R v Blakeley; Ex parte Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia [1950] HCA 40

High Court of Australia Latham C.J. McTiernan, Williams, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto JJ. R v Blakeley; Ex parte Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia [1950] HCA 40

ORDER Order absolute, respondents other than Arthur Blakeley to pay costs of prosecutor.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Oct. 31 Latham C.J.

This is the return of an order nisi for a writ of mandamus directing Mr. Arthur Blakeley, a Conciliation Commissioner appointed under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1949, to hear and determine disputes Nos. 339 of 1949 and 351 of 1949 alleged to exist between the prosecutor and the respondents other than the said Commissioner and claimed to be industrial disputes within the meaning of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1949. The prosecutor is the Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draftsmen of Australia, which is an organization registered under the Act. The respondents are Chambers of Manufactures, Employers' Associations in several States, companies such as the Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd., Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty. Ltd., two gas companies carrying on in New South Wales, and other employers in several States. Mr. Blakeley decided that no real and genuine dispute existed between the organization and its members on the one hand and the numerous employers on the other hand upon whom a log of industrial demands had been served by the organization.

An application is now made for a writ of mandamus, the prosecutor contending that the Commissioner has no power to determine conclusively so as to bind the parties that a dispute either exists or does not exist, that this Court, upon an application for a prerogative writ (whether of prohibition or mandamus), must determine that question for itself and that in so determining it in this case the Court should on the evidence hold that the alleged disputes actually do exist. If this is the case, it is then argued, the Commissioner is under a duty to exercise his powers under the Act of hearing and determining the disputes and, as he has declined to do so by reason of his erroneous decision upon a question of fact which it is beyond his power to determine conclusively, the writ of mandamus should go.