Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association v Federated Seamen's Union of Australasia [1923] HCA 40

Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association v Federated Seamen's Union of Australasia [1923] HCA 40 - HCA 1923 case summary — Zoe

[53]

arisen in Melbourne. I think the evidence establishes no more than that the members present at a meeting of the Victorian Branch of the Union resolved not to man the Coolana unless the request which had been made for the employment of three trimmers in addition to the complement prescribed by the Manning Committee was granted, and that the Secretary of the Branch so informed the owners of the Coolana, and, assuming that the passing of this resolution and its communication to the owners of the Coolana amounted to an order- ing, aiding, or encouraging of job control, there is, in my opinion, nothing to show that either the members of the Victorian Branch or its Secretary acted with the authority of the respondent Union. The rules of the Union provide for the existence of Branches, and every member of the Union is attached to some Branch, but the government of the Union is in the hands of the members of the Union in general or special meetings, and the Committee of Manage- ment, which consists of the General President, the General Secretary, and the Secretary of each Branch, is charged with the duty of carry- ing out the instructions given by resolutions of the members of the Union in such meetings, and its powers are expressly limited to those delegated to it by such resolutions. Provision is made for meetings of members of Branches for the purpose of transacting the business of their Branch, but I can find nothing in the rules authorizing a Branch Secretary or members of a Branch to act on behalf of the Union. It is not suggested that any express authority to do the acts complained of in this case was given by the Committee of Management or by the executive officers of the Union or by any meeting of members of the Union as distinct from members of the Victorian Branch; and the rules, in my opinion, confer no power on a meeting of members of a Branch, or on a Branch secretary, to act on behalf of the Union. The decision in Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v. Burgess Brothers Ltd. (1), to which we were referred by Mr. Lowe, appears to me to cover this case. In my opinion, the order nisi should be discharged.

[84]

beyond the limits of the State, the Branch officials shall immedi- ately notify the General President and the General Secretary, and these two officials shall take such steps as the necessity of the case requires." But, in the first place, if the Branch exercise this power to try to settle a dispute confined to a State, the action which it takes is not necessarily the action of the Union. A Branch cannot usually be treated as an agent of the Union, so as to make the acts of the Branch the acts of the Union (Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries Ltd. v. Yorkshire Miners' Association (1); Smithies v. National Association of Operative Plasterers (2) ). Counsel cannot point to any clause in the rules of the Union that prevents these cases from applying to this case. Under rule 13, " the Union shall be governed by the members of the Union in annual general meeting or in special general meeting, or in special meeting assembled, and the Committee of Management shall carry out all the instructions given by resolu- tions of the members of the Union in such annual general meeting or special general meeting or special meeting of the Union." Under tule 15, the Committee of Management 'shall have only such powers as are delegated to it by the resolutions of the members of the Union in annual general meeting or in special general meeting, or in special meeting assembled." Rule 16 prescribed the duties of the Committee of Management, to submit to such meetings reports on certain specified subjects affecting the Union; and the Committee has the right to call a general or special or general special meeting of the members of the Union, or of any Branch, or of all the Branches. There must be a general meeting of the Union in April of each year. Rule 21 prescribes on whose requisition a special meeting of the members of the Union shall be called. Rule 23 provides that "all financial members of the Union shall have the right to speak and take part in and vote upon any question except the election or suspension of Branch officials at any ordinary meeting of any Branch but shall not have the right to vote at special meet- ings of Branches other than the Branches to which they belong." Under rule 48 the Branch Secretary has to report to the General Secretary whenever any dispute arises as to wages or working con- ditions, and as to what steps the Branch is taking to reach a (1) (1906) A.C., 384. (2) (1909) 1 K.B., 310,

[108]

The organization styled the Federated Seamen's Union was charged on information with the following contravention of the award and the Arbitration Acts: "that the defendant did . . . aid job control by some of its members to wit job control exercised in con- nection with the s.s. Coolana . . . by members of the defendant organization to enforce manning conditions not approved by the Manning Committee provided by the Navigation Act to deal with the manning of vessels namely to enforce a demand for employment of trimmers on the said vessel. . . ." Letters passed between the owners of the vessel, the Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association and executive officers of the Federated Seamen's Union. The owners and the Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association desired to know, in substance, whether the Union was agreeable to the Coolana being manned, in respect of the stokehold, in accordance with the decision of the Manning Committee, namely, by six firemen and without the three trimmers demanded by the firemen, but the answers of the executive officers of the Union, so far as they replied to letters written to them, were evasive and disingenuous, and no conclusion can be drawn from this correspondence whether the organization did or did not aid " job control." A meeting, however, of the Victorian Branch of the Federated Seamen's Union was held at which it was resolved that "no action " be taken with respect to the s.s. Coolana "unless the request for three trimmers" be "granted." This resolution distinctly supports the demand of the Union men for three trimmers and participates in that demand. 'The act involved in the resolution aids, in my opinion, the job con- trol practised, in the case of the Coolana, by the members of the Union. But is the organization called the Federated Seamen's Union implicated by that resolution? It is necessary for the infor- mant to establish that the act was done by the authorized agent of the organization (Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (118 paragraphs)