302 HIGH COURT 1919. must, if you can, ascertain what is the meaning of the insti Geurrox taken as a whole in order to give effect, if it be possible to do Eupen's © the intention of the framer of it. But it appears to me to a ae arguing in a vicious circle to begin by assuming an intention apar Execuror from the language of the instrument itself, and having made th Bone: fallacious assumption to bend the language in favour of the assump Gavan Dufy J- tion so made." I agree with Gordon J. in the answers which he gives to questi 1 and 2, and I agree with him in thinking that in the circumstances it is premature to deal with the other questions asked in the si mons. In my opinion his order was right and should be restored. Appeal dismissed with costs, Solicitors, Shierlaw & Jessop, Adelaide. ; BL, {HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) THE AUSTRALIAN TIMBER WORKERS'), i UNIONS: sve Stan ae 7 AND JOHN SHARP & SONS LIMITED AND OTHERS ResponpEnts H.C. or A, Industrial Arbitration—Dispute, proof of existence of —Dispute between organizalio 1919. of employees and employers—No members of organization employed by respo 2) employers—Probable dispute—Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act MELBOURNE, 1904-1915 (No. 13 of 1904—No. 35 of 1915), sees. 4, 2144. aie fen As between an organization of employees and an employer who em aceite persons doing the same hind of work as is done by members of the organization Higgins J. although no members of the organization are employed by that employ*t, an "industrial dispute" may exist or, if members of the organization will In CHAMBERS. probably apply to the employer for employment, may be probable. Australian Workers' Union v. Pastoralists' Federal Council, 23 C.L.R., followed. OLR.) OF AUSTRALIA. 303 _ Summons. H.C. or A. The Australian Timber Workers' Union, an organization registered beh under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1915, Avsrrarsan - instituted proceedings in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation 'wameaaet and Arbitration against John Sharp & Sons Ltd. and a large number brite of persons, firms and companies, alleging the existence of an Picea industrial dispute extending beyond the limits of one State. The Union, according to its rules, consisted of " all persons who are employed, or are usually employed, in any position in or in connec- tion with sawmills, timber yards, box and case factories, saw makers' shops, joiners' workshops, car and waggon shops, and coach builders' shops, or in preparing woodwork for joiners, carpenters, implement makers, coach builders, car and waggon builders, and hewers, splitters, fallers, and all woodworking machinists throughout the Commonwealth, and such other persons who may from time to time be appointed to any office." An application was made by the organization by motion to the High Court under sec. 2144 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and _ Arbitration Act 1904-1915 for a decision on the question whether the alleged dispute or any part thereof existed, or was threatened aa 3 or impending or probable, as an industrial dispute extending beyond the limits of any one State. The other material facts appear in the judgment of Higgins J. hereunder. Foster, for the claimant organization. Stanley Lewis and Owen Dixon, for some of the respondents. Robertson, for other respondents. Cur, adv. vult. ices J. read the following judgment :— Aug. 4. This is an application for a decision under sec. 2144 of the Com- — -monwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There has been con- siderable difficulty in finding which of the respondents to the plaint are parties severally to the numerous items of the log; inasmuch 304 HIGH COURT (1 H.C. or A. as the log affects employers so diverse as proprietors of bush milk ta proprietors of timber yards, proprietors of furniture wareho Ausrrarsan and so forth. An important point of law was raised by respond ae who have timber yards in Western Australia. They have, for pO instance, machinists of different varieties employed ; but at pre Joun Suarr none of the machinists actually employed are members of the & Sons Lap. | 4 : a 4 -— Claimant Union. There are plenty of wood machinists in the Union, and there is no reason for thinking that they would not take employ- ment with these respondents if they can get satisfactory terms. In the case of Australian Workers' Union v. Pastoralists' Federal Council (1) I held that there is nothing in the Constitution or in the Act forbidding the finding of a dispute between a union employers, even if no members of the union are actually in employment of a respondent ; and that, even if this view be inco tect, there is a probable dispute, if members of the union would probably apply to the respondent for employment. At first M Dizon asked me to state a case for the opinion of the High Co on the subject. I am always chary of refusing a request by counsel for a case to be stated for the full High Court, inasmuch as m decision under sec. 2144 is not subject to any appeal. But even decision in the Pastoralists' Case. (The learned Judge then made an order which is not material to this report.] Solicitors for the claimant, Brennan & Rundle. Solicitors for the respondents, Derham, Robertson & Derham. Bg (1) 23 C.L.R., 22,