FAIRBRASS V. STEVEDORING INDUSTRY COMMISSION

FAIRBRASS V. STEVEDORING INDUSTRY COMMISSION

The Stevedoring Industry Commission acted within the wide powers conferred by the regulations in making orders granting preference in employment and attendance money to union members; therefore, the Court cannot intervene so long as the orders are made bona fide for the statutory purpose.

Parties
Plaintiff: Fairbrass; Defendant: Stevedoring Industry Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 1947
Procedural Posture
Summons for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application, Oral Judgment
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Waterside Workers' Employment, Orders by Industry Commissions, Union Membership Preference, Interlocutory Injunctions
Industrial Law Waterside Workers' Employment Orders by Industry Commissions Union Membership Preference Interlocutory Injunctions

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fairbrass

Plaintiff

Stevedoring Industry Commission

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summons for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application, Oral Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Stevedoring Industry Commission may lawfully make orders conferring employment or payment preference on members of specified unions to the exclusion of others.
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiff, as a non-union registered waterside worker, may challenge orders restricting attendance money and employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Stevedoring Industry Commission acted within the wide powers conferred by the regulations in making orders granting preference in employment and attendance money to union members; therefore, the Court cannot intervene so long as the orders are made bona fide for the statutory purpose.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's summons for interlocutory injunction is dismissed.
  • Defendant's costs will be costs in the action.