Waddell v Australian Workers' Union [1922] HCA 29

Waddell v Australian Workers' Union [1922] HCA 29

The Court held that the Australian Workers' Union was guilty of a 'strike' by advising and inciting refusal of employment at award rates, and that neither the union nor its officials could rely on the reasonableness of the refusal as a defence under sec. 8; injunction was granted to restrain the union and its named officials from further such conduct.

Parties
Applicants: Charles Graham Waddell and four other employers in the pastoral industry; Respondent: The Australian Workers' Union; Respondent: Arthur Blakeley; Respondent: John Barnes; Respondents: Other officials of the Australian Workers' Union (named)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 1922
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunction / Order Nisi for Injunction Made Absolute in Full Court
Outcome
Order nisi for injunction made absolute; injunction granted against respondent union and named officials; costs awarded against the respondent organization.
Legal Topics
Industrial Arbitration, Strikes, Injunctions, Interpretation of 'strike' in Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act
Industrial Law Industrial Arbitration Strikes Injunctions Interpretation of 'strike' in 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Graham Waddell and four other employers in the pastoral industry

Applicants

The Australian Workers' Union

Respondent

Arthur Blakeley

Respondent

John Barnes

Respondent

Other officials of the Australian Workers' Union (named)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Injunction / Order Nisi for Injunction Made Absolute in Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the advice and incitement by a union to its members to refuse employment at rates set by an award constitutes a 'strike' under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1920
  2. 2 Whether the 'reasonableness' of the refusal to accept employment is a defence for the union or its officials under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has power to review or correct mistakes made by the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Australian Workers' Union was guilty of a 'strike' by advising and inciting refusal of employment at award rates, and that neither the union nor its officials could rely on the reasonableness of the refusal as a defence under sec. 8; injunction was granted to restrain the union and its named officials from further such conduct.

Court Disposition

Order nisi for injunction made absolute; injunction granted against respondent union and named officials; costs awarded against the respondent organization.

Orders

  • Enjoining the respondent organization, its agents and servants from ordering, encouraging, advising or inciting members to refuse to accept employment for the purpose of enforcing compliance with any demands, and from furthering the 'fighting policy' as published in 'The Australian Worker' newspaper dated 1st June...
  • Restraining Arthur Blakeley and each of the other individual respondents from counselling, taking part in, or encouraging the commission of any such offence and from attempting to commit or encourage anything in the nature of a strike in the pastoral industry.