In the Matter of the Metal Industry Award 1971

[1978] FCA 86

V N o . 23 of 1 9 7 8

i	INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
I	VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

‘-IN THE MATTER of t h e Metal I n d u s t r y

Award 1 9 7 1 ( P a r t 11) - Draughtsmen,

Product lon Planners and Technical

Officers

and

‘ I N THE MATTER of an a p p l i c a t i o n for

an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the above Award

dated the 23rd day of Augusx, 1971.

I

\CATCHWORDS

I n d u s t r l a l Law	-	J u r i s d i c t i o n	-	I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
award.

- C o n c l l l a t i o n a n d A r b l t r a t i o n A c t 1 9 0 4 , s s . 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 ,

1188, 118B,.119, 1 2 2 , 123

-Fede ra l Cour t of A u s t r a l i a A c t 1 9 7 8 , s s .13 , 1 4 and 2 0 .

l

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF	AUSTRALIA	V No. 23	of	1 9 7 8
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

i VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

IN THE NATTER o f t h e Metal I n d u s t r y

Award 1 9 7 1 (Par t 11) - Draughtsmen,

Product ion Planners and Technlcal

O f f x e r s .

and

- I N THE MATTER of a n a p p l i c a t l o n f o r

an in t e rp re t a t ion of the above Award

da ted the 23rd day of Augus t , 1971.

NORTHROP J. - .. REASONS FOR JUEGMENT -10TH OCTOBER 1978

The fo l lowing App l i ca t ion made under s .110 C o n c l l i a t i o n

a n d A r b l t r a t i o n A c t 1 9 0 4 as amended is before the Cour t .

“APPLICATION i s hereby made by t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f

Archl tects Engineers Surveyors and Draughtsmen of

Austral la f o r an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g

p r o v i s i o n of t h e Metal I n d u s t r y Award 1 9 7 1 (Par t

11) - Draughtsmen Production Planners and Technical

Officers ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s “ t h e Award“) :-

“Not wi ths tanding any provision e lsewhere conta ined

h e r e i n , an employer may deduct payment for any day

I	an employee cannot usefully be employed because of
any s t r ike , breakdown of machinery or any stoppage
of work by any such cause for which the employer
canno t r ea sonab ly be he ld r e spons ib l e . P rov lded
t h a t s u c h s t a n d i n g down s h a l l not be deemed a break
i n t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f employment for the purpose of
a n y r i g h t s u n d e r t h i s p a r t . “
The A p p l i c a n t s u b m l t s t h a t t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d
p r o v i s i o n s h o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d i n the fo l lowing
manner, namely : -
That upon t h e t r u e meaning and i n t e n t o f t h e s a i d
p rov i s lon , John Va lves P ty . L td . d ld no t have the
r i g h t t o d e d u c t payment f o r t h e 3 0 t h d a y of
September 1 9 7 7 , t h e 3 r d , 4 t h , 5 t h , 6 t h , 7 t h , l o t h ,
l l t h , 1 2 t h , 1 3 t h , h 14 th days of October 1 9 7 7 from
t h e s a l a r y p a y a b l e t o Nevllle John Speedie.”

I

Sec t lon 1 1 0 o f t h e C o n c i l i a t i o n a n d Arbi t ra t ion A c t

I

p r o v i d e s a s f o l l o w s :

. /2.. .

!

- 2 -

" 1 1 0 . (1) The Cour t i s empowered, s u b l e c t t o t h l s

s e c t i o n , t o g l v e a n m t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a n award.

( 2 ) An a p p l i c a t l o n f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t l o n

of an award may be made by the T l ln i s t e r or an

o r g a n i z a t l o n o r p e r s o n bound by the award.

( 3 ) The d e c l s i o q o f t h e C o u r t upon t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n i s f i n a l a n d c o n c l u s l v e a n d i s b i n d m g

on a l l organiza t ions and persons bound by the award

which o r who have been given an opportuni ty of

be ing heard by the Cour t . I'

Notice of t h e A p p l i c a t l o n was g i v e n t o Metal Trades

I n d u s t r y A s s o c i a t i o n o f A u s t r a l i a , Metal I n d u s t r i e s A s s o c i a t i o n ,

Tasmanla , Meta l Indus t r ies Assoc ia t lon , South A u s t r a l i a , t h e

V i c t o r i a n Chamber of Manufacturers , Metal Manufacturers Limited

and John Va lves P ty . L td . , bu t none o f t hese o rgan iza t ions o r

1 companies appeared. A t t h e h e a r i n g , Mr. Kennan of counsel appeared

I f o r t h e A s s o c i a t i o n of Archi tects , Engineers , Surveyors and

Draughtsmen of Austral ia (AAESDA), a n o r g a n i z a t i o n of employees.

The o r g a n i z a t i o n s b e i n g AAESDA, Metal Trades Indus t ry

A s s o c i a t i o n o f A u s t r a l i a , Metal Indus t r i e s Assoc la t ion , Tasman ia ,

Metal I n d u s t r i e s A s s o c i a t i o n , S o u t h A u s t r a l l a , a n d t h e V i c t o r i a n

Chamber of Manufacturers are p a r t i e s t o a n d t h e r e f o r e u n d e r s . 6 1 ,

C o n c i l i a t i o n a n d A r b i t r a t i o n A c t , are bound by tt.e Metal I n d u s t r y

Award ( P a r t 11) - Draughtsmen, Production Planners and Technical

Off icers ( the Award) . John Valves Pty. Ltd. i s and a t a l l materlal

times was a member of t h e Metal Trades Indus t ry Assoc ia t ion of

A u s t r a l i a a n d a member of t h e V i c t o r i a n Chamber of Manufacturers

and the re fo re bound by t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Award. The Award

prescr ibes condi t ions of employment , inc ludlng rates of wages, t o

be observed by pe r sons bound by t h e Award. C lause 9 (b ) of t h e Award

is a s f o l l o w s :

11 9. - TENIS OF EMPLOYMENT

(a1

(b) Notwithstanding any provis lon e lsewhere contained

hereln, an employer may deduct payment for any

day an employee cannot usefully be employed

because of any strike, breakdown of machinery or

any stoppage of work by any such cause for which

the employer cannot reasonably be he ld r e s p o n s l b l e .

Provlded t h a t such s t a n d i n a down s h a l l n o t b e

.,

deemed a break In the cont lnul ty of employment

f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a n y r i g h t s u n d e r t h i s p a r t . "

. / 3 , . .

- 3 -

Neville John Speedie 1s and a t a l l material tlmes was a

m e m b e r o f AAESDA ernplnyed by John Valves Pty. Ltd. and was e n t i t l e d

t o t h e b e n e f i t of t h e Award, Mr. Speedie was s tood down from h i s

employmen t on the days spec l f l ed in the App l i ca t ion and John Va lves

Pty. Ltd. deducted payinent f r o m Mr. S p e e d i e f o r t h o s e d a y s a l l e g i n g

tha t he cou ld no t u se fu l ly be employed because o f a st3ppage of work

by employees i n t h e S ta te E l e c t r i c i t y Commission o f V i c t o r i a , b e l n g

a cause for whyhlch John Valves Pty. Ltd. could not reasonably be he ld

r e s p o n s i b l e . Mr I S p e e d i e d i d n o t a t t e n d for work on t h o s e days.

A t t h e h e a r i n g of t h e A p p l i c a t i o n , Mr. Kennan submi t ted

t h a t t h e meanlng of Clause 9 (b) of t h e Award was c l e a r b u t t h a t o n

t h e facts of t h e case, John Valves Pty. Ltd. was n o t e n t i t l e d t o

t h e p r o t e c t l o n of t h e c l a u s e a n d a c c o r d i n g l y t h e C o u r t s h o u l d make

t h e o r d e r as s o u g h t i n t h e A p p l i c a t i o n . H e r e f e r r r e d t o R e Ca rpen te r s

and Jo ine r s Award (1971) 1 7 F.L.R. 330, a d e c i s i o n of t h e

Commonwealth Indus t r i a l Cour t cons t i t u t ed by th ree Judges wh ich

con ta ined expres s ions o f op in lon as t o t h e p r o p e r c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a

term of an award i n a form similar t o Clause 9 ( b ) . I n p a r t i c u l a r

i n t h a t c a s e , t h e C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e m e a n i n g of t h e words " u s e f u l l y

employed'' when u s e d I n t h e c l a u s e , see S p i c e r C . J . and Smithers J.

a t pp.333-4 and Joske J. a t p,335-6. Mr. Kennan d l d n o t c h a l l e n g e

t h o s e o p i n i o n s b u t s a i d t h a t o n t h e facts M r . Speedie could have

been I1usefu l ly employed" on the days ln ques t ion , H e r e l i e d also I I

on a judgment by Keely J. given on 23rd December, 1977 in-Re Technlcal

I	S t a f f	(TAA) Award 1 9 7 4 i n which H i s Honour made an order under s.110
I

of t h e A c t i n a form slmilar t o t h a t s o u g h t i n t h e p r e s e n t A p p l i c a t i o n . ,

I

The ques t lon o f whe the r t he Fede ra l Cour t had ju r i sd i c t ion t o make

, .

an o rde r Ln t h a t form and o f t ha t k ind in p roceed ings unde r s .110 o f

t h e A c t was n o t a d v e r t e d t o i n H i s Honour's judgment.

A t a n e a r l y s t a g e i n t h e h e a r i n g of t h e App l i c a t i o n , t h e

I

C o u r t r a i s e d t h e i s s u e of whether it h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make t h e

order sought bu t cont inued t o comple te the hear ing of the p roceed ings

and reserved i t s d e c i s i o n .

Before m a k i n g a n y o r d e r , t h e C o u r t m u s t b e s a t l s f i e d t h a t

it h a s ~ u r i s d i c t i o n t o make t h e o r d e r s o u g h t . The p r i n c i p l e i s

c l e a r l y s t a t e d i n a recent judgment of t h e F u l l C o u r t o f t h e F e d e r a l

Court of A u s t r a l i a , R e Trade Practices Acc 1 9 7 4 a s amended (Sec t ion 163A

. / 4 . . .

- 4 -

and Re an Application by Tooth 6 Co. Ltd., 20th September, 1978.

In that case the Appll-cant was seekmg orders under s.163A of the

Trade Practices Act relating to s.47 (9) (a ) of that Act. As a

preamble to considerlng whether the Court had jurisdiction,

Bowen C. J. said:

“All parties urged an affirmatlve answer to this

question and no argument was addressed that the

Court does not have jurlsdictlon to declare whether

s.47 (9) (a) of the Act is within the leglslative

competence of the Commonwealth Parliament. The

Attorney-General of the CommonvJealth of Australia

is an lntervener in the proceedings, but did not address a separate argument on this questlon. However, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the

Court by consent of the parties and the Court had

to satisfy itself that it had jurlsdlctlon to

answer question (d) . I‘

The importance of the nature of the jurisdiction belng

exercised by the Court is well illustrated by a reference to the

jurisdiction conferred on the Australlan Industrlal Court and the

Federal Court of Australia under the Conciliation and Arbitration

Act. Prior to 1st February, 1577, an application under s.110 of

that Act could have been heard and determined by th Australlan

Industrlal Court constituted by a single Judge, s.104 of that Act,

but proceedings under ss.119 and 122 of that Act, if brought in the

Australlan Industrlal Court, had to be heard and determined by that

Court constltuted by not less than three Judges. A proceeding for

the recovery of wages under s.123 of that Act could have been heard

and determlned by the Australlan Industrlal Court constituted by a

single Judge. After 1st February, 1977, the same jurisdiction was

conferred upon the Federal Court of Australia, Federal Court of

Australia Act 1978, ss.13, 14 and 20 and the Concillation and

Arbitration Act, s.118A lnserted by the Conclliation and Arbitration

Amendment Act (No, 3 ) of 1976. Since 19th June, 1978, the jurisdiction

under each of sections 110, 119, 122 and 123 of the Conciliation and

Arbitration Act can be exercised by the Federal Court constituted by

a slngle Judge, and an appeal lies to a Full Court of the Federal

Court from a ~udgment or order of the Federal Court constituted by a

slngle Judge. Thereafter an appeal, by leave of the Hlgh Court, h e s

to the High Court in a matter arising under ss.119, 122 and 123 of the

Conciliation and Arbitration Act but no appeal lies to the High Court

in a matter arising under s.110 of that Act. Generally see

sections 118A and 118B of the

./5.. .

. . . .

- 5 -

C o n c i l i a t i o n a n d A r b l t r a t i o n A c t , as amended by tk C o n c i l i a t i o n

a n d A r b i t r a t i o n A I ~ I ~ I I ~ I I I ~ I I L (Federal Court of A u s t r a l i a ) A c t 1978.

The p resen t App l i ca t ion , i n subs t ance and in fo rm, seeks

an o r d e r a f f e c t i n g t h e r i g h t of John Valves P t y . Ltd. t o deduct

payment from the wages payable t o a specified employee on specifled

days. Any order made 1 s b i n d m g on each of the organlza t ions and

persons bound by the Award. The c o n s t r u c t l o n of Clause 9 (b) of t h e

Award 1 s n o t i n d l s p u t e , t h e o n l y i s s u e relates to t h e f i n d i n g o f

facts a n d t h e a p p l i c a t l o n o f t h e c l a u s e t o t h e f a c t s so found. This

p r o c e s s d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of an award under

s . 1 1 0	o f	t h e	A c t .	I t i s i n	t h e n a t u r e o f	t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f a n
award.

S e c t i o n s 1 1 9 , 122 and 123 o f t he Conc lha t ion and

I 1 A r b i t r a t i o n A c t c o n f e r l u r l s d i c t i o n on the Cour t under which a

I person 1 s a b l e t o seek the enforcement of an award. The procedures

a p p l i c a b l e t o p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r t h o s e s e c t i o n s are d i f f e r e n t t o t h e

p rocedures app l i cab le t o p roceed ings unde r s.110. I n p r o c e e d i n g s

unde r those sec t ions , t he Cour t i s empowered t o determine d l s p u t e d

q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t a n d t o c o n s t r u e a n award. The C o u r t t h e n a p p l i e s

t h e award a s so cons t rued t o t h e fac ts so found and makes o r d e r s

necessa ry t o give effect t h e r e t o . Any o r d e r made, s u b j e c t t o any

appea l , 1s b i n d i n g o n t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e

I Cour t and fo rms the bas i s of an es toppel be tween those persons .

I n my o p i n l o n t h e p r e s e n t A p p l i c a t l o n i s no t one seek ing

a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a n award. It f o l l o w s t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e C o u r t

d o e s n o t h a v e j u r i s d l c t l o n u n d e r	s .110	o f t h e	A c t	t o	hear and
d e t e r m i n e t h e A p p l i c a t i o n .

1 I