Colvin v Bradley Brothers Pty Ltd

The High Court of Australia considered a case involving an appeal by William Cargill Colvin, an inspector under the Factories and Shops Act 1912-1936 (NSW), against a magistrate's decision to dismiss an information against Bradley Brothers Pty Ltd. The company was charged with contravening a New South Wales Minister's order, made under section 41 of the Factories and Shops Act, which prohibited the employment of females on dangerous machinery, specifically a milling machine, deemed undesirable for them. The alleged contravention occurred when Bradley Brothers Pty Ltd employed a female at a milling machine in their factory.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister's order, made pursuant to state legislation, was rendered invalid by section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution due to an inconsistency with a federal award. The company argued that a variation to the Metal Trades Award, made under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1934, permitted the employment of females on work covered by the award, including operating milling machines, unless such work was declared unsuitable by a Board of Reference, which had not occurred.

The Court reasoned that the Commonwealth award, by permitting the employment of females on work including milling machines unless declared unsuitable by a Board of Reference, directly conflicted with the New South Wales Minister's order which prohibited such employment. Applying section 109 of the Constitution, which dictates that where a state law is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, the latter prevails to the extent of the inconsistency, the Court found the state order to be invalid in its application to parties bound by the federal award. The Court noted that the award's provisions, particularly the variation allowing female employment subject to a Board of Reference determination, occupied the legislative field concerning the employment of females on such machinery for those covered by the award.

Consequently, the High Court held that the magistrate's decision acquitting Bradley Brothers Pty Ltd was not erroneous in point of law. The appeal was dismissed, and the magistrate's order was affirmed.