un ion . This

demand was r e s p o n d e n t u n i c n ' s l e t t e r o f made on b e h a l f of a l l . t h e c o n p a n i e s upon whom t h e

3rd August 1976 had been served

(except one small fami ly company) , and a l so on behal f o f the thl;ec

respondent companies . Hereaf te r when I r e f e r t o " t h e c o m p a n i e s "

I sha l l mean the companies on whose behalf t h i s demand was made -

the respondent companies and o thers . No rep ly having been mad?

t o t h i s demand w i t h i n t h e s p e c i f i e d time, t h e c o m p a n i e s n o t i f i e d

t h e I n d u s t r i a l Registrar of a d ispute under S . 25. T h i s d i s p u t e

I -?came p+ter C No. 3489.

On 23rd August 1976 t h e t w o m a t t e r s (C No. 1723

and C No. 3489) came on s e p a r a t e l y f o r h e a r i n g b e f o r e a Cornmi-

s s i o n e r . The State registered union was g r a n t e d l e a v e t o i n t e r -

vene i n matter C No.	3489.	I n t h a t	matter t h e Commissioner made
t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g :

Waving examined the f i l e i n t h i s matter 2nd

i n view of wha t has been pu t t o the Commission

I am s a t i s f c e d tha t t h e r e i s a n i n t e r s t a t e

i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e w i t h i n t h e meaning of the

Act, t he matter i n d i s p u t e h e i n g the wages and

worlcing conditions of employees members o f t h e

Australian Workers' Union employed by t h o s e

m p l o y e r s who have se rved the demand, t h e

par t ies t o t h e d i s p u t e b e i n g t h e A u s t r a l i a n

Workerst Union and those employers . "

The p rosecu to r s concede tha t t hese f ind ings canno t be cha l lenged .

The m a t e r i a l berore u s does not show i t , b u t it is a g r e e d t h a t a

f i n d i n g o f t h e e x i s t e n c e of an i n t e r s t a t e i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e was

also made ( a n d p r o p e r l y made) Ln matter C No. 1723.

S u b s e q u c n t l y , b o t h m a t t e r s w e r e r e f c r r c d t o a

F u l l Bench o f t h e Commission, and were l i s t ed f o r h e a r j n g on the

day f i x e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e m a t t e r of tile a l l c e c d anomaly discussed

I n the Commiss ione r ' s r epor t of 11 th Iiugust. T h i s l a t t e r m a t t e r

was heard f irst and a sharp difference of opinion emerged betrrecn

the r e sponden t un ion and t he S t a t c registered union. The former-

sought cormon rates t h r o u g h o u t A u s t r a l i a ; t h e l a t t e r s t r o n g l y

o p p o s e d a n y s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e o p e r a t o r s i n o t h c r S t a t e s s h o u l d

h a v e e q u a l i t y w i th t h o s e i n New South Vales . The Commission - 9

reserved i t s d e c i s i o n on t h i s q u e s t i o n a n d , a f t e r an adjournme.It,

proceeded wi th t h e o t h e r t w o matters. The S t a t e r e g i s t e r e d u n i o n

t h e n a p p l i e d t o t he Commission t o dismiss t h a t par t of t h e d i s p u t e

w h i c h r e l a t e d t o the employees o f t h e respondent companies, o r t o I

r e f r a i n f r o m f u r t h e r h e a r i n g it, on the g r o u n d t h a t t h e a l l e g e d

d i s p u t e , o r p m t t h e r e o f , was p r o p e r t o be deal t w i t h by t h e

I n d u s t r i a l Commission of N e r r Sou th Wales , and tha t fu r the r pro-

ceedings were not necessary o r desirable i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .

(See S . 4 1 ( 1 ) ( d ) ( i i ) a n d ( i i i ) o f t h e A c t ) . The respondent union

s u p p o r t e d t h i s . r e q u e s t , a l t h o u g h it made t h e r e s e r v a t i o n t h a t t h e ,

I

o p e r a t i o n s o f the New South Wales r e f i n e r i e s a r e n o t d i f f e r e n t

from t h e o p e r a t i o n s o f t h o s e i n o t h e r States.

I

. On 15th September 1976 the F u l l Bench gave i t s l

d e c i s i o n i n t h e matter of t h e a l l eged anomal i e s . The proceedings ,

i n t h a t matter are n o t the s u b j e c t o f t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p r o -

h i b i t i o n , a n d i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o say tha t the F u l l Bench,

a l t h o u g h n o t sa t i s f ied t h a t the New South Wales ra tes should be

used t o e s t a b l i s h a n a t i o n a l minimum, h e l d t h a t a c a s e had been

made o u t f o r t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of c o r n o n c a t e g o r i e s and \race

s t r u c t u r e for o p e r a t o r s In t h e o i l i n d u s t r y . C o n f e r e n c e s w e r e

convened with a view t o b r i n g i n g t h i s matter t o f i n a l i t y .

I

5.

On 20th September 1976 the F u l l Bench announced

i t s d e c i s i o n r e f u s i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n m d e r S . 4 1 ( l ) ( d ) t o dism-jss

p a r t	o f	t h e d i s p u t e .	I n	t he	cour se of	i t s reasons ,	the	F u l l Bench
said :

"We p o s i t i v e l y b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s i n t h e b e s t

in te res t s o f all t h a t t h e s e t h r e e r e f i n e r i e s

s h o u l d b e r e g u l a t e d f e d e r a l l y e i t h e r by agree-

ment or award. I n c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h i s we p o i n t

o u t t h a t a t l e a s t i n r e c e n t years n e g o t i a t i o n s

c a r r i e d o u t f e d e r a l l y o r d e c i s i o n s made by t h i s

t r ibunal , have f lowed t o t h e s e e m p l o y e e s . "

On 27 th Sep tezbe r 1976 the respondent union wrote

t o t h e s o l i c i t o r s f o r t h e c o m p a n i e s , on whose b e h a l f t h e demand

of 1 6 t h August 1976 had been served, a l e t t e r i n t h e f o l l o w i n g

terms :

"Reference is made t o y o u r l e t t e r of 1 6 t h

August 1976 and accompanying log of c l a ims . ~ .

That l o g (C.No. 3469 of 1976) has been before

Mr. Commissioner Neil and a Fcll Bench of t he

Conmission.

The Union r e j e c t s t h e c l a i m s i n your log

and contends tha t t h e wages and cond i t ions o f

employment of a l l employees of the Companies who

are p a r t i e s t o d i s p u t e s C. No. 1723 and 3489 of

1976 should be i n a c c o r d a n c e wi th t he Union's

l o g (C: No. 1723 of 1976) .

. I n p a r t i c u l a r t he Unicn coa tends tha t

t h e r e s h o u l d be un i fo rmi ty o f t h e wages and work-

i n g c o n d i t i o n s o f a l l pzrsons employed by the

Companies which are p a r t i e s t o m a t t e r s C. Nos.

1723 and 3469 of 1976 whether o r n o t s u c h

employees are members o f t h e A.W.U. However we

demand tha t preference of employment be g i v e n t o

f i n a n c i a l members	of	The	Aus t ra l ian Workers '
Union D 'I

. On the same day (27th September 1976) t h e two

matters came on f o r f u r t h e r h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e F u l l Bench. The

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e State r eg i s t e red un ion sough t an ad jou rnmen t .

He said t h a t t h e delegates r e p r e s e n t i n g the employees i n t h e t h r e e

r e f i n e r i e s i n New South Wales had recommended t h a t a l l t h o s e

employees who were members of t he r e sponden t un ion shou ld resigp

6.

f rom tha t un ion , and t ha t a number had a l r eady r e s igned . He

accord ing ly submi t t ed t h a t , if t h e Commission d i d make an awdrd,

i t would no t app ly to any employees in New South Wales. The l h ~ l l

Bench refused t h e a p p l i c a t i o n for an adjournment. The represen-

t a t i v e o f t he r e sponden t compan ies then a sked the Commission t o

make awards i n t h e terms o f t h e e x i s t i n g S t a t e awards and on an

i n t e r i m basis. He said tha t n e i t h e r h i s c l i e n t s n o r t h e r e s p o n -

dent union mentioned t h a t che agreed wi th a l l o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s i n t h o s e awards. He

employees a t two of t h e r e f i n e r i e s h a d i n d i -

cated a n i n t e n t i o n t o s t r i k e i n p r o t e s t a g a i n s t t h e d e c i s i o n o f

the F u l l Bench given on 20th September 1976. ( I n f a c t i t appea r s

Chat by t h i s time the employees had stopped work, and t n a t on the

same dzy proceedings were t aken i n t h e I n d u s t r i a l Commission o f

New South Vales i n an attempt t o s e c u r e a resumption of work)

He sa id t h a t s i n c e t h a t d e c i s i o n two a t tempts hsd been made t o

h a v e t h e d i s p u t e deal t with by the I n d u s t r i a l Commission o f New

South Wales. He asked the Commiss ion to make i n t e r i n awards and

t o a d j o u r n i n t o c o n f e r e n c e so t h a t t h e s t o p p a g e c o u l d be dea l t

with. The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r t he respondent union said t h a t , i n

t h e l i g h t of t he c i rcumstances , he had no c h o i c e b u t t o agree

t h a t the in te r im awards should be made.. He said:

0 -

"The employees i n N e w South Wales are -

u n f o r t u n a t e l y we b e l i e v e - no matter what

anybody does, covered by t h e f e d e r a l

commission and have been taken out of the

hands o f the s ta te commission. F o r that

peason we a r e f o r c e d t o assent t o t h e

implementat ion o f t h e s e i n t e r i m awards."

He t h e n t e n d e r e d a copy of t h e l e t t e r o f 27th September 1976

scmt on b e h a l f of t h e r e s p o n d e n t u n i o n t o t h e s o l i c i t o r s for the

rompanies, and said: "We I n s i s t t h a t i f t h e s e i n t e r i m awards

are made, they shou ld be made i n t h e terms of t h a t l e t t e r . "

A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e h e a r i n g , a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n r

t h e s u b m i s s i o n s - m a d e , t h e P r e s i d e n t on behalf o f t h e F u l l Bench

made thc fo l lowin ( : s t a t emen t :

"The employers and t h e f e d e r a l AWU are i n

agreement 2 s t o t h e making of I n t e r i m awards,

a l t h o u g h t h e f e d e r a l AWU h a s today demanded of

t h e employers t h a t any award made on t h e

employers logs should a p p l y t o a l l employees

whether menbers of the Ak!U o r not. As t h e

employers have not had time t o c o n s i d e r t h i s

demand t h i s m a t t e r c a n n o t now be dealt with by

US D

Mr. Mahony i n t e r v e n i n g f o r t h e S t a t e AWU

opposes the making of an award snd the government

of New South \!ales has asked us t o c o n s i d e r t h e

p u b l i c i n t e r c s t .

It is our view t h a t the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .

would bes t be se rved i f we a c c e e d e d [ s i c ] - t o t h e

agreement o f the p a r t i e s and made t h e i n t e r i m

a v a r d s v h i c h a r e v i r t u a l l y r e p l l c a s o f c u r r e n t

s t a t e awards and will not change e x l s t i n g r a t e s

and condi t ions . k k a r e a l s o of t he v i ew t h a t t h e

p u b l i c i n t e r e s t will be served i f we a c c e d e t o

t h e o t h e r p a r t o f t h e e m p l o y e r s r e q u e s t a n d c a l l

8 conrerence of a l l those concerned, which will

t a k e p l a c e b e f o r e Mr. Commissioner Neil a t 10 a.m.

In the morn ing .

We a r e d i s t u r b e d that p r e v i o u s a t t e m p t s a t

conc i l i a t ion have no t r e soLved t h i s matter and we

hope xhat we have done will h e i p c o n c i l l a t i o n .

Draft awards t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h i s d e c l s i o n will

be prepared by che employers and s e t t l e d b y t h e

registfiar	w i t h r e c o u r s e t o	a	member	o f	t he
Commission

The awards made i n c l u d e d t h e " O i l Ref inery

Employees (Tota l Ref iner ies Australia L imi t ed ) In t e r im Award

1976" and " O i l Ref inery Employees (Aus t ra l ian O i l Ref in ing Pty .

L imi t ed and Aus t r a l i an Lubr i ca t ing Oil Ref ine ry L imi t ed - [ s i c ] )

Interim Award 1976". The f i r s t -mon t inned award con ta ined t he

f o l l o w i n g p r w i s i o n :

"Th i s award sha l l b e b i n d i n g u p o n t h e A u s t r a l i a n

Workers Union and i t s members a n d T o t a l R e f i n e r i e s

Australia L i m i t e d i n r e s p e c t of i t s employees i n

t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d i n c l a u s e	4	of	t h i s
avard"

The second &ard con ta ined a similar provis ion which of cour se

referred t o t h e o t h c r two rcspondent companies.

..

On 2 9 t h S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 6 t h e s o l i c i t o r s for t h e

companies wrote t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t u n i o n a l e t t e r which included

t h e f o l l o w i n g :

" In r e p l y t o y o u r l e t t e r o f September 27, 1976

we n o t i f y you tha t t he compmies wh ich are

p a r t i c s	t o	t h e a b o v e m e n t i o n e d d i s p u t e s c l a i m
t h a t t h e	wages a n d c o n a l t i o n s of a l l t h e i r

employees i n t h e O i l Refinjn:: and Hydroairbons

and Gas I n d u s t r y 1.170 are ncc.bers or are e l l g i b l e

t o be l~~errlbers cf t h e A u s t r a l i a n Workers' Union

should be i n a c c o r d a n c e wi th c l a u s e s 2 t o 1 9

i n c l u s i v e of the employees ' [ z i c ] l o g of c la ims

of 1 6 t h August 1 9 7 6 (C 110. 3 k w o f 1 9 7 6 ) . "

The l e t t e r o b v i o u s l y i n t e n d e d t o r e f e r t o " t h e employers'" lop,

of claims, and went on t o i n d i c a t e a n a p p r o p r i a t e amendment t o

the companies ' log of claims.

On the morning o f 30th September 1976 proceedings

i n r e l a t i o n t o the d ispute were brought on i n t h e I n d u s t r i a l

Commission o f New South Wales where apparent ly doubts were

expres sed as t o w h e t h e r or n o t t h e i n t e r i m a w a r d s made on 27th

September 1976 app l i ed to employees who were n o t members of t h e

respondent unihn. In consequence the p a r t i e s b r o u g h t t h e t ~ o

matters b e f o r e t h e F u l l Bench of t h e Commission t h a t a f t e rnoon .

The F u l l Bench g r a n t e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n , i n w h i c h the respondent

rtnion and f i n d i n g i n m a t t e r C the respondent companies joined, t o v a r y t h e r e c o r d o f

No. 1723 and i n matter C No. 3489 " to acco rd

w i t h t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e l e t t e r from t h e AWJ t o Moule, Hamilton

and Derham and the r e p l y t o tha t l e t t e r " . The l e t t e r s r e f e r r e d

t o are o f c o u r s e t h o s e o f 27th September 1976 and 29th Septenber

1976. A f u r t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n was t h e n made on behalf o f t h e

respondent companies to v a r y t h e two in t e r im awards by p rov id ing

t h a t t h e y s h o u l d b e b i n d i n g u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t u n i o n a n d a l l

persons employed by the respondent companies i n t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

9 .

p r e s c r i b e d i n c l . 4 of the in te r im awards , whether members of

t he r e spondcn t un ion o r no t . The respondent un ion suppor tcd

t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n . The Ilew South Wales Government was g ran ted

l eave to in t e rvene and opposed the mak ing vf t h e v a r i a t i o n on

the ground tha t i t would be a g a i n s t t h e p u b l i c i x t e r e s t . The

F u l l Bench r e s e r v e d i t s dec i s ion and , cn t h e f o l l o w i n g day,

o r d e r e d t h a t t h e i n t e r i m awards be v a r i e d i n t h e terms sought .

Most of the ope ra to r s employed by t h e t h r e e r e s p o z -

d e n t c o m p a n i e s h a v e p u r p o r t e d t o r e s i g n Crom the respondent un ion

and t h e r e h a v e b e e n p u r p o r t e d a c c e p t a n c e s o f t h e i r r e s i g n a t i o n s .

It i s unnecessa ry to expres s any view as t o t h e e f f i c a c y of t h e

p u r p o r t e d r e s i g n a t i o n s . If, however, they were e f f e c t i v e , n o

more t h a n 29 o f t h e 4 1 1 members o f the respondent un ion former ly

employed as o p e r a t o r s by the th ree r e sponden t compan ies in F?ew

South Vales still remained as members of the r e sponden t un ion .

The p rosecu to r s are de lega te s o f t he employees of

t he th ree r e sponden t compan ies who are members of t h e . S t a t e r e g i s -

tered union. They seek , in e f f e c t , t o se t aside t h e i n t e r i m

awards made on.27th September 1976 and var ied on 1st October 1976

and t h e r e c o r d o f f l n d i n g s so far as they were va r i ed on 30th

September 1976.

It is i n c o n t e s t a b l e t h a t the p roceed ings be fo re

t h e Commission r e l a t e d t o a n i n d u s t r i a l dis;;ute as def ined .in-

the Ac t , i:e. a d i s p u t e as t o i n d u s t r i a l m a t t e r s w h i c h e x t e n d e a

beyond the limits of any one S ta te . The d i s p u t e was a s e r i o u s

and complicated one. There could be no doubt tha t t h e CommissZon

had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r t a i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n b o t h matters.

Moreover, the Commission had t h e c l e a r e s t power to make a n i n t e r i m

award. S e c t i o n 4 1 ( 1 ) of t h e Act p r o v i d e s , i n t e r a l ia , as fo l lows:

c3The Ccmmisslon m y , i n r e l a t i o n t o a n i n d u s t r i a l

10.

d i s p u t e -

e . . . .

( b ) make an award ( i n c l u d i n g a p r o v i s i o n a l

o r tn tc r im a w a r d r e l a t i n g t o any o r a l l

o f t h e m a t t e r s i n d i s p u t e ) o r g ive a

d i r e c t i o n i n p u r s u a n c e o f t h e h e a r i n g

o r de t c rmina t ion" .

However, a number o f arguments were advanced on b e h a l f o f the

p r o s e c u t o r s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e v i e w t h a t t h e Commission d i d n o t

h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make or v a r y t h e interim award i n t h e c i r -

cumstances o f t he p r e s e n t c a s e .

I n t h e first p l a c e , i t i s s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e

Commission d i d no t pu rpor t t o a c t u n d e r S . 4 1 , b u t i n t e n d e d t o

e x e r c i s e t h e power given by S. 28 of the Act , and Lhat S. 28

d i d no t pe rmi t t he Commiss ion to make an in t e r im consen t award.

I

It appears t h a t d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of argument on 27th September

1976 t h e P r e s i d e n t referred t o S . 28 i n terms which suggested

t h a t h e t h o u g h t t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h a t s e c t i o n r e q u i r e d t h e

Commission t o make t h e c o n s e n t o r d e r u n l e s s i t was n o t i n the

p u b l i c i n t e r e s t to do so . Again, on 30th September 2976, it

appeared from what was said i n a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e par t ies were i n

a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e matter came w i t h i n S . 28. However, when the

President announced the d e c i s i o n o f t h e F u l l Bench on 27th

September 1976, he d i d n o t r e f e r t o S. 28, and h is remarks sugges

t h a t the s t r a i n e d t o make awards were made, n o t b e c a u s e t h e F u l l Bench f e l t con-

them, but because i t was i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e re s t

t o do so. Any statement made when the Conunission gave its furt:ne

d e c i s i o n on 1st October 1976 i s no t r eco rded i n t h e material

b e f o r e us.	The	i n t e r i m awards when	made	are n o t ,	a t l eas t	so f a r	'
. .

as t h e c o p i e s c o n t a t n e d i n ;;he appeal book show, expres sed t o be

made by consent , a l though S. 28(5) r e q u i r e s t h a t a n o r d e r made i n

accordance wi th t h a t s e c t i o n s h a l l be so expressed. I am not

11.

sa t i s f ied , on t h e m a t e r i a l b e f o r e u s , that i n malt in^ and va ry ing

t h e i n t e r i m awards t h e Commission i n t e n d e d t o e x e r c i s e t h e poprep

g iven by S . 28, b u t I am p r e p a r e d t o a s s u m e t h a c i t d i d s o

i n t e n d , a n d will c o n s i d e r t h e matter on tha t a s sumpt ion . The

p r o v i s i o n s o f S . 28 apply:

"If, b e f o r e a n j n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e h a s

b e e n r e f e r r e d t o a r b i t r a t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h

t h i s Act,	the par t ies t o t he d i s p u t e o r any of
them reach	agreement on terms for the s e t t l e m e n t

o f a l l or any o f t h e matters i n d i s p u t e , . . I1 ~

If such an agreement is r e a c h e d d u r i n g a r b i t r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s ,

t h e p r o v i s i o n s of S . 28 a r e made a p p l i c a b l e by S. 3 0 ( 3 ) . It

appea r s tha t ss . 28 and 3 0 ( 3 ) deal wi th t he s i t u a t i o n t h a t arises

w h e r e t h e p a r t i e s h a v e r e s o l v e d some o r a l l of t h e i r d l f f e r e n c e s ,

r a t h e r t h a n w i t h t h e case w h e r e t h e p a r t i e s r e m a i n a t a rm's

l e n g t h i n t h e i r c o n t e n t i o n s as t o a l l t h e i s s u e s i n d i s p u t e b u t

n e v e r t h e l e s s a g r e e t h a t a n i n t e r i m award should be made for

reasons of convenience .

On beha l f of t he p r o s e c u t o r s , i t was a r g u e d t n a t

i t was i m p o s s i b l e t o s a y t h a t t h e awards were made i n s e t t l e m e n t

of t h e d i s p u t e s w h i c h had previous ly been found to ex is t be tween

I

t h e pzrti'es; they were made, it was s a i d , s o tha t t he Commission

c o u l d a c q u i r e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e d i spu te . However, assunine;

a l l t h e s e t h i n g s , it does not follow t h a t t h e awards were inva l id . ,

P r o h i b i t i o n will n o t l i e t o t h e Commission i f , a c t i n g w i t h i n

j u r i s d i c t i o n , i t makes awards which it had power t o make, simply

because i t t h o u g h t t h a t i ts power was c o n f e r r e d by one sec t ion

whereas in t r u t h i t was g iven by ano the r . Even wi thout the

p r i v a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s o f S . 60 of t h e A c t , p r o h i b i t i o n would n o t

l i e i n such a c a s e . I have a l ready ment ioned t h a t t h e Commission

a c t e d n o t s i m p l y b e c a u s e it f e l t c o n s t r a i n e d by S. 28 but because

it c o n s i d e r e d t h a t it was i n the p u b l i c i n t e re s t t o do so, and

.,.

I .

i n t hcse c i r cums tances i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o a r g u e tha t t h e r e

was no rea l exerc ise o f power . J4oreover , i f on 30th September

and 1st October 1976 the Cornmission a c t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e of

making i t c l e a r t h a t the m a t t e r was w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f

t h e Commission, t h a t would Se n o o b j e c t i o n t o t h c v a l i d i t y o f t h e .

awards n o r , i f i t matters, a n y g r o u n d f o r c r i t i c i s i n g t h e e x e r c i s e

by t h e Commission o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n . On t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t the

Conmission had j u r i s d i c t i o n , i t was p e r f e c t l y p r o p e r f o r t h e

Comrnission t o make a n i n t e r i m award for t h e p u r p o s e of avo id ing

c o n f l i c t i n g a c t i o n by a S t a t e I n d u s t r i a l T r i b u n a l .

I n s u p p o r t of t he argument based on S . 28, i t was

submi t ted t h a t t h e Commission shou ld have formed the opin ion tha t

c l . 4 1 o f t h e " O i l Re f ine ry Employees (To ta l Re f ine r i e s Aus t r a l i a

L imi t ed ) In t e r im Award 1976" was a term which t h e Commission d i d

not have power t o i n c l u d e i n a n award a n d s h o u l d f o r t h a t r e a s o n

. h a v e r e f u s e d t o make t h e award - s e e -S. 28(2)@,!, Clause %i nT

t h a t award p r o v i d e s as fo l lows :

"41 . UNION PTSFEREMCE

(a ) Absolute p r e f e r e n c e o f ernployment shal l be

. g l v e n t o f i n a n c i a l members of t h e Union.

( b ) Any employee not a member o f t he Union shall

u n d e r t a k e t o become and remain a f i n a n c i a i

member o f t h e Union, upon a c c e p t i n g employment

with the company."

No similar c l a u s e appears i n t h e o t h e r award i n q u e s t i o n . The

argument i s t h a t i n s o f a r as c l . 4 1 amounts t o a d i r e c t i o n t h a t

p r e f e r e n c e -be g i v e n t o membezs of the un ion , i t does no t conlply

w i t h S. 1!7( l ) o f the Act and t ha t i n any case the c l ause goes

f u r t h e r t h a n S . 47 permi ts and attempts t o c o n f e r a monopoly of

employment upon u n i o n i s t s , c o n t r a r y t o s u c h c a s e s as The King v.

Wallis; Ex par te Employers Assoc ia t ion o f \.loo1 S e l l i n g F roke r s

( l g ~ l g ) , 78 C.L.R. 529; The Ring v. Findlay; Ex - parte Vic to r i a r :

Chamber of Manufactures (19501, 81 C.L.R. 537 , and The - Queen

v . ljolmes; - Ex par te Al tona Pe t rochemica l Company Limited

(1972) , 126 C . L . R . 529. However, no ground ra i s ing t h e

v a l i d i t y o f c l . 4 1 a p p e a r s i n t h e o r d e r n i s i . The q u e s t i o n

whecher c l . 4 1 is v a l i d is only on the f r i n g e s o f t h e p r e s e n t

d i s p u t e a n d d o e s n o t t o u c h t h e r e a l m a t t e r s i n c o n t r o v e r s y .

For t h a t r e a s o n , t h e q u e s t i o n of i t s v a l i d i t y was n o t f u l l y

a rgued be fo re u s . The award i s an in te r im one and in any

award f i n a l l y made c l . 4 1 may a p p e a r i n a d i f f e r e n t f o r m o r

no t a t a l l . For a l l t h e s e r e a s o n s , I would decline permis-

s i o n t o add a ground t o t h e o r d e r nisi t o e n a b l e t h i s q u e s t i o n

t o be r a i s e d a t t h i s stage of t h e p roceed ings . No th ing i n

my judgment i s i n t e n d e d t o i n d i c a t e any op in ion upon t h e

q u e s t i o n s w h e t h e r c l . 4 1 i s v a l i d and whether, i f it were

I n v a l i d , i t s i n v a l i d i t y would i n f e c t ' t h e award as a whole.

Those ques t ions can be dec ided in o the r p roceed ings i f t h e

p a r t i e s a r e s o advised .

Next i t was argued t h a t the awards wen t beyond

t h e ambi t o f t he d i spu te be tween t h e parties. T h i s argument

went as fo l lows : The demand by the r e sponden t un ion was

n o t addressed t o the respondent companies and therefore

raised no d i spu te wi th them. The d ispute be tween the res-

pondmt companies and the respondent un ion was r a i s e d by .

t h e demand made by the companies on 16th August 1976. B u t

t h e interim awards al lowed t h e employees wages greater than

were m e n t i o n e d i n t h a t demand. They a l s o g r a n t e d c e r t a i n

a l lowances , a l though t h e companies' log s t a t e d t h a t n o

such allo\:arlic.s should h e g ran ted . The re fo re , i t was sa id , i],e

awards. were n o t made i n r e s p e c t of m a t t e r s in d i s p u t e between

t h e p a r t i e s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , i t was submi t t ed tha t i n a d i r p v t c

c o n s t i t u t e d by the making of demands I n a l o g of c l a ims del ivcrec!

by a n e m p l o y e r , a n d t h e f a l l u r e t o a c c e d e t o t h o s e d e m a n d s , t h e

Commission coulC n o t award v:aGes o r ConcIitLons more f a v o u r a b l e

t h a n t h o s e s p e c i f i e d i n t h e log .

With a l l r e s p e c t , ' t h l s argurncnt i s u n t e n a b l e . The

employees were already r e c e i v i n g , u n d e r S t e t e a g r e e m e n t s a n 6

awards, wages and a l l o w a n c e s v i r t u a l l y t h e same as those swarded

by t h e i n t e r i m a w a r d s . The companies ' claim was t o r e d u c e t h o s e

l!ages and a b o l i s h t h e a l l o v a n c e s . The Commjssion could have

r e s o l v e d t h e d i s p u t e i n f a v o u r o f the respondent companies by

c h a n g i n g t h e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t l o n s . It c o u l d h a v e f i n a l l y resDlved

it i n f a v o u r o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t u n l o n by r e f u s i n g t o make any

change. I n f a c t , as an in t e r im measu re i t d l d r e f u s e t o make any

change. But >;hen t h e Commission took t h a t cour se , i t was n o t

o b l i g e d s i m p l y to r e f r a in f rom mak ing an amrd . It ned a l r e a d y

r e f u s e d t o dismiss t h e matters under S . 4 1 ( l ) ( d ) . It was e n t i t l e ( '

. .

t o take t h e v i e w t h a t i t was i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t t o t a k e

c o g n i z a n c e o f t h e d i s p u t e 2nd make i n t e r i m awards, and t h i s i s

what i t d i d . The ava rds s o made were wi th in the mbit o f t h e

e x i s t i n g d i s p u t e .

F u r t h e r , the ambi t o f t he d i spu te had been ex tended

by t h e u n i o n ' s l e t t e r of 27th September which made i t c l e a r t h a t

t h e claims made by t h e u n i o n ' s l o g :!ere now made a g a i n s t t h e t h r e e

respondent companies as w e l l as a g a i n s t t h e compan ies o r ig ina l ly

named. I n t r u t h , t he cross-demands of 3rd August 1976 and 16th

August 1976 and. t h e l e t t e r of 27th September (and l a t e r t h e l e t t e ~

of 29 th Sep tember ) t age the r gave r i se t o o n e d i s p u t e , w i t h i n whosc

a m b i t the i n t e r i m awards f e l l .

15.

F i n a l l y , i t was submi t t ed t h a t the v a r i a t i o n of

t h e f i n d i n g s made on 30th September 1976 was beyond power and

I

t h a t t h e v a r i a t i o n of t h e inter im avlards on 1 s t October 1976

vas c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y i n v a l i d . The Commission of course had p o w r

t o v a r y i t s f i n d i n g as t o who were the p w t i e s t o an i n d u s t r i a l

d i s p u t e : S . 24(1) o f t he Act. However, i t 1-12s ubmit ted that

. I

t h e Commission had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o male o r va ry an award i n

r e l a t i o n t o the t e rms and cond i t ions of employment of pcrsons

o t h e r t h a n members of the respondent un ion , as no i n c ? u s t r i a l

d i s p u t e e x i s t e d betv:een the respondent ; companies and the respon-

den t un ion as t o t h e wages and conditions o f employment of

pe r sons no t members o f t h e respondent union. The argument on

b e h a l f of t h e p r o s e c u t o r s was based on t h e d e c i s i o n i n The Q e e g 7,

Graziers' Assoc ia t ion of New South IJales; Ex p a r t e A u s t r a l j s n

Workers' Unioz (1956) , 96 C.L.R. 317. The p r i n c i p l e upon which

t h a t c a s e was dec ided was " t h a t a n o r & a n i z a t i o n o f employees i s

n o t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f non-union members s o t h a t a l o g s e r v e d by

employers upor . an organizat ion of employees c la iming ccndi t ions

of employment f o r non-union members i s incapab le of i n i t i a t i n g

an i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e " : The Queen v . - Commonxealth C o n c i l i a t i o n 2 -

and A r b i t r a t i o n Commission; Ex p a r t e the Austral ian Rcst Trade - - I

Employees ' Federat ion ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 1 4 C .L .R . 548, a t p . 553. Hoivev'er,

i t is well es tabl ished t h a t a demand made by a union of employees

upon an employer as to t h e ra tes payable t o employees not members

of the un ion can g ive rise t c an i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e b e t w e e n t h e

employer and the union . This was d e c i d e 6 i n M e t a l T r a d e s .

Employers Associat ion v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (19351,

54 C.L.R. 387. The p r i n c i p l e of t h a t d e c i s i o n was s ta ted by

Dixon J. i n The King v. t he Commonwealth Court of C o n c i l i a t i o n

and A r b i t r a t i o n ; Ex p a r t e K i r s c h (1938), 6 0 C.L.R. 507, a t pp.

I

"TlJe p r i n c i p l e upon Which t h c d e c i s i o n

rests 1s thaL t h e i n t c r e c t w h i c h a n Q r g a n i z a t i o n

of employecs possesses Tn t h e e s t a b l i s h m c n t o r

maintenancc of l n d u s t r l a l c o n d j t l o n s f o r 1i.s

members e ~ w s a fourldat lcn f o r an a t t emnt on i t s

pa r t t o prevent elnploycrs employir?g anyone on

l e s s i a v o u r a b i e tc r lns. As a r e s u l t a n l n d u s t r l a l

d i s p u t e Inay be r a i s e d by i t I 'J tl; employers employ-

i n g none of L t s rrembers and ;in av:ard rnny be made

binding such employers and regulating t h e terns

and cond j t lons upon ::hlch t h c y m2y %I]JlOy

u n i o n i s t ; o r non-un ion i s t s . "

I n such a c a s e t h e r e i s a dispute between the employer and the

o r g a n i z a t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h e s u b j e c t matter i n c l u d e s rates payable

t o n o n - u n i o n i s t s : p e r F u l l a g a r J . i n The Queen v . Grezlers '

A s s o c i a t i o n of Rcw South I-!alcs; Ex parte A u s t r a l i a n '!!orkerZl

Union, a t p . 332; I n the p r e s e n t c a s e t h e s e e a l s o a t pp . 326, 333-4, 336, 338.

draft award served by tbe

respondent un ion wi th i t s l e t t e r of 3rd August 1976 con ta ined a

p r o v i s i o n t h a t t h e awzrd should be b i n d i n g upon a l l pcrsons

employed by the companies mentioned i n t h e draf t award, whetner.

t hose pe r sons were members of t he r e sponden t un ion o r n o t . On

t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e demand made b y the c rnpanies on 16th Augus t

1976 was t h a t t h e c l a i m s s h o u l d a p p l y o n l y t o members o f t h e

respondent un ion . The l e t t e r o f 2 7 t h S e p t e m b c r 1 9 7 6 s e n t on

behalf of the respondent un ion ex tended the u n i o n ' s c l a i m s t o

employees of a l l the companies , v:hether. o r not those employees

were members o f t h e respondent un ion . The companies, by t h e i r

l e t t e r o f 29th September 1976, d id not accede t o t h e c l a i m s of

t h e r e s p o n d e n t u n i o n . It i s t r u e t h a t t h e c o m p a n i e s w e r e p r e p a r e c

t o e x t e n d t h e i r l o g o f c l a l m s t o p c r s o n s e l i g i b l e t o be members

of t he r e sponden t un ion , b u t t h e y o f f e r e d c o n d i t i o n s o f employmnt

less f a v o u r a b l e t h a n t h o s e w h i c h t h e u n i o n s o u g h t . A t t h i s sta@

t h c r c was c l e a r l y a n i n d u s t r i a l d i S r J U t C bc twccn thc rcspondcnt

com)ianjes and t h e re:;pondcnt un ion , a l thouch its sub jec t matter

i n c l u d e d thc c o n d i t i o n s o f employment o f pe rbons no t members of

t h e union. The case I s w i t h i n the line ol ' a u t h o r i t i e s commencing

w i t h	t h c	I4etal
- Tradcs ' cabe . The QUCCJ v . G r a z i e r z ' A s s o c i a t j o n

of Idcw South \:'aies* - E x par t e A u s t r a l i a n I.!orlcers' Union i s

d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . T h i s a r g u m e n t a l so f a i l s .

The order n i s i should bc d i scha rged .

JUDGMENT STEPHEN J.

I

I

I agree bo th wi th t h e order proposed by my

b r o t h e r G l b b s and wi th h i s reasons. Accordingly, I would

d i s c h a r g e t h e o r d e r nisi.

MASON J.

I have had the aovantzge or r e a d i n g t h e r e a s o n s

f o r judgment prepa red by py	b r o t h e r Glbbs and agree wi th
them.

I

JUDGMEXT SACOBS J.

!

A number of grounds have been argued i n s u p p o r t

of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n t o make a b s o l u t e t h e o r d e r n i s i . They f a l l

i n t o two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . First, t h e r e are grounds which c l a im

t h a t t h e r e was n o i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e e x t e n d i n g beyond t h e limits

of o n e S t a t e i n t h a t t h e i n t e r i m evrard made by the Commission

w e n t o u t s i d e t h e an io i t o f any such d ispute which d i d e x i s t .

Second ly , t he re i s t h e ground t h a t t h e i n t e r i m award was I r r egu-

l a r l y made because the Comniss ion purpor ted to exerc ise the power

i n S. 28 t o make a consent award and t h a t power does not extend

t o the making of a c o n s e n t i n t e r i m award; i n a d d i t i o n , i t was

s o u g h t t o add a g r o u n d t h a t c l . 4 1 of t h e i n t e r i m award wes

i n v a l i d b e c a u s e i t p u r p o r t e d t o g i v e a monopoly of employment

t o t h e members of the o r g a n i z a t l o n , t h e Aus t ra l ian Workers '

Union and therefor? a consent award cou ld no t be made under

S . 28.

The f i rs t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n may be t h e s u b j e c t of

a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h i s Court for mandamus o r p r o h i b i t i o n u n a f f e c t e d

by t h e s o - c a l l e d p r i v a t i v e p r o v i s i o n i n S. 60 of t he Ac t . It

P a i s e s q u e s t i o n s of Commonwealth power.

T h e s e c o n d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n raises no q u e s t i o n 01'

Commonwealth power . Sec t ion 60 would apply i n t h e manner

described by Fu l l aga r J . i n The King v . B l a k e l e y ; e x par te The

A s s o c i a t i o n or' Archi tec ts , Enqineers , Surveyors and Draughtsmen

l

I

of Aus t ra l i a (1950) , 82 C.L.R. 5 4 , a t pp. 88-89, unless i t

appears from t h e Act read as a w h o l e t h a t some p a r t i c u l a r limi-

I

2 .	,	I
I

t a t i o n on j u A . s d l c t j o n m s i n t cndcd by P a r l i a m e n t t o bc irppL,,L:

and that t h c o p c r n t j on o f S. 60 was I n t x n d e d t o be s u b j e c t o I

t h a t l i m i t a t i o n . The l i m l t a t l o n m u s t be found i n t he Act read'

as a whole wi th the aid of t h e r u l e s of cons t ruc t ion deve lopcd

by t h e c o u r t s i r h c r e b y p r i v a t i v e s e c t i o n s a r e s t r i c t l y C o n s t r u e d .

.

There can be no doubt that the Commission had power to make an

i n t e r i m award. Section 1 1 1 . Even i f P . 2 8 ( 1 ) does not extend t o

t h e making of en Inter im award by consent (and I should not be

t a k e n t o say t h a t i t d o e s n o t ) , s u c h an i n t e r i m c o n s e n t award i s

an award and by v i r t u e o f S. 60(1) cannot be subjec t to pro-

I h i b i t i o n u n l e s s t h e Act r ead as a whole shows an in ten t ion tha t

such an award should be excepted f rom the terms o f S. 60(1 ) . I

can see no such	i n t en t io r l .	Tb?	round	for p r o h i b i t j o n	t h e r e f o r e	'
fa i l s .

The a d d i t i o n a l g r o u n d s o u g h t t o be argued fa l l s

w i t h i n t h e s e c o n d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Ilowever, t h e g r a n t of monopoly

of employment i n f avour o f members of a regjstered o r g e n i z a t i o n

.has b e e n h e l d t o be, on a t r u e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e A c t , o u t s i d e

t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t he Commission- and i t has f u r t h e r b e e n h e l d

t h a t t h e A c t , read as a whole, shows a l o g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i o r . t h a t

an award incorpora t ing such a g ran t shou ld be able t o be c h a l l -

enged. The King v. Wallis and Another; ex par te McKay Massey

-

'Harris P t y . L t d . and Others (19491, 78 C.L.R. 529. It h a s there-

fore been decided t h a t S. 6 0 does no t apply t o a c h a l l e n g e t o a

monopoly of employment provision. The Act , a l though it h a s s i n c e ..

t h a t d e c i s i o n b c e n amended, i s n o t r e l e v a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t t h e

present time. Th i s g round o f p roh ib i t i on cou lc l t he re fo re b e .

p r o p e r l y t a k e n b u t , as i t was n o t a g r o u n d s t a t e d i n t h e o r d e r

n i s i , it ought no t now be al lowed to be added. I a g r e e w i t h t h e

reasons expressed by Gibbs J. for t h a t c o n c l u s i o n .

3 .

Thcre rcraain thc grounds which f a l l w i t h i n :ny

first c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , the Groundr, bascd on lack o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ,

power. The f l rs t is based on a c l a im tha t the awards made by

t h e Commission were outs ide the ambit of any d ispute be tween the

r e g i s t e r e d o r g a n i z a t l o n a n d t h e three Nerv South Wales Companies,

T o t a l I<e'finc?ies A u s t r a l i a L i m i t e d , A u s t r a l i a n L u b r i c a t i n g O i l

Ref inery P t y . Limited and Aus t r a l i an O i l Re f in ing P t y . Limited.

Whether or n o t t h e awards were wi th in the ambit of any such

d i s p u t e a t t h e d a t e of the making of the awards on 27th

September 1976, I d o n o t f i n d it necessary to de tc rmine . Between

27th September 1976 a n d t h e v a r i a t i o n o f t h e award on 1st October

1976 a f r e s h d i s p u t e was c r e a t e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s .

l e t t e r of 27th September 1976 demand ing tha t t he wages and con-

d i t i o n s o f employment of a l l employees of a l l the companies

( i n c l u d i n g t h e three New South Wales Companies) should be i n

acco rdance wi th the demands i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s o r i g i n a l l o g

of 3rd Augus t 1976 de l ivered to a l l the companies except the

t h r e e New Sovth Wales Companies. This demand was r e j e c t e d on

29th September 1976 and a c o u n t e r demand was made. Thereupon a

f resh d i s p u t e a r o s e . On 30th September 1976 the Commission

v a r i e d t h e f i n d i n g o f d i s p u t e . On the fo l lowing day t he awards

were v a r i e d i n a way which was w i t h i n t h e ambit o f the f r e s h

d i s p u t e . When a d i s p u t e i n f a c t e x i s t e d a c h a l l e n g e based on

I

t h e a b s e n c e of a d i spu te canno t succeed , however the matter may

be e x p r e s s e d i n t h e c o u r s e of p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e Commission.

The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t has been sat isf ied.

The second ground of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a t t a c k i s

t h a t t h e v a r i a t i o n of the awards on 1st October 1976 was i n v a l i d .

i n that by t h e v a r i a t i o n t h e Commission p u r p o r t e d t o r e g u l a t e

t h e terms and cond i t ions of employment by t h e New South Vales

4 .

!

Cornpanics o f pc rzona o t h c r t h a n rncmbers o f the respondent

o r ~ a n l z a t l o n i n c i rcumstances where the claim for such a regu-

l a t i o n came from t h e employers. TIJC Oveen v . Graz jers

Assoc j a t lon of New South Wales 2nd Othe r s ; ex pa r t e Austral1 an

Workers' Union (1956), 96 C.L.R. 317. However, t h e ancerer t o

t h i s s u b m i s s i o n is t h a t t h e c l a i m for t h e r e g u l a t i o n of t h e terms

and condi t ions of employment by a l l t he compan ies ( inc lud ing the

I

t h r e e New South \!ales Companies) of ' persons other than members

of t h e o r i g i n a l l y made r e s p o n d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n came f r o m t h e l a t t e r . It was

i n the l o g of 3rd August 1976 and was extended

to t he t h r e e New South tlales Companies i n t h e l e t t e r of 27th

September 1976. The o r i g i n a l c l a i m a n d t h e e x t e n s i o n c e r e i n

r e s p e c t of t h e terms and cond i t ions o f employment deman2ed i n

t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s l o g . The awards were made i n s e t t l e m e n t o f

t h e d i s p u t e c r e a t c d by t ha t log, i t s e x t e n s i o n on 27th September

and t h e r e f u s a l t o a c c e d e t o i t o n . 2 9 t h September. It i s by .the

way t h a t t he in te r im award gave no more t o t h e persons employed

by t h e t h r e e Kew South Wales Companjes than they had under the

p r e v i o u s l y a p p l i c a b l e S t a t e a w a r d . It i s a l s o by the way the t

the employe r s d i d not oppose and i n f a c t s o u g h t t h e m a k i n g of

t h e i n t e r i m award a n d t h e v a r i a t i o n o f it. The d i s p u t e by t h a t -

time was i n e x i s t e n c e . The c h a l l e n g e based on t h e l a c k o f i n t e r -

I

s t a t e i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e i n r e s p e c t of t h e s u b j e c t matter, or

p a r t of t h e s u b j e c t matter,. of t h e i n t e r i m awards does not

s u c c e e d . T h e o r d e r n i s i s h o u l d ir, my op in ion be d i scha rged .

I N THE I,IATI’ER OF All fi.I’PLCCATXOIg FOR A ‘,JRIT OF

PROI~IBITJO~! AGAIiJST THE PRESJDCilT A!-ID i4323ER.S

OF THE AlJS‘i‘RP.LIA:! C9i!CII,It,TIO;! fi,llD fi,RBJ’i’RATlO!J

IVJRPHY J.

I

Somc of the grounds advanced f o r maMng a b s q l u t e t h e

o r d e r f o r p r o h i b i t i o n a r e n o n - c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o n c s b a s e d on

a l l e g e d d c p a r t u r e s by t h e A u s t r a l i a n C o n c i l i a t i o n and

Arb i t r a t ion Com9is s ion f rom the p rocceura l o r s u b s t a n t i a l

p r o v j s i o n s of t h e -- C o n c l l i a t i o n a n d A r b i t r a t i o n Act 190ll.

I a g r e e w i t h I 4 r J u s t i c e Gibbs' conc lu i jons on these. I n

a d d i t i o n , s.GO(1) of t h e A c t p u r p o r t s t o e x c l u d e t h e remedy

of p F o h i b i t i o n . The p r o s e c u t o r s ' c o n t e n t i o n that s . 6 0 ( 1 )

should be read as s u b j e c t t o s.28 is not t enable . Apar t from

t h i s c o n t e n t i o n , t h e p r o s e c u t o r s d i d no t sugges t hob; the

o p e r a t i o n of 8.60 might be avo idcd where p roh ib i t i on i s sought

on these grounds.

The p r o s e c u t o r s ' a r g u m e n t s o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g r o w d s

t r ea t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p o w e r s o f the Par l iament as i f t h e y

were conf ined to mak ing l a m with r e s p e c t t o c o n c i l i a t i o n

and a r b i t r a t l o n f o r the s e t t l c m e n t of i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e s .

extendin& beyond the limits of any one S ta te , a l though s.51(35)

of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n r e f e r s t o p r e v e n t i o n as well as s e t t l e m e n t

df such d i spu te s , and Pa r l i amen t has l e g i s l a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t

to p r e v e n t i o n ( s e e t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f " i n d u s t r i a l d i s p u t e " i n

s.4 of t h e Ac t ) . O the r p r o v i s i o n s a f t he Cons t i t u t ion shouM

n o t be overloolced ( fo r example ss .Sl( l ) and ( 2 0 ) ) .

E v e n on the prosecutors' nal.row approach, the makinc

o f t h e award I ' I ~ - . v l t h l n t h c scopc of t h e c o n s t j t u t i o n a l po.b.::ep.

If t h e r e i s a d ispute bc twccn cmplogcrs ( o r a n o r g a n i s a t i o n

Of employcrs) 2nd a trade union owr the wages and cqnd i t ions

o f non-unionis t s who a r e or nay be e:pploycd by the employe r s ,

a u t h o r i s a t i o n of t h e s e t t l e m e n t of t h e d l z p u t ? by a r b i t r a t i o n

and of an award d e s l i n c with the ?:r:n@s and c o n d i t i o n s t o be

p a i d t o the non-un ion i s t s i s w5th.in t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

power ( s e e Thc Kinp, v . K?ll,s fc Ors: c' ~ : ; r t c The State of

V i c t o r i a (1950) 8 1 C . L . ] ~ . 64, 02 ) .

The p r o s e c u t o r s r c l l c d on The Queen v. G r a z i e r s '

A s s o c i a t i o n :>f lie-,; South Kalcs- ex p a r t e J.ustr..rlian I!orkers'

- Union (1956 j 96 C . L . R . 317 b u t t h e r e t he h u s t r a l i a n V!orl,ers'

Union c a r e f u l l y r r f r a ined from na'i.$n:: any c la im regard ing

r a t e s of pay t o non-members. The employers ' a t tempt t o

i n i t i a t e a d i s p u t e by nak lng a clcnand t h a t t hey be l i a b l e

t o p a y c e r t a i n r a t e s t o mpmbers and non-rwnbers was he ld

i n c a p a b l e of g i v i n g rise t o a d i s p u t e xith t h e t rade union

( i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e r a t c s t o be p s i d t o t h e non-members).

T h i s i s n o t s o h e r e . The A u s t r a l i a n Workers' Union has

d i s p u t e d v i t h t h e employers vhat non-members should be p a i d

and what cor?ditions of employmcnt should apply .

I a g r e c t h a t the argument on smbit should be r e j e c t e d .

The employers ' demand shou ld n o t be i so l -a ted f rom t h e e x i s t i n g

wage s t r u c t u r e s . The c l a i m f o r r a t c s was t o r e d u c e l i a b i l i t y

t o p a y h i g h e r e x i s t i n g ra tes which :!ere r e q u i r e d by t h e award

I

3.

of the 1ndus t r l . a l Commlsslon o f IJcw South Wales ~nade under

t h c ~ n d u c t r i a l b ~ . b l t r n t i o n Act 19110 (N.S.W.) (as amcndcd).

The n o t j o n s of ambit whlch apply t o simple cross-c la ims

on one subjec t such as wage r a t e s a r c i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y a p p l i e d

t o d i s p u t e s i nvo lv ing mul t ip l e c l a ims and coun te r - c l a ims

( abou t va r ious r a t e s a l lowances and cond i t ions ) madc a g a i n s t

a complicated background of e x i s t i n g ra tes , a l lowances and

c o n d i t i o n s .

The o r d e r n i s i should be d i s c h a r g c d ,

!

!

I

I N THE MATTER OF A N APPLICATION FOR A

WRIT OF PROHIBITION UIRECTXD TO THE

HONOURAELE SIR JOHlJ C O C H R A W I400RE,

PRESIDE;JT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATIQN

AND ARBITRATION COMWISSI0;J A N D OTHER

MEMEERS OF THAT COMI~IISSIOW, AND THE

AUSTRALIAN KORKERS U:JIOt!, i.USTRALIAN

JJJBRICATINC OIL IZEFII!EZY PTY, LIMITED,

AUSTRALIAN OIL REFINI:!rJ PTY. LIMITED

AND TOTAL REFINERIES AUSTRALIA LIMTTEP.

EX PARTE: RNEST GRAHAM AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT AICEItI J.

A:ID T'OTAL REFINZRIES AUSTfikLIA LI/UTED,

EX PARTE: ERI!EST CRAHAil; kIlD OTIfERS ,

i

I have had t h e advantage QP yeadlpg the peasqq$

I f o r judgment of Glbbs J , and agree w i t h b o t h the TeaSQns and

t h e conclugion ,	I a & r e e t h a t the order n i s i shopJd bp
d i scha rged .

..

........ .,.. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .... .. ..... .....