Held, that, when an award has been made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration pursuant to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1921, the Parliament of a State cannot alter the terms of the award or confer or impose on the parties to it rights or obligations which are inconsistent with such terms.
Held, also, by Knox C.J., Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Rich and Starke JJ. (Higgins and Powers JJ. dissenting), that the possibility of obeying a law of the Commonwealth and a law of a State without disobeying either is not a test of the inconsistency of the two laws.
Per Isaacs J. (1) The settlement of an inter-State industrial dispute on LEVER BROS. such terms as the Federal arbitrator thinks just cannot be prevented or impeded by any State law (2) an award once validly made prevails over any inconsistent State law (3) a State law is inconsistent, and is therefore invalid, so far as its effect, if enforced, would be to destroy or vary the adjustment of industrial relations established by the award with respect to the matters formerly in dispute.
Held, further, by Knox C.J., Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Rich and Starke JJ. (Higgins and Powers JJ. dissenting), that secs. 12 and 13 and (if and SO far as it applies to parties to awards of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration) sec. 6 of the Forty-four Hours Week Act 1925 (N.S.W.) are inconsistent with the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act and also with awards made under it such as are specified in secs. 12 and 13, and are therefore invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.
Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v. Whybrow &Co., (1910) 10 C.L.R. 266, overruled in part.
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Clyde Engineering Co Ltd v Cowburn
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Clyde Engineering Co Ltd v Cowburn [1926] HCA 6
Case
[1926] HCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case involved appeals to the High Court of Australia concerning the validity of certain provisions of the New South Wales Forty-four Hours Week Act 1925 in relation to a Federal award made under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1921. The primary dispute arose from employers deducting amounts from employee wages, asserting compliance with the State Act, while employees claimed entitlement to higher wages based on the Federal award. The appeals were brought by Clyde Engineering Co Ltd, Metters Ltd, and Lever Brothers Ltd against employees who had successfully claimed under the Federal award in lower courts.
The central legal issues before the High Court were whether sections 12 and 13 of the New South Wales Forty-four Hours Week Act 1925, which purported to alter the standard working hours and overtime entitlements for employees covered by Federal awards, were inconsistent with the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Federal awards themselves. Specifically, the Court had to determine the test for inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws under section 109 of the Constitution and whether the State Act's provisions effectively amended or overrode the terms of a Federal award.
A majority of the High Court, comprising Knox C.J., Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Rich, and Starke JJ., held that when a Federal award has been validly made, a State Parliament cannot alter its terms or impose rights and obligations inconsistent with it. The Court rejected the proposition that the possibility of obeying both laws without disobeying either was the sole test of inconsistency. Instead, it applied the principle that an inconsistency arises if a State law, when enforced, would destroy or vary the industrial relations adjustment established by a Federal award. Consequently, sections 12 and 13, and to the extent it applied to parties to Federal awards, section 6 of the New South Wales Act, were found to be invalid as they conflicted with the Commonwealth legislation and the Federal award. Higgins and Powers JJ. dissented.