Federated Seamen's Union of Australasia Claimant; and Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association

The case involved an industrial dispute between the Federated Seamen's Union of Australasia and the Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association and other shipowners. The dispute concerned a proposed award by the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration regarding the payment of wages to seamen. The President considered a claim for fortnightly payment of wages to be reasonable and sought the opinion of the High Court on whether he had the power to make such an award, given the provisions of the Navigation Act 1912-1920. An order nisi for prohibition was also obtained by the shipowners, challenging the validity of the proposed award.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration had the jurisdiction to make an award directing the payment of seamen's wages fortnightly, or within four hours of a ship's arrival in port, when section 77 of the Navigation Act 1912-1920 stipulated that wages should be paid "monthly not later than the first day of each month, or thereafter within twenty-four hours after the ship first arrives at any port in Australia at which there is a banking institution." The shipowners contended that the term "monthly" in the Act meant payment once a month and that any award for more frequent payment would be inconsistent with the Act.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Isaacs, Higgins, and Starke JJ., held that the word "monthly" in section 77 of the Navigation Act imposed a duty to pay wages at least once a month but did not prohibit payment more frequently. They reasoned that the section was primarily for the protection of seamen and did not prevent them from agreeing to, or an award from directing, more frequent payments, provided such payments were not otherwise unlawful. The majority also found that the President could direct payment within four hours of arrival in port for similar reasons. Knox C.J. and Gavan Duffy J. dissented, interpreting "monthly" as a rigid requirement for payment once a month and concluding that the proposed award was inconsistent with the Navigation Act, thus exceeding the Arbitration Court's jurisdiction.