R v Aird; Australian Workers' Union, Ex p [1973] HCA 53

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. McTiernan, Menzies, Gibbs and Stephen JJ. R v Aird; Australian Workers' Union, Ex p [1973] HCA 53

ORDER Order nisi for mandamus discharged with costs the prosecutor to pay the costs of the Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders' Labourers' Federation.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

Nov 9 Barwick C.J.

The applicant for a writ of mandamus addressed to a Deputy President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is the Australian Workers' Union, an organization registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1972 ("the Act"). It claims to be entitled to represent in industrial matters persons who do labouring work in connexion with the production of ready-mixed concrete at what are called batching plants, not upon any building site. We have had the operations of such a plant described to us. It appears that the operation of the plant involves employees in three broad categories which were fully described in Ex. "F" in the proceedings before the Commission. The applicant has admitted employees in each of these categories to its membership and has sought to create an industrial dispute with their employers by service of a log of claims. There being no favourable response to the log of claims the applicant notified the Industrial Registrar pursuant to s. 25 of the Act of the existence of an industrial dispute said to arise from the service of a letter of demand by the applicant, the log of claims and the failure of the employers served to accede to the claims. Upon hearing before the Commission, at which the Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders' Labourers' Federation ("the Federation") was allowed to intervene, the Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter referred to it, there being no dispute as the applicant, upon its interpretation of the eligibility clause of the applicant's constitution, was not entitled to raise a dispute on behalf of those engaged in the manufacture of ready-mixed concrete at the batching plants.