Flint v Bannigan

This case concerned an appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia regarding a dispute over conflicting wages board determinations. Thomas Flint, a retail seller of hardware, was charged with an offence under the Factories Act 1907 for paying an employee, a driver of a one-horse vehicle, a wage lower than that fixed by a wages board. The core of the dispute lay in which of two wages board determinations applied to this employee: one made by the Carriers and Drivers Board, specifically for drivers, and another adopted by the Hardware Board, which covered retail sellers of hardware.

The legal issue before the court was whether an employer engaged in the business of a retail hardware seller who employed a driver of a one-horse vehicle was bound by the determination of the Carriers and Drivers Board, or if the determination of the Hardware Board, which had adopted the Carriers and Drivers Board's rate, superseded it. The question was whether the specific determination for the occupation of a driver took precedence over a determination made for a broader industry that included such drivers.

The Supreme Court of South Australia held that the employer was bound by the determination of the Carriers and Drivers Board. The court reasoned that the Act provided for a specific board for the occupation of drivers, and also for boards for trades where such drivers might be employed. This structure indicated an intention that drivers, regardless of the industry they worked in, were to be subject to the jurisdiction of the board specifically appointed for their calling. Consequently, the employer could not rely on the Hardware Board's adopted rate if it was lower than the rate fixed by the Carriers and Drivers Board.

The High Court refused special leave to appeal, finding no reason to differ from the Supreme Court's conclusion.