Transport and Motor Operators' Union of Workers v WA Government Tramways Etc Employees' Union of Workers

The Transport and Motor Operators' Union of Workers, Perth (the appellant) sought a writ of prohibition against the President of the Court of Arbitration of Western Australia. The dispute arose from an application by the Western Australian Government Tramways, Motor Omnibuses, River Ferries and Fremantle Tramway Employees' Union of Workers (the respondent union) to amend its rules. The proposed amendment would change the respondent union's name and expand its membership eligibility to include workers employed by the General Manager of Western Australian Government Tramways and Ferries or by the Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust. The appellant union opposed this amendment, arguing it would conflict with the Industrial Arbitration Act 1912-1952 (W.A.).

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the President of the Court of Arbitration had the jurisdiction to approve the proposed amendment to the respondent union's rules, and whether the proposed amendment would contravene the requirements of the Industrial Arbitration Act, specifically concerning the definition of "industry" and the purpose for which a union may be registered. The appellant contended that the undertaking of the Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust did not constitute an "industry" or a branch of an industry within the meaning of the Act, and therefore, registering the union with such membership would mean it was not registered in connection with a specified industry as required by section 8 of the Act.

The High Court held that the question of whether an amendment altering a union's constitution should be registered is left to the unfettered judgment of the President, provided he exercises his discretion in good faith. Prohibition would not lie even if the amendment were to bring the union's rules into conflict with the Act, as such a conflict would render the amendment void, but not the President's act of directing registration void for excess of power. Furthermore, the Court found that the material before it did not demonstrate that the amendment would change the purpose for which the members were associated, thereby contravening section 8(1) of the Act. The Court also determined that a union registered for the benefit of workers employed by only one of several employers in an industry is still considered registered in or in connection with a specified industry under section 8(1).

Consequently, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and dismissed the appeal. The Court found that the President would not be transgressing the limits of his power under section 23 of the Act by proceeding with the application, and that the appellant's main contention regarding the definition of "industry" and the scope of union membership was not sound.