Re Australian Industrial Relations Commission; Ex parte Australian Transport Officers Federation [1990] HCA 52

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Gaudron and McHugh JJ. Re Australian Industrial Relations Commission; Ex parte Australian Transport Officers Federation [1990] HCA 52

ORDER Order nisi for mandamus made absolute. Order nisi for certiorari directed to the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission made absolute in so far as it relates to the decision in matter C No 25607 of 1989; otherwise order nisi for certiorari discharged. Order nisi for certiorari directed to Deputy President Polites made absolute.

Cur. adv. vult.

The Court delivered the following written judgment:—

Dec. 4 Mason C.J., Gaudron and McHugh JJ.

In November 1988 the first prosecutor, the Australian Transport Officers Federation ("the A.T.O.F."), an organization of employees registered under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Cth ("the Act"), served a letter of demand and log of claims on various statutory authorities in Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales, including the fifth respondent, the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales ("the R.T.A."). On 22 December 1988, Deputy President Peterson of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission found that an interstate industrial dispute existed between the A.T.O.F. and the authorities in Tasmania and Victoria. The issue whether an interstate industrial dispute existed to which the New South Wales authorities were parties was referred to Deputy President Polites of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission"), the Act having come into force on 1 March 1989.

The log of claims served by the A.T.O.F. on the R.T.A. was accompanied by a demand made by the A.T.O.F. in its own right and also as agent for some 1,100 members of the A.T.O.F. who either were or would soon be employees of the R.T.A. The Deputy President refused to add the R.T.A. as a party to the dispute previously found to exist between the A.T.O.F. and certain other employers in Tasmania and Victoria arising from non-acceptance of the same log of claims, being of the view that employees of the R.T.A. did not fall within the eligibility rule of the A.T.O.F. and that it therefore lacked constitutional capacity to create an industrial dispute with the R.T.A. Nevertheless, the Deputy President found a dispute to exist between the R.T.A. and the individuals on whose behalf the log had been served.