Amalgamated Engineering Union v Alderdice Pty Ltd [1928] HCA 38
The award made by the Arbitration Court at the instance of the Amalgamated Engineering Union was not binding on employees who were not parties to the dispute (i.e., members of the Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union but not the Amalgamated Engineering Union), as nothing in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act conferred jurisdiction to bind employees other than parties or represented members. Awards and agreements under sec. 28(2) can only be varied by new awards in the same dispute or with the same parties, or by orders made in those proceedings, not by awards between other parties or in other disputes. Consequently, clause 8 of the Amalgamated Engineering Union award...
- Parties
- Claimant: The Amalgamated Engineering Union; Respondents: Alderdice Proprietary Limited and Others; Applicant Company: Metropolitan Gas Company; Applicant Company: South Australian Gas Co.; Applicant Company: Colonial Gas Association; Applicant Company: Hobart Gas Co.; Interested Party: Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 November 1928
- Procedural Posture
- Industrial Arbitration / Interpretation of Award / Final Appellate—high Court Decision on Stated Case
- Outcome
- Question answered in the negative—Amalgamated Engineering Union award not binding on non-member Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union members; application succeeds.
- Legal Topics
- Industrial Arbitration Awards—inter Union Effect, Interpretation of Arbitration Act Provisions, Award Duration and Supersession, Industrial Disputes—standing and Scope, Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act Sec. 28(2) and Sec. 214 a
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Amalgamated Engineering Union
Claimant
Alderdice Proprietary Limited and Others
Respondents
Metropolitan Gas Company
Applicant Company
South Australian Gas Co.
Applicant Company
Colonial Gas Association
Applicant Company
Hobart Gas Co.
Applicant Company
Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Industrial Arbitration / Interpretation of Award / Final Appellate—high Court Decision on Stated Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an award obtained by the Amalgamated Engineering Union is binding on employees who are members of a different union (the Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union) and not parties to the dispute or award.
- 2 Whether the Commonwealth Arbitration Court can make awards affecting parties not before the Court or not members of claimant organization.
- 3 Interplay between awards/agreements and later conflicting awards, especially with respect to hours of work.
Ratio Decidendi
The award made by the Arbitration Court at the instance of the Amalgamated Engineering Union was not binding on employees who were not parties to the dispute (i.e., members of the Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union but not the Amalgamated Engineering Union), as nothing in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act conferred jurisdiction to bind employees other than parties or represented members. Awards and agreements under sec. 28(2) can only be varied by new awards in the same dispute or with the same parties, or by orders made in those proceedings, not by awards between other parties or in other disputes. Consequently, clause 8 of the Amalgamated Engineering Union award...
Court Disposition
Question answered in the negative—Amalgamated Engineering Union award not binding on non-member Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union members; application succeeds.
Orders
- Applicants are not bound by clause 8 of the award in so far as it purports to make the award binding as to all other persons following the occupation set out in the award now or hereafter employed by the said applicants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment