Turner, Paul v Australasian Coal and Shale Employees Federation and Elcom Colleries Pty Ltd

Re: PAUL TURNER
And: THE AUSTRALASIAN COAL AND SHALE EMPLOYEES FEDERATION AND ELCOM COLLIERIES
PTY. LIMITED
No. 24 of 1983
Practice and procedure

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
Beaumont J.

CATCHWORDS

Practice and procedure - Jurisdiction of Federal Court to deal with non-federal claim against second respondent - Industrial law - Applicant offered employment by second respondent subject to his achieving clearance or membership of the first respondent - Declaration sought under s.144 that applicant entitled to be enrolled as member of the first respondent - Application to join second respondent as party to proceedings - Declaration sought against second respondent that applicant employed within meaning of s.144 - Order sought to restrain second respondent from terminating employment - Question of employment of applicant by second respondent central part of controversy between applicant and first respondent - Accrued jurisdiction of Federal Court considered - Formula of "common transactions and facts" applied.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904-1983 ss.144(1), 144(3), 144(5), 144(5A), 144(6) and 144(7)

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 31:10:1983

ORDER

1. Application of the second respondent to be dismissed from these proceedings is refused.

2. Costs reserved.

3. Fix Monday, 7 November, 1983 at 2.15 p.m. for a further directions hearing.

JUDGE1

This matter was heard with matter No. 14 of 1983. For the reasons given in that matter, I would refuse the application of the second respondent to be dismissed from the proceedings. I will reserve costs at this stage. I fix Monday, 7 November, 1983 at 2.15 p.m. for a further directions hearing in the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Paul Turner v Australasian Coal and Shale Employees Federation and Elcom Colleries Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was presented with a dispute concerning employment conditions and union membership. The applicant, Turner, sought a declaration that he was entitled to be enrolled as a member of the Australasian Coal and Shale Employees Federation, and that he was employed by Elcom Colleries Pty Ltd within the meaning of s.144. Turner also sought an order to restrain Elcom Colleries from terminating his employment. The crux of the controversy between Turner and the Federation revolved around whether Turner was indeed employed by Elcom Colleries.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear Turner's claims against Elcom Colleries, given that the dispute primarily involved non-federal matters. The court considered whether Turner's employment by Elcom Colleries fell within the scope of the Federal Court's jurisdiction under the industrial relations laws. The court applied the formula of "common transactions and facts" to determine if the employment dispute was sufficiently intertwined with federal matters to warrant the Federal Court's intervention.

In assessing the matter, the court found that Turner's employment by Elcom Colleries was indeed a pivotal aspect of the dispute, as it related to his entitlement to union membership. The court determined that the employment issue was not entirely separate from the federal jurisdiction, as it involved common transactions and facts that had implications for federal industrial law. Consequently, the court held that it had the jurisdiction to hear the case. The court dismissed Elcom Colleries' application to be dismissed from the proceedings and ordered further directions to be set for 7 November 1983. The court reserved costs and directed that a further directions hearing be held at 2.15 p.m. on that date.

Orders of the court

1. Application of the second respondent to be dismissed from these proceedings is refused.

2. Costs reserved.

3. Fix Monday, 7 November, 1983 at 2.15 p.m. for a further directions hearing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established