T A Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd v Haylor - [1957] HCA 76

T. A. ROBINSON AND SONS PROPRIETARY HAYLOR

COMPLAINANT, Constitutional Law (Cth.)-Federal and State laws-Inconsistency-Award of

conciliation commissioner-Power to deal with long service leave-Award silent thereon-State statute providing for long service eve-Validity-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. C. 12), S. 109-Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956 (No. 13 of 1904-No. 44 of 1956)-Footwear Manufacturing Industry Nov. 12, 18. Award 1951-Long Service Leave Act 1955 (N.S.W.).

There is no inconsistency within S. 109 of the Constitution between the Footwear Manufacturing Industry Award 1951, which operates pursuant to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956 (Cth.), and the Long Service Leave Act 1955 (N.S.W.) such as to displace the latter in its application to persons bound by such award.

The doctrine formulated in Ex parte McLean (1930) 43 C.L.R. 472 has never been applied to the conclusion or reasons of a federal industrial arbitrator leading to his award but only to the award itself or to an agreement having the force of an award, and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956 gives paramountcy to nothing save the provisions of the award or such an agreement

APPEAL from the Chief Industrial Magistrate at Sydney, New South Wales.

On 7th March 1957 Walter Norman Haylor laid a complaint pursuant to the Long Service Leave Act 1955 (N.S.W.), SS. 12 and 14, against T. A. Robinson &Sons Pty. Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) alleging that the company did at Alexandria in the State of New South Wales employ him, a worker, from February 1930 to 1st February 1957 and that on the termination of his employment on 1st February 1957 it did not forthwith pay to him in addition

97 CLR 178

to all other amounts due the full amount of the remuneration which became due to him under the provisions of the said Act.

Upon the hearing of the complaint before the Chief Industrial Magistrate at Sydney the company contended that both it and Haylor were bound by the provisions of the Footwear Manufacturing Industry Award 1951 made in settlement of an industrial dispute and that to apply the provisions of the Long Service Leave Act 1955 was inconsistent with such settlement, SO that pro tanto those pro- visions were invalidated by virtue of S. 109 of the Constitution. This contention was rejected, and the company was ordered to pay to Haylor the sum of £294 1s. 2d., being the amount of his entitle- ment calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act, together with an amount for costs.

From this decision the company by special leave appealed to the High Court.

R. Else-Mitchell Q.C. (with him J. F. Dey), for the appellant. The present case is different from Collins v. Charles Marshall Pty. Ltd. 1 in that here the conciliation commissioner had power to deal with long service leave. A claim was made in the log for such leave and the award made in settlement of the dispute rejected that claim. Such rejection produces inconsistency with a State law dealing with…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read T A Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd v Haylor and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1957] HCA 76
Decision Date: 18 November 1957

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of T. A. Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd v Haylor concerned a dispute over long service leave entitlements. Walter Norman Haylor, an employee, brought a complaint against his employer, T. A. Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd, alleging non-payment of long service leave due under the New South Wales Long Service Leave Act 1955. The employer contended that the State Act was invalid in its application to Mr. Haylor because he was bound by the federal Footwear Manufacturing Industry Award 1951, and applying the State Act would be inconsistent with the award, thereby invalidating the State Act under section 109 of the Constitution. The Chief Industrial Magistrate rejected this defence, ordering the company to pay the amount due. The company appealed this decision to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether there was an inconsistency, within the meaning of section 109 of the Constitution, between the federal Footwear Manufacturing Industry Award 1951 and the New South Wales Long Service Leave Act 1955, such that the State Act was displaced in its application to employees bound by the federal award. Specifically, the court had to determine if the silence of the federal award on the subject of long service leave, despite a claim for it being made and refused by the conciliation commissioner, constituted an exhaustive determination of that matter, thereby precluding the operation of the State legislation.

The High Court held that there was no inconsistency under section 109 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the doctrine of inconsistency, as formulated in cases like Ex parte McLean, applies to the award itself or an agreement having the force of an award, not to the reasons or conclusions of a federal industrial arbitrator leading to an award. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956 was interpreted as giving paramountcy only to the provisions of a federal award or agreement, not to the arbitrator's reasoning or the ambit of the dispute beyond what was expressly determined in the award. Since the Footwear Manufacturing Industry Award 1951 was silent on long service leave and did not contain any provision that could not be simultaneously obeyed with the State Act, the State Act remained valid and applicable. The Court noted that the federal award's silence on long service leave did not demonstrate an intention by the conciliation commissioner to cover the field exhaustively to the exclusion of State law.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Chief Industrial Magistrate. The company was ordered to pay the long service leave entitlement to Mr. Haylor as calculated under the New South Wales Long Service Leave Act 1955.

Orders