Grace v Taylor - [1910] HCA 65

11 CLR 537

ALBERT EDWARD GRACE

WALTER I. TAYLOR

RESPONDENT. INFORMANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Minimum Wage Act 1908 (N.S. W.) (No. 29), sec. 8 -Tea-money-Overtime-Over

Tea-money is payable to a workman under sec. 8 of 1908 (No. 29) only in cases where the workman works after six o'clock in the evening of a working day.

Decision of Sly J.: Taylor v. Grace, 27 W.N. (N.S.W.), 115, reversed.

APPEAL by the defendant by special leave from the decision of Sly J. upon the hearing of a special case.

The information alleged that between 18th and 23rd April both inclusive the appellant, being the employer of a workman within the meaning of the Minimum Wage Act, to wit Nellie Brady, a female, did unlawfully fail to carry out the provisions of the said Act in that on the said date the said workman was required to work overtime, to wit, more than 48 hours in the week above mentioned, and such employer did not on such last mentioned day pay such workman a sum of not less than sixpence as tea- money.

11 CLR 538

It was admitted that Nellie Brady had during the week ending on 23rd April worked 48 hours up to 9 a.m. on the last-mentioned day, and that she worked till 1 p.m. on that day, making four hours overtime for the week.

The magistrate held that tea-money is only payable for work done after 6 p.m. on any day. Sly J. reversed this decision: Taylor v. Grace 1.

The defendant obtained special leave to appeal. Blacket, for the appellant. Sec. 3 of the Minimum Wage Act draws a distinction between overtime in any week, that is more than 48 hours work, and overtime on any working day, which means working after 6 p.m. on such day. Sec. 6 applies to over- time generally. Sec. 8 draws the distinction which is provided for by sec. 3, and refers to overtime on any day. "Tea-money has its ordinary meaning of money required for tea, and is only payable when an employé is required to work after six o'clock in the evening on any working day.

Whitfeld and Pickburn, for the respondent. The sixpenee payable for tea-money under sec. 8 is merely a bonus payable to a particular class of employé for working overtime, in addition to the minimum overtime pay payable under sec. 6. It does not necessarily mean money for the purchase of a meal. There is an analogous provision in the Queensland Factories and Shops Act (Amendment) Act (8 Edw. VII. No. 4). The section applies to over- time worked at any time during the week, whether before or after the ordinary working hours. If tea-money means meal money it should be equally payable to an employé required to work after lunch on Saturday, if he has then worked more than 48 hours in the week, because he has then worked overtime on that day.

GRIFFITH C.J. The question…

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 Grace v Taylor

Details

AGLC: Grace v Taylor [1910] HCA 65
Case: [1910] HCA 65
Decision Date: 24 November 1910

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Grace, was the employer of a female workman, Nellie Brady, and was alleged to have unlawfully failed to pay her tea-money as required by the Minimum Wage Act 1908 (N.S.W.). The dispute arose because Nellie Brady had worked overtime during a particular week, exceeding 48 hours, and the employer had not paid her sixpence as tea-money.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the proper interpretation of section 8 of the Minimum Wage Act 1908. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the provision for "tea-money" was payable for any overtime worked in a week, or only for overtime worked after a specific time on a working day. The Act defined two types of overtime: working more than 48 hours in a week, and working after six o'clock in the evening on any working day.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that section 8 of the Act, which mandates the payment of tea-money, clearly refers to the latter definition of overtime. The Chief Justice, Griffith CJ, stated that the phrase "overtime on any day" in section 8 was plainly intended to mean working after six o'clock in the evening on a working day, as contemplated by section 3 of the Act. The purpose of the payment, being for "tea-money," further supported this interpretation, indicating it was intended to provide a meal allowance. Justices Barton and O'Connor concurred, and Justice Isaacs added that the distinction between overtime in a week and overtime on a specific day, as drawn in section 3, was crucial and had been overlooked by the lower court.

Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of Sly J. and held that tea-money was only payable under section 8 of the Minimum Wage Act 1908 when a workman was required to work after six o'clock in the evening on a working day, not simply for exceeding 48 hours of work in a week. The appeal was allowed.

Orders