Ex parte McLean

This case involved a dispute between Frederick Firth, an employer, and James McLean, a shearer. McLean was convicted under the New South Wales Masters and Servants Act 1902 for neglecting to fulfil his shearing contract with Firth. Both parties were also bound by an award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, which had been made pursuant to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1928. McLean sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of New South Wales to prevent further proceedings on the conviction, arguing that the State law was invalid due to inconsistency with the Commonwealth legislation. The Supreme Court, considering the matter involved constitutional powers, removed the case to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the New South Wales Masters and Servants Act 1902 was rendered invalid, in whole or in part, by Section 109 of the Australian Constitution due to its inconsistency with the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1928 and an award made thereunder. Specifically, the court had to determine if the State law, which provided penalties for a servant neglecting to fulfil a contract, was inoperative because the same conduct was regulated by a Federal award and the Commonwealth Act.

The High Court held that the State Act was invalid to the extent of its inconsistency with the Commonwealth legislation. The court reasoned that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, by empowering the Commonwealth Court to make awards that prescribe the terms of industrial relations and the consequences of their breach, intended to provide an exclusive regime for such matters. When a Federal award, made under this Act, completely covers the subject matter of industrial relations, including the performance of employment contracts, any State law that purports to regulate the same conduct, even with different penalties, is inconsistent and therefore invalid by operation of Section 109 of the Constitution. The court followed the principles established in *Clyde Engineering Co. v. Cowburn*.

Consequently, the High Court made absolute the rule nisi for a writ of prohibition, quashing the conviction of James McLean. The court found that no offence had been committed against State law, as the State Act was inoperative in this instance due to its inconsistency with the paramount Commonwealth legislation.