R v Wallis

For the reasons I have given I am of opinion that the authority conferred upon the conciliation commissioner by the Act does not extend to making an order or award of the description sought by the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia.

It was urged, however, that even on this footing the facts did not disclose a proper ground for prohibition. Stated very compendiously the argument is that it does not appear that the commissioner will deal with the two matters otherwise than pursuant to s. 56 (1) and (2). But an order under s. 56 (1) or (2) is not what the union seeks. The objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the commissioner to make any award or order falling at all within the description claimed. The commissioner has nevertheless accepted jurisdiction over the application and the claim or demand. These facts in my opinion form a sufficient foundation for the remedy of prohibition. I think that the orders should be made absolute. An order should be made that the respondent, the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia, pay the costs of the prosecutors but not of the intervenants.