Re Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union; Ex parte W.J. Deane & Sons

The applicants, W.J. Deane & Sons Pty Ltd and others, sought writs of prohibition, mandamus, and certiorari against Senior Deputy President Riordan, Deputy President Watson, Commissioner Lawson, and the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union. The dispute concerned an alleged industrial dispute within the meaning of the *Industrial Relations Act 1988* (Cth) and the Australian Constitution, which the applicants contended did not exist.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether an unauthorised demand, purportedly made on behalf of the unions that now form the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union, could constitute the sole evidence of an industrial dispute. The applicants argued that if the demand lacked proper authorisation from the union, it could not be considered a demand of the union, and therefore, no industrial dispute existed between the parties.

The Court considered the nature of an industrial dispute and the requirements for its existence under the relevant legislation and the Constitution. The applicants' argument hinged on the proposition that a demand must be properly authorised by the entity on whose behalf it is made to be legally effective. If the demand was unauthorised, it could not form the basis of an industrial dispute, and consequently, the Industrial Relations Commission lacked jurisdiction to proceed. The Court was presented with the rules of the Operative Painters & Decorators Union of Australia as part of the material before it.