Re Holmes; Ex p Altona Petrochemical Co Ltd [1972] HCA 20

Re Holmes; Ex p Altona Petrochemical Co Ltd [1972] HCA 20

The majority held that not all clauses in the union's log of claims constituted demands for preference within the meaning of s. 47, and some went beyond what the Act authorised, thus not giving rise to an industrial dispute upon which the Commission could adjudicate. Some judges, however, considered the claims to be within the jurisdiction of the Commission or at least capable, with modification, of grounding an industrial dispute. The rule nisi for prohibition was accordingly discharged (majority), with dissent on jurisdictional grounds based on the excessiveness or uncertainty of the demands.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Writ of Prohibition / Return of Order Nisi in the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Rule nisi for prohibition discharged by majority. Dissenting opinions would have made the prohibition absolute in whole or part.
Legal Topics
['industrial Disputes' 'preference to Unionists' 'prohibition Orders' 'jurisdiction of Conciliation and Arbitration Commission' 'interpretation of Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act']
['industrial Law' 'administrative Law' 'constitutional Law'] ['industrial Disputes' 'preference to Unionists' 'prohibition Orders' 'jurisdiction of Conciliation and Arbitration Commission' 'interpretation of Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Writ of Prohibition / Return of Order Nisi in the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the log of claims submitted by the union gives rise to an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1970' 'Whether the claims are a demand for preference within s. 47 or constitute a prohibited demand for compulsory unionism or a monopoly of employment for unionists' 'Whether lack of precision or certainty in the log of claims precludes the jurisdiction of the Commission' 'Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to hear and determine the industrial dispute based on the log of claims']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that not all clauses in the union's log of claims constituted demands for preference within the meaning of s. 47, and some went beyond what the Act authorised, thus not giving rise to an industrial dispute upon which the Commission could adjudicate. Some judges, however, considered the claims to be within the jurisdiction of the Commission or at least capable, with modification, of grounding an industrial dispute. The rule nisi for prohibition was accordingly discharged (majority), with dissent on jurisdictional grounds based on the excessiveness or uncertainty of the demands.

Court Disposition

Rule nisi for prohibition discharged by majority. Dissenting opinions would have made the prohibition absolute in whole or part.

Orders

  • ['Rule nisi for prohibition discharged' 'Prosecutors to pay the costs of the respondent Union']