Federated Millers and Mill Employees' Association of Australasia v Butcher

The Federated Millers and Mill Employees' Association of Australasia (the Association) brought a summons before the High Court of Australia concerning the validity of an order made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. This order had varied a previous award by reducing all prescribed wages by ten per cent. The Association argued that this reduction was invalid as it operated to lower the wage rates below those specified in logs of demands previously submitted by employers, thereby exceeding the ambit of the industrial disputes before the Court.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the order of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration reducing wages by ten per cent was valid, and whether that Court had the jurisdiction to make such an order. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the employers' subsequent logs of demands, which proposed lower wage rates and a longer working week than the Association's log, served to limit the scope of the industrial disputes and thus restrict the Arbitration Court's power to vary its award.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Gavan Duffy C.J., Rich and Dixon JJ., held that the order was valid. Their reasoning was twofold: firstly, that the employers' logs did not constitute a definitive statement of their readiness to pay the specified wages in all circumstances, particularly given the inclusion of a forty-eight hour working week which was interdependent with the wage rates proposed. Secondly, they reasoned that once the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration takes cognizance of an industrial dispute, subsequent actions or expressions by the parties cannot limit the Court's jurisdiction. Starke J. reached the same conclusion on the ground that the logs served by the employees' organisation and the employers respectively, and not acceded to, raised separate and independent disputes, not a single one, and thus the reduction was within the ambit of the employees' dispute. Evatt and McTiernan JJ. also found the order valid, agreeing that the employers' logs were not a final expression of willingness to pay the specified wages due to the phrase "subject to the adjustments and necessary variations" and the nature of the logs as a basis for an award.

The High Court answered the question regarding the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to make the order in the affirmative. Consequently, it was not necessary to answer the other questions raised in the summons.