Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd v The Waterside Workers Union of Australia & the Australian Workers Union West Australian Branch Industrial Union of Workers [1980] FCA 206

20lo |S

CATCHWORDS

Industrial law - entitlement to membership of Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia - grain stored for shipping - nature of work done by employees - "waterside worker" - "stevedoring industry" - "adjacent to a wharf" - connection with

loading of ships

Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, ss.4, 132, 144.

CO-OPERATIVE BULK HANDLING LIMITED v. THE WATERSIDE WORKERS FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA and THE AUSTRALIAN

WORKERS UNION WEST AUSTRALIAN BRANCH INDUSTRIAL UNION

OF WORKERS

No. 3 of 1979

Coram: Toohey J. Perth

19 May 1980

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No.3 of 1979 )

INDUSTRIAL DIVISION )

CO-OPERATIVE BULK HANDLING LIMITED

Applicant

THE WATERSIDE WORKERS FEDERATION OF AUSTRALIA

First Respoggynt

THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION WEST AUSTRALIAN BRANCH INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS -~ =——<"'_OSCSC~S

Second Respondent

CORAM TOOHEY J.

19 May 1980

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application under s.144 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 for a declaration ™ as to the entitlement of certain persons to become and remain members of The Waterside Workers Federation of Australia ("WWF"). The application was brought by Co-operative Bulk Handling Limited ("CBH'"), the employer of the persons concerned. WWF and the Australian Workers Union West Australian Branch, Industrial Union of Workers

("AWU") were joined as respondents.

2.

When the hearing began I drew attention to s.144(7) of the Act which requires that when such an application is made, otherwise than by a person whose entitlement is in question, "that person shall be given an opportunity of being heard by the Court". No formal notice of hearing had been given to any of the persons whose entitlement was in question. Counsel for the WWF stated that, although not formally representing them, he was protecting their interests through their membership of that organisation. All were members of the WWF; some belonged also to the AWU. I still expressed some concern as a result of which a notice referring to the hearing and providing machinery for personal representations to the Court was placed on the staff notice board at the two places of employment involved. There was evidence that all the men working at North Fremantle and most of those working at Kwinana had been spoken to by a shop steward during the second day of the hearing and that all had expressed a wish that their interests be represented by the WWF. No individual contacted my associate and in the result I am satisfied that each was given an opportunity of being heard as required by the subsection.