No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
(1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 43. High Court of Australia; Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Taylor, Windeyer and Owen JJ.
2 Ibid. 43. ‘ It is, of course, no objection that the log was served upon employers in other States for the purpose of creating such a dispute. ’
3 Ibid. 44. ‘ Moreover the conclusion that there was in reality no dispute with the prosecutor extending beyond the limits of Victoria is, we think inescapable when regard is had to the fact that only five “ agents ”out of many hundreds of persons carrying on similar businesses inthe Commonwealth were served with the log and that the employees sought to be affected numbered only seven.’
4 Loc. cit.
5 Loc. cit. ‘ The union is an organization registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and is, therefore, entitled to make demands on behalf of its members upon their employers. Rejection of such demands, or failure by the employers to assent to them, is evidence of an industrial dispute … .’
6 Federated Felt Flatting Employees Union v. Denton Hat Mills (1914) 18 C.L.R. 88 109 per Higgins J.
7 The Queen v. Dunlop Rubber Australia Limited and Others; Ex parte Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (1957) 97 C.L.R. 71, 84-85 per Dixon C.J., Webb, Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ. ‘It seems implicit in the principle, in the forms in which it has been stated and restated, that you cannot have a body, whether incorporated or not, standing in the place of the industrial group or class and formulating demands in its interest unless that body occupies such a place because it is con- stituted for the purpose and is recognised as representing the group or class.’
8 (1938) 58 C.L.R. 436.
9 Ibid. 441.
10 (1949) 79 C.L.R. 428.
11 Ibid. 432.
12 Australian Tramway and Motor Omnibus Elnployees' Association v. Commissioner for Road Transport and Tramways (N.S.W.) (1938) 58 C.L.R. 436.
13 Ibid. 442-443. ‘In truth, the question of the existence of an industrial dispute extending beyond the limits of one State should be determinedby one positive rather than by many negative principles. Was the demand upon the respondents in two or more States genuine, or was it a sham or pretended demand ? It need not be shown that, in making the demand, the demandants were ready to enforce it by strike or lock-out. If, after considering all thecircumstances, it is determined that the demands were genuinely made in the interests of an organization or its members, and they have not been acceded to, then, so long as the geographical limits of one State are exceeded, there is a dispute extending beyond the limits of one State.’
14 Caledonian Collieries Limited v. Australasian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation [No.2] (1930) 42 C.L.R. 558.
15 (1938) 58 C.L.R. 436, 440.
16 (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 43, 44.
17 Ibid. 45. ‘However, the main contention for the prosecutor is that there was not a single industrial dispute because, as I understand the contention, there was no interest common to the prosecutor on the one hand and to the agents, treating them as a group, on the other hand. It is necessary, of course, that a paper demand in respect of industrial matters should be served on an employer or a group of employers in industry to create an industrial dispute with the claimant organization.’
18 Ibid. 46.
19 (1935) 54 C.L.R. 387, 442.
20 (1957) 97 C.L.R. 71, 81 per Dixon C.J., Webb, Fullagar, Kitto and Taylor JJ.
21 Ibid. 80-81.
22 (1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 43, 46.