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.
- AGLC
- Turner, Paul v Australasian Coal & Shale Employees Federation & Elcom Colleries Pty Ltd [1983] FCA 308
- Case
- [1983] FCA 308
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
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.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.