R v Blakeley; Ex parte Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association [1949] HCA 58

R v Blakeley; Ex parte Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association [1949] HCA 58

By majority, the variation of the award by the commissioner was either within jurisdiction (because a real dispute existed at the time of application for variation and was properly settled by the commissioner, or because the variation was within the scope of the original dispute) or, if procedural defects existed, prohibition should not issue due to s.16(1) of the Act. However, such a variation could bind only the parties to the proceedings for variation, i.e., the applicant employer association and the employees’ union, not other employers not parties to the variation.

Parties
Prosecutor: The King; Respondent: Arthur Blakeley, Conciliation Commissioner; Respondent: Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association; Prosecutor/applicant: Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Order Nisi for Writ of Prohibition / Judgment on Order Nisi for Prohibition
Outcome
Order nisi for prohibition made absolute against respondents to the award other than the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and its members; otherwise discharged.
Legal Topics
Industrial Dispute Ambit, Award Variation, Conciliation Commissioner's Powers, Procedural Requirements for Industrial Variation
Industrial Law Constitutional Law Industrial Dispute Ambit Award Variation Conciliation Commissioner's Powers Procedural Requirements for Industrial Variation

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The King

Prosecutor

Arthur Blakeley, Conciliation Commissioner

Respondent

Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association

Respondent

Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association

Prosecutor/applicant

Procedural Posture

Order Nisi for Writ of Prohibition / Judgment on Order Nisi for Prohibition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the variation of the award by the conciliation commissioner was within the ambit of the original industrial dispute or outside jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner followed appropriate procedure and whether errors in procedure could ground prohibition
  3. 3 Whether a specific variation can bind parties not before the commissioner

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the variation of the award by the commissioner was either within jurisdiction (because a real dispute existed at the time of application for variation and was properly settled by the commissioner, or because the variation was within the scope of the original dispute) or, if procedural defects existed, prohibition should not issue due to s.16(1) of the Act. However, such a variation could bind only the parties to the proceedings for variation, i.e., the applicant employer association and the employees’ union, not other employers not parties to the variation.

Court Disposition

Order nisi for prohibition made absolute against respondents to the award other than the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and its members; otherwise discharged.

Orders

  • Order absolute so far as the commissioner's variation applies to respondents to the award other than the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and its members.
  • Order nisi otherwise discharged.