R v Australian Industrial Court; Ex parte Maynes [1978] HCA 19

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Stephen, Mason, Murphy and Aickin JJ. R v Australian Industrial Court; Ex parte Maynes [1978] HCA 19

ORDER Order nisi for prohibition made absolute.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1978, May 19 Barwick C.J.

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared in this matter by my brother Mason. I agree with his conclusion that the order nisi for prohibition should be made absolute. I agree with the reasons he expresses for the conclusion that in the circumstances the Australian Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in making the orders which it made. I also agree generally with the reasoning of my brother Mason in his examination of the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 Cth, as amended ("the Act"), and particularly as amended by Act No. 117 of 1976, though I prefer myself not to express any concluded view as to whether or not the rr. 16 (1) and 16 (7) of the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia ("the Union") provide a one-tier collegiate electoral system within the meaning of s. 133 (1) (a) of the Act as amended. It suffices, in my opinion, that for the reasons assigned by my brother Mason, the Union still has a period of grace in which to amend its rules should they be disconformable to the requirements of the Act as amended, and that for that reason there was no justification for the order as to their invalidity made by the Australian Industrial Court.

I would make an order for prohibition in respect of all the orders made by the Australian Industrial Court.

Stephen J.

I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my brother Mason. I agree that for the reasons there appearing the order nisi for prohibition should be made absolute.

Mason J.