Re The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union of Workers - Western Australian Branch
Justice Kennedy, Justice Scott, Justice Wheeler
Positively treated
Treatment by later cases (5)
3 positive
2 neutral
Citation timeline
2001
2012
Appellant: Re the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union of Workers - Western Australian Branch
Ratio
The Western Australian Industrial Appeal Court dismissed the AMWU's appeal, holding that the Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission has no statutory power under ss 26(1)(b), 27(1)(v), or 93(8) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) to order a secret ballot of employees to ascertain their wishes regarding industrial representation in a s72A application for exclusive representation rights.
Outcome
Against applicant
dismissed
Authority signal
Positively treated
Signal-weighted score: 6.4
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority,
green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data,
amber = caution, red = treated negatively.
Key facts · 5
- The AMWU applied for an exclusive right to represent industrial interests of employees at Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd chicken processing plant at Osborne Park
- The Food Preservers' Union of Western Australia was the incumbent union representing production workers; the AMWU represented maintenance tradespersons and claimed production workers wished to be represented by the AMWU
- The AMWU sought a secret ballot of employees to ascertain their wishes regarding industrial representation
- The Full Bench dismissed the application for a secret ballot, holding it had no power to order one
- The AMWU appealed to the Western Australian Industrial Appeal Court
Factors
For
- Objective ascertainment of employee wishes would be facilitated by independent secret ballot
- s26(1)(b) enables the Commission to inform itself on any matter in such way as it thinks just
- s27(1)(v) provides a general dragnet power to give all such directions and do all such things as are necessary or expedient for expeditious and just hearing and determination
- s93(8) empowers the Commission to direct the Registrar to make investigations and reports as it deems necessary
Against
- s26(1)(b) does not enable the Commission to require an employer to submit to a secret ballot or provide employee details; the employer was not even a party, merely given the right to be heard
- s27(1)(v) is a machinery provision only, relating to procedural matters for conducting proceedings, not substantive jurisdiction; a secret ballot is not a mode of proceeding
- The Robe River authority established s27(1)(v) does not authorise orders directly dealing with industrial procedure beyond procedural conduct of proceedings
- s93(8) concerns investigations for matters like breach of duty by finance officials, enforcing awards/orders, and prosecutions—not gathering evidence for parties' benefit
- There are express provisions in the Act for secret ballots (ss56, 57, 62(3), 69, 97E) in limited contexts, indicating legislative intent not to confer general secret ballot power
- No counterpart to Commonwealth s135 (which expressly empowers secret ballot orders) exists in the WA Act
Concept tags · 3
Principles · 7
articulates para 9
s26(1)(b) enables the Commission to refer to whatever materials it thinks fit for its own information, notwithstanding ordinary rules of evidence, but does not enable the Commission to compel an employer to submit to a secret ballot or provide employee details for that purpose
articulates para 14
s27(1)(v) is a machinery provision concerned only with directions in connection with the conduct of proceedings and relating to procedural matters only; it does not authorise the Commission to make substantive orders such as directing a secret ballot
articulates para 14
A secret ballot is not relevantly a mode of proceeding and therefore falls outside the scope of s27(1)(v), which relates to procedural matters necessary or expedient for expeditious and just hearing and determination of matters already properly before the Commission
articulates para 18
s93(8), which empowers the Commission to direct the Registrar or other officers to make investigations and reports, is directed to matters such as breaches of duty by finance officials of organisations, enforcing awards and orders, and proceedings for offences; it is not directed to gathering evidence for the benefit of a party to proceedings
articulates para 18
The holding of a secret ballot is not relevantly an 'investigation' nor a 'report' within the meaning of s93(8), and therefore that section does not confer power on the Commission to direct a secret ballot
cites para 12
s27(1)(v) is a machinery provision only; it does not confer substantive jurisdiction but merely legislates for the method by which the Commission may exercise jurisdiction already conferred by other sections. The section is confined to procedural matters relevant to the hearing and determination of matters properly before the Commission.
cites para 12
A provision similar to s27(1)(v) in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act amounted to a machinery provision only, enabling the court to deal with matters properly brought before it but not conferring substantive jurisdiction.
Cases cited in this decision · 2
Doubted
(1986) 67 WAIG 315
(not in corpus)
"…ballot or to delegate that task to anyone else - cf s 27(1)(p) , (q) and (r) and s 27(2). 12 Section 27(1)(v) was considered by this Court in Robe River Iron Associates v Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemens' Union...…"
Considered
(1948) 61 CAR 2000
(not in corpus)
"…1988 ] has a similar provision to s 27 in s 41 and it contains in s 41(1)(o) an identical provision to s 27(1)(v). That subsection in the Commonwealth Act, when it was s 40(1)(p), was considered in the case of Gas...…"
Subsequent treatment · 5
Positive treatment· 3
Applied
(2012) 92 WAIG
PSAB (former)
— CTING PRESIDENT- CHAIRMAN MS B CONWAY - BOARD MEMBER MR E ISAILOVIC - BOARD...
Applied
[2010] WAIRC 445
Industrial Magistrates Court
— Industrial Law (WA) — Appeal against order made by Commissioner
Applied
[2012] WAIRC 921
PSAB (former)
— Glenn Ross v Peter Conran Director General, Dept Of The Premier & Cabinet
Cited / considered· 2
Cited
[2001] WASCA 136
WA Court of Appeal
— Food Preservers Union Of Western Australia, Union Of Workers v The...
Cited
(2001) 81 WAIG 2700
Industrial Appeal Court
— tions Act 1979 EX PARTE THE FOOD PRESERVERS UNION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA,...
Archived text (3683 words)
Re The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union of Workers - Western Australian Branch [2000] WASCA 233 (28 August 2000)
Last Updated: 20 December 2000
JURISDICTION :
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL APPEAL COURT
CITATION :
RE THE AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND
KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION OF WORKERS - WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BRANCH
[2000] WASCA 233
CORAM :
KENNEDY J (Presiding Judge)
SCOTT J
WHEELER J
HEARD :
1 MAY 2000
DELIVERED :
28 AUGUST 2000
FILE NO/S :
IAC 2 of 2000
MATTER :
An appeal against the decision of the Full Bench of the Western
Australian Industrial Relations Commission
BETWEEN :
RE THE AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND
KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION OF WORKERS - WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BRANCH
Appellant
Catchwords:
Industrial law (WA) - Industrial Relations Commission - Coverage of employee
organisations - Application for exclusive right to
represent industrial
interests of employees in an enterprise - Request for secret ballot of
employees of enterprise - Whether Industrial
Relations Commission has the power
to order a secret ballot of the employees of the enterprise
Legislation:
Industrial Relations Act 1979
,
s 26(1)(b)
,
s 27
,
s 72A
,
s 93(8)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R D Farrell
The Food Preservers' Union of
Western Australia, Union of Workers : Mr R L Le Miere QC &
Mr J G M Fiocco
Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd : Mr D S Ellis
Solicitors:
Appellant : Derek Schapper
The Food Preservers' Union of
Western Australia, Union of Workers : Fiocco Hopkins Nash
Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd : Freehill Hollingdale & Page
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Case(s) also cited:
Australian Workers' Union, West Australian Branch, Industrial Union of Workers
v The Construction, Mining, Energy, Timberyards,
Sawmills and Woodworkers Union
of Australia - Western Australian Branch
(1999) 79 WAIG 3012
Re Construction, Mining, Energy, Timberyards, Sawmills and Woodworkers Union of
Australia - Western Australian Branch
(1997) 78 WAIG 1581
Eastern Goldfields Amalgamated Butchers' Industrial Union of Workers v Allen
(1908) 7 WAAR 155
Re Hospital Salaried Officers Association of Western Australia (Union of
Workers)
(1996) 76 WAIG 1673
House v The King
[1936] HCA 40
;
(1936) 55 CLR 499
R v Forbes; ex parte Bevan
[1972] HCA 34
;
(1972) 127 CLR 1
1
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
: By a notice of application filed in the
Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 5 January 2000
(FBM 1 of 2000), the
appellant applied for the following orders pursuant
to the provisions of
s 72A
of the
Industrial Relations Act 1979
("the
Act
"):
"1. The [appellant] shall have the right to represent under the
Industrial
Relations Act 1979
the industrial interests of all those persons employed
by Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd at Osborne Park or such other location as the
undertaking at Osborne Park may subsequently be carried out.
2. The Food Preservers' Union of Western Australia Union of Workers shall not
have the right to represent under the
Industrial Relations Act 1979
the
industrial interests of any of those persons employed by Inghams Enterprises
Pty Ltd at Osborne Park or such other location as
the undertaking at Osborne
Park may subsequently be carried out.
3. In this order, Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd includes its successors,
assignees, transmittees or any purchaser of the whole or
any part of its
business."
2 The grounds for that application were said to be as follows:
"Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd employs a number of persons at its chicken
processing plant at Osborne Park including maintenance tradespersons
and
production workers. The maintenance tradespersons are covered by the
[appellant]. The production workers wish to be represented
in their industrial
interests by the [appellant] and not by the Food Preservers' Union. The
appellant seeks an exclusive representation
order to give effect to the wishes
of the employees and to facilitiate efficient and orderly representation of the
employees."
3 By an undated interlocutory application, filed on 25 February 2000, the
appellant sought the following orders:
"A. That:
1. A secret ballot ("the ballot") be conducted of those employees of Inghams
Enterprises to whom application FBM1 of 2000 relates
for the purpose of
assisting the Commission determine the wishes of those employees as to
industrial representation.
2. The [appellant] and interveners in proceeding FBM1 of 2000 shall confer as
to the form, manner and date of conduct of the ballot
and report back to the
Full Bench by [insert date] (
sic
).
3. This application and application FBM1 of 2000 be adjourned to [insert date]
(
sic
).
4. There be liberty to apply to the party and the interveners.
Alternatively
B That:
1. The Registrar shall investigate the wishes of employees of Inghams
Enterprises to whom application FBM1 of 2000 relates as to
industrial
representation and shall report thereon to the Full Bench.
2. The investigation shall be carried out by way of secret ballot of the
employees.
3. Prior to commencing the ballot the Registrar shall confer with the
[appellant] and interveners in proceeding FBM1 of 2000 as
to the form, manner
and date of conduct of the ballot."
4 The grounds upon which this application was brought were particularised as
follows:
"Application FBM1 of 2000 is an application by the AMWU under
s 72A
for
exclusive representation orders in respect of employees of Inghams
Enterprises.
An important factor in the exercise of the Full Bench's discretion under
s 72A
is the wishes of the employees. Objective ascertainment of those
wishes is best done by a secret ballot of the employees conducted
by an
independent person.
The orders sought will ensure, as far as possible, objective ascertainment of
the wishes of employees and thereby facilitate the
proper exercise of the Full
Bench's discretion.
Further, the conduct of the ballot may altogether obviate the need for any
further proceedings in application FBM1 of 2000."
5 The Full Bench, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the appellant's
application, holding that it had no power under either
s 27(1)
or
s 93(8)
of the
Act
to make the orders sought. The appellant has appealed
against that decision.
6
Section 72A(2)
of the
Act
enables an organization of employees to apply
to the Full Bench of the Commission for an order that the organization has the
right,
to the exclusion of another organization or organizations, to represent,
under the
Act
, the industrial interests of a particular class or group of
employees employed in an enterprise who are eligible for membership of
the
organization. The term "enterprise" is defined,
inter alia
, as a
business that is carried on by a single employer. By
s 72A(5)
, the Full
Bench is prohibited from making an order under
s 72A(2)
without giving
persons who, in its opinion, have a sufficient interest in the matter an
opportunity of being heard.
7 There is an express reference in
s 56
of the
Act
to secret ballots.
This requires the rules of organizations to provide for secret ballots in
relation to any election for office
within those organizations. And see also
s 55(4)(e)
,
s 57
,
s 62(3)
and
s 69.
In addition,
s 97E empowers the Commission to order a pre-strike secret ballot where a
strike is contemplated or believed to be
contemplated by members of an
organization of employees in order to ascertain whether a majority of those
members endorse or do not
endorse participation in a strike. Detailed
provisions are laid down in
Pt VIB
of the
Act
as to the holding of the
ballot. See also
s 32.
There are no other relevant provisions to be
found in the
Act
regarding secret ballots.
8 The appellant relies upon three provisions in the
Act
, namely,
s 26(1)(b)
,
s 27(1)(v)
and
s 93(8)
, as conferring upon the Full
Bench the power to make the orders sought.
9
Section 26(1)
prescribes the manner in which the Commission is to
exercise its jurisdiction under the
Act
. Paragraph (a) requires it to act
according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case,
without regard to
technicalities or legal forms. Paragraph (b) provides
that the Commission shall not be bound by any rules of evidence. It is in
this
context that it is provided that the Commission may inform itself on any matter
in such a way as it thinks just. This is not
an unusual provision - see, for
example, the former s 656 of the
Criminal Code
, now replaced by
s 15
of the
Sentencing Act 1995
.
Section 26(3)
, which
requires the Commission, when proposing or intending to take into account any
matter or information that was not raised before
it on the hearing of the
matter, to afford the parties concerned the opportunity of being heard in
relation to that matter or information.
Section 26(1)(b)
enables the
Commission to refer to whatever materials it thinks fit, notwithstanding that,
under the ordinary rules of evidence,
it would be inadmissible. It does not
enable the Commission to require an employer to submit to a secret ballot of
its employees
and to provide details of those employees to enable the ballot to
be conducted. It is also to be noted that the employer in this
case is not
even a party to the present proceedings, it merely having been given the right
to be heard.
10
Section 27(1)(v)
of the
Act
provides as follows:
"27.(1) Except as otherwise provided in this
Act
, the Commission may, in
relation to any matter before it -
(a) at any stage of the proceedings dismiss the matter or any part thereof or
refrain from further hearing or determining the matter
or part if it is
satisfied -
(i) that the matter or part thereof is trivial;
(ii) that further proceedings are not necessary or desirable in the public
interest;
(iii) that the person who referred the matter to the Commission does not have a
sufficient interest in the matter; or
(iv) that for any other reason the matter or part should be dismissed or the
hearing thereof discontinued, as the case may be;
(b) take evidence on oath or affirmation;
(c) order any party to the matter to pay to any other party such costs and
expenses including expenses of witnesses as are specified
in the order, but so
that no costs shall be allowed for the services of any legal practitioner, or
agent;
(d) proceed to hear and determine the matter or any part thereof in the absence
of any party thereto who has been duly summoned
to appear or duly served with
notice of the proceedings;
(e) sit at any time and place;
(f) adjourn to any time and place;
[(g) deleted]
(h) direct any person, whether a witness or intending witness or not, to leave
the place wherein the proceedings are being conducted;
(i) refer any matter to an expert and accept his report as evidence;
(j) direct parties to be struck out or persons to be joined;
(k) permit the intervention, on such terms as it thinks fit, of any person who,
in the opinion of the Commission has a sufficient
interest in the matter;
(l) allow the amendment of any proceedings on such terms as it thinks fit;
(m) correct, amend, or waive any error, defect, or irregularity whether in
substance or in form;
(n) extend any prescribed time or any time fixed by an order of the
Commission;
(o) make such orders as may be just with respect to any interlocutory
proceedings to be taken before the hearing of any matter,
the costs of those
proceedings, the issues to be submitted to the Commission, the persons to be
served with notice of proceedings,
delivery of particulars of the claims of all
parties, admissions, discovery, inspection, or production of documents,
inspection or
production of property, examination of witnesses, and the place
and mode of hearing;
(p) enter upon any manufactory, building, workshop, factory, mine,
mine-working, ship or vessel, shed, place, or premises of any
kind whatsoever,
wherein or in respect of which any industry is or is reputed to be carried on,
or any work is being or has been
done or commenced, or any matter or thing is
taking or has taken place, which is the subject of a matter before the
Commission or
is related thereto;
(q) inspect and view any work, material machinery, appliance, article, book,
record, document, matter, or thing whatsoever being
in any manufactory,
building, workshop, factory, mine, mine-working, ship or vessel, shed, place or
premises of a kind referred to
in paragraph (p);
(r) question any person who may be in or upon any such manufactory, building,
workshop, factory, mine, mine-working, ship or vessel,
shed, place or premises
in respect or in relation to any such matter or thing;
(s) consolidate or divide proceedings relating to the same industry and all or
any matters before the Commission;
(t) with the consent of the Chief Commissioner refer the matter or any part
thereof to the Commission in Court Session for hearing
and determination by the
Commission in Court Session;
(u) with the consent of the President refer to the Full Bench for hearing and
determination by the Full Bench any question of law,
including any question of
interpretation of the rules of an organization, arising in the matter; and
(v) generally give all such directions and do all such things as are necessary
or expedient for the expeditious and just hearing
and determination of the
matter.
(1a) Except as otherwise provided in this
Act
, the Commission shall, in
relation to any matter before it, conduct its proceedings in public unless the
Commission, at any stage
of the proceedings, is of the opinion that the objects
of the
Act
will be better served by conducting the proceedings in private.
(2) The powers contained in subsection (1)(p), (q) and (r) may, if the
Commission so directs in any case, be exercised by an officer
of the Commission
or by an expert to whom any matter has been referred by the Commission."
11 There is no express power in this section enabling the Commission itself to
conduct a secret ballot or to delegate that task
to anyone else - cf
s 27(1)(p)
, (q) and (r) and
s 27(2).
12
Section 27(1)(v)
was considered by this Court in
Robe River Iron
Associates v Federated Engine Drivers' and Firemens' Union of Workers of
Western Australia
(1986) 67 WAIG 315.
That case arose out of a manning
dispute with respect to mechanical shovels. The Commission in Court Session
had made an interim
order to preserve the existing manning level. The order
was made, not within conciliation proceedings, but while arbitration
proceedings
were pending. It was apparent that the Commission had relied upon
s 27(1)(v)
as the source of its power. At 317, Brinsden J said:
"Under
section 27(1)(v)
the only things that may be done are giving of
directions and doing all such things as are necessary or expedient "for the
expeditious
and just hearing and determination of the matter". All the other
items of power provided by
section 27
with possibly two or three
exceptions are particular matters of procedure relevant to the hearing and
determination of the matter.
Three of the items are concerned with entry upon
a manufactory or similar type of building, inspection of work and machinery and
other items in any such manufactory or building, and questioning any person who
may be in or upon any such manufactory or building,
all of which items might be
regarded as items giving the Commission power to better inform itself in
respect of the subject matter
of a dispute. The interim order is one which
directly deals with an industrial procedure in the industry in respect of which
the
parties are engaged. The respondent contends that
section 27(1)(v)
supports such an order but for that to be so then the subsection must be given
a very wide interpretation beyond merely a dragnet
clause to cover any other
form of direction or order or action of a procedural nature not covered
specifically by the foregoing items.
The
Commonwealth Conciliation and
Arbitration Act 1904 and Amendments
[since replaced by the
Industrial
Relations Act 1988
] has a similar provision to
s 27
in
s 41
and
it contains in
s 41(1)(o)
an identical provision to
s 27(1)(v).
That
subsection in the Commonwealth Act, when it was s 40(1)(p), was considered
in the case of
Gas Employees (Victoria) Award and Ors
(1948) 61 CAR 2000
when it was held that it amounted to a machinery provision only. As the Court
held, a section like section 40
or 41 is a section which enables the Court
to deal with matters which have been properly brought before it. They do not
confer substantive
jurisdiction but merely legislate for the method by which
the Court may exercise the jurisdiction already conferred upon it by other
sections. I see no significant difference between the Commonwealth Act and the
Act to justify us in giving to s 27(1)(v) any wider
construction other
than as a machinery provision."
13 His Honour then went on to indicate that he was unable to accept that the
interim order had any relevance either directly or
indirectly to furthering
"the expeditious and just hearing and determination" of the matter. At 319 in
the report, Kennedy J arrived
at the same conclusion, while Olney J
agreed with the reasons delivered by Brinsden J and Kennedy J.
14 In our opinion, par (v) is concerned only with directions in
connection with the conduct of the proceedings and relates to procedural
matters only. It does not authorise the Commission to make an order of the
nature now sought. A secret ballot is not relevantly
a mode of proceeding.
15 We were referred by the appellant to two decisions of the Australian
Industrial Relations Commission in support of its argument
under
s 27(1)(v). The first was a decision of President O'Connor in
Re Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
,
unreported; Australian Industrial Relations Commission (O'Connor P);
C No 22192 of 1993; 23 May 1995. This case concerned an
application
for a ballot to be held of certain employees with respect to a
demarcation dispute relating to the extent of representation of the
industrial
interests of those employees. Reliance was placed upon s 111(1)(t) and
s 135(1)
of the
Industrial Relations Act 1988
(Cth)
. Subject to
the Act, s 111(1)(t) empowers the Commission, in relation to an industrial
dispute, to "generally give all such directions,
and do all such things, as are
necessary or expedient for the speedy and just hearing and determination of the
industrial dispute".
Section 135(1), which has no counterpart in the
Western Australian Act, provides:
"135.(1) Where:
(a) an organisation is concerned in an industrial dispute with which the
Commission or another tribunal acting under a law of the
Commonwealth is
empowered to deal (whether or not proceedings in relation to the dispute are
before the Commission or other tribunal);
and
(b) the Commission considers that the prevention or settlement of the
industrial dispute might be helped by finding out the attitudes
of the members,
or the members of a section or class of the members, of the organisation or a
branch of the organisation in relation
to a matter;
the Commission may order that a vote of the members be taken by secret ballot
(with or without provision for absent voting), in
accordance with directions
given by the Commission, for the purpose of finding out their attitudes to the
matter."
16 Without providing any reasons, O'Connor P ruled that s 111(1)(t)
was a general power which enabled the Commission to give all
such directions,
and to do all such things, as were necessary or expedient for the speedy and
just hearing and determination of the
industrial dispute. She merely said:
"I am satisfied that the Commission has power under section 111(1)(t) of
the Act to order the conduct of such a ballot, and am therefore
of the view
that it is not necessary to determine whether power also exists under
section 135."
17 The second decision was delivered in the same dispute, following
O'Connor P having found that the Commission had the power to
order that a
ballot be held. In
Re Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy
Union
, unreported; Australian Industrial Relations Commission
(Duncan DP); C No 22192 of 1993; 10 May 1996,
Duncan DP decided that the
power should be exercised in that case.
Duncan DP was not required to consider whether the power existed. In the
circumstances,
neither decision is of any persuasive value in this matter.
18 The third provision relied upon by the appellant, s 93(8),
provides:
"(8) The Commission may at any time of its own motion direct the Registrar or
any other officer of the Commission to make such investigations
and reports in
relation to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission as it deems
necessary."
This section comes under the general heading of the appointment and duties of
officers. It is not a provision, in our opinion,
which would enable the
Commission to direct the Registrar or another officer to gather evidence for
the benefit of a party to the
proceedings in order to assist it in its
application. In our view, the holding of a secret ballot is not relevantly an
"investigation".
Nor is it a "report", although the application is couched in
that language. Section 93(8), in our opinion, is directed to matters
such
as those referred in s 93(9), that is to say, the initiation of
proceedings for breaches of duty by finance officials of organisations,
the
enforcing of awards and orders of the Commission and the taking of proceedings
for offences.
19 In our opinion, none of the provisions relied upon by the appellant confers
upon the Commission the power to make the orders
sought by it. Accordingly, we
would dismiss this appeal. We would add that we can detect no error in law in
the decision of the
Full Bench that, if it had the power to make the order
sought, it would decline to exercise it.