The Queen v. Gough and Another; Ex Parte B.P. Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd1
| Author | T. J. Higgins |
| Published date | 01 June 1967 |
| Date | 01 June 1967 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X6700200208 |
282
Federal Law Review [VOLUME 2
THE
QUEEN
v.
GOUGH
AND
ANOTHER;
EX
PARTE
B.P.
REFINERY
(WESTERNPORT)
PTY
LTD'
Conciliation and Arbitration-Interstate character
of
dispute-Independence
of
claims-Log
containing claims for specified categories
of
employees-
Service
on
employer
in
State having employees
in
one category
only-
Employers served
in
other States having
no
employees
in
that
category-
Reality
of
dispute with employers
in
other
States-Few
employers served
and few
of
their employees within log-Constitution, section
51
(xxxv.)-
Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1965 (Cth),section 4'Industrial
dispute '.
The Federated Storemen and Packers' Union
of
Australia served a
log
of
claims
on
the B.P. Refinery (Westernport) Pty Limited, acompany
proposing to operate
an
oil refinery in Victoria. The same log was also
served on
five
distributors
of
oil products in other States
of
Australia
out
of
amuch larger number
of
such distributors.
New rates
of
pay and better conditions
of
employment for various
categories
of
employees were sought by the log
of
claims. Only one
of
the categories
of
employees (operators) would be employed by the com-
pany. The distributors served did
not
employ any person in
that
category
and between them employed only seven persons in another category
specified in the log.
It
was held by Barwick C.J., Taylor, Windeyer and Owen JJ.
(McTiernan J. dissenting) that the substance
of
the dispute between
the union and the refinery was so far removed and so different from the
substance
of
the alleged dispute with the distributors
that
no single
dispute existed. Further, that it was obvious from the small number
of
distributors served and the small number
of
their employees who
might be affected that no real dispute existed with the distributors.
It
was noted by the majority
that
the union had been competing with
the Australian Workers' Union to gain the workers to be employed
in the refinery as members and that both unions were endeavouring to
bind the company by
an
award.
McTiernan J., in dissenting, rejected the view, first, that there was
no genuine dispute between the union and the distributors. Secondly,
the learned judge held
that
the dispute with the distributors and the
dispute with the refinery constituted asingle dispute on the basis
that
the
refinery and the distributors formed
part
of
the oil industry.
Thus the judgments raise and deal with two
points-whether
the
dispute with the distributors was genuine, and whether the dispute with
the distributors and the dispute with the refinery constituted asingle
dispute.
1(1966) 40 A.L.J.R. 43. High
Court
of
Australia; Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Taylor,
Windeyer and Owen JJ.
To continue reading
Request your trial