Geddes v Richards - [1936] HCA 20

[ ] GEDDES

NOMINAL DEFENDANT, RICHARDS

RESPONDENT. PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM A DISTRICT COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Financial Emergency-State employees-Remuneration-Statutory reduction-Ration.

ing of employment-Application of reduction-Public Service Salaries Act 1931-1934 (N.S.W.) (No. 29 of 1931-No. 3 of 1934), sec. 4 (3). SYDNEY,

Sec. 4 of the Public Service Salaries Act 1931-1934 (N.S.W.) provides, by April 22, 30.

sub-sec. 1 (b), for the reduction of salaries of State employees by percentages which are graduated according to the annual amount of the salary, and, by sub-sec. 3, that " where by rationing of employment reduction is made in the salary of any officer, the officer shall be given credit for the amount of such reduction as against the reduction to be made under this section."

Held that, by virtue of sub-sec. 3, a reduction in salary effected by rationing employment must be treated as a credit against future percentage reductions without any restriction by reference to fortnightly or other periods of payment. Until the credit is exhausted no percentage reductions may be made.

Quare whether in applying an unexhausted credit, each financial year, or other successive period for which the Public Service Salaries Act (No. 2) 1931 (N.S.W.) has been extended, must be treated separately.

APPEAL from a District Court of New South Wales.

Collis Richards, an employee in the Hume Weir Construction Branch of the Public Works Department of the State of New South Wales, brought an action in a District Court of that State against William Butler Geddes, as nominal defendant on behalf of the Government of the State, to recover the sum of £3 1s. Id., alleged

54 CLR 607

to have been wrongly deducted from wages earned by him between 30th June 1934 and 20th June 1935. The plaintiff, a married man, was at all material times a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and, as such, was entitled to be paid the rate of wages prescribed by the metal trades" award made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on 26th March 1930, as varied. By a variation of the award made on 17th April 1934, the State was authorized to make from the rates of wages SO prescribed 'reductions or deductions not greater than a statute of the State might require to be made "generally in or from substantially similar rates of pay of employees of the State." The plaintiff was paid wages fortnightly at the hourly rate prescribed by the award for a welder. He was rationed in his employment one week in every four weeks during the periods extending from 30th June 1934 to 8th December 1934, and from 4th March 1935 to 20th June 1935 respectively. No deductions material to the action were made from the wages payable to the plaintiff for the time worked during those periods, but he was not paid for any of the weeks during which he did not work in consequence of the rationing. During the period extending from 8th December 1934 to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Geddes v Richards

Details

AGLC: Geddes v Richards [1936] HCA 20
Case: [1936] HCA 20
Decision Date: 30 April 1936

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Geddes v Richards* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the District Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Collis Richards, an employee of the New South Wales Government, sued the nominal defendant, William Butler Geddes, for recovery of wages allegedly deducted incorrectly between June 1934 and June 1935. Richards claimed that the deductions made under the *Public Service Salaries Act 1931-1934* (NSW) were calculated erroneously, resulting in an underpayment of £3 1s. 1d.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of section 4(3) of the *Public Service Salaries Act 1931-1934* (NSW). This section stipulated that where an officer's salary was reduced due to rationing of employment, they were to be given credit for the amount of that reduction against any further salary reductions mandated by the Act. The dispute centred on whether this credit was to be applied only within specific pay periods, or if it could be carried forward and applied against future reductions until exhausted, even if those reductions occurred in periods where rationing was not in effect.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that section 4(3) was designed to prevent an employee from suffering a double reduction in pay – once through rationing and again through the statutory percentage reduction. The Court held that the wording of the section did not impose any restriction on the time period over which the credit could be applied. Therefore, a reduction in salary due to rationing should be treated as a credit against future statutory percentage reductions, and no such percentage reductions should be made until this credit was fully exhausted. The Court noted that while there might be a question as to whether credits could be carried over between successive periods for which the Act was extended, this specific issue did not need to be decided in the present case.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the District Court in favour of the respondent, Richards, was upheld.

Orders