Waddell v Australian Workers' Union

The applicants, Charles Graham Waddell and four other employers in the pastoral industry, sought an injunction against the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) and certain of its officials. The dispute arose from the AWU's publication and dissemination of a "fighting policy" which encouraged its members to refuse employment at the minimum rates of pay determined by an award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, instead advocating for higher rates previously set by a Queensland State award. The matter was heard before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the AWU and its officials had committed a "strike" within the meaning of the *Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1920*. Specifically, the court had to determine if the definition of "strike" in section 4 of the Act, which included the qualification "if the refusal is unreasonable," applied to the broader provisions of section 8, which deemed an organisation guilty of a strike if it ordered, encouraged, advised, or incited its members to refuse employment. The court also considered whether individual officials could be restrained by injunction for their role in disseminating this policy.

The High Court held that the AWU was guilty of a strike under section 8 of the Act. The court reasoned that section 8, as amended in 1920, enlarged the denotation of "strike" beyond the definition in section 4, and that the reasonableness of the refusal to accept employment was not a defence when an organisation was charged with inciting such a refusal. The court found that the AWU's "fighting policy" constituted such incitement, regardless of whether the refusal itself might have been considered unreasonable. Furthermore, the court determined that the individual officials, by disseminating this policy, were also liable and could be restrained by injunction. The court emphasised that it had no power to review or correct mistakes in the award made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and that any perceived errors should be addressed through the proper application for variation of the award.

Consequently, the High Court made absolute the order nisi for an injunction. The respondent organisation, its agents, and servants were restrained from ordering, encouraging, advising, or inciting its members to refuse employment to enforce demands, and from furthering the "fighting policy." The respondent officials, including Arthur Blakeley and John Barnes, were similarly restrained from counselling, taking part in, or encouraging such offences or anything in the nature of a strike. The respondent organisation was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.