The Honourable Ralph Willis & Ors v Australian Building Construction Employees & Builders Labourers Federation [1983] FCA 410

was

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) )

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. V23 of 1981 ) INDUSTRIAL DIVISION )

The HONOURABLE RALPH WILLIS (who sues as Minister of State for Employment and Industrial Relations) and OTHERS

Applicant

The AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES ' AND BUILDERS LABOURERS' FEDERATION ee

Respondent

CORAM: Evatt, Sheppard and Morling, JJ.

DATED: 19 December 1983

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT: The hearing of evidence in this application for the cancellation of the registration of the respondent as an

organization under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904

commenced on 8 November 1982. Evidence continued until March 1983. Evidence was given in respect of a variety of incidents which occurred in N.S.W., The Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia. The Court sat in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. The oral evidence extended over 3,000 pages of transcript; there are numerous exhibits themselves involving

many hundreds of pages.

On 16 March 1983 the Court, on the application of all applicants, adjourned the proceedings with liberty to the parties to apply. The application was consented to by the

respondent. The purpose of the adjournment was to enable the

parties to confer under the chairmanship of Mr. Vosti, a retired commissioner of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to ascertain whether some agreement could be reached which might bring industrial peace into the building and construction industry in Australia. The subsequent history of the matter is recorded in the transcripts of the proceedings of the Court for 21 March 1983, 6 April 1983, 16 May 1983 and 31 October last. It is summarised at pp. 3391 - 3392 of the transcript for 31 October

1983.

On 12 December 1983 the matter was again in the list. On that day the Minister of State for Employment and Industrial Relations sought leave to discontinue the proceedings. He did so because the respondent has offered an undertaking as to its future conduct. The undertaking has been offered as an undertaking to each of the applicants including the Minister and to the Court. It 1s not acceptable to any applicant other than the Minister. The remaining applicants, who comprise a number of employer organisations in the building industry, by their Counsel describe the undertaking as: