Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd
Landmark Australian court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd,[1] commonly known as the Woodworkers case[2] or the Sawmillers case[3] was a decision of the High Court of Australia in 1909 concerning the question whether the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration could make an award that was inconsistent with a State wages board determination. The High Court was divided 2:2 and thus the decision of the Chief Justice prevailed,[4] in what is sometimes described as a statutory majority.[5] Griffith CJ, O'Connor J agreeing, held that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with the minimum wages fixed by a Wages Board under a State law.[1]
Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | The Federated Saw Mill, Timber Yard, and General Woodworkers Employees' Association of Australasia Claimants v James Moore and Sons Proprietary Limited and Others Respondents. |
Decided | 25 June 1909 |
Citation(s) | [1909] HCA 43, (1909) 8 CLR 465 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Griffith CJ, O'Connor, Isaacs & Higgins JJ |
Case opinions | |
2:2 The Arbitration Cort could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State wages board determination. (per Griffith CJ & O'Connor J; Isaacs & Higgins JJ dissenting) |
The case dealt with three issues, (1) whether arbitration was a judicial or legislative function, (2) the position of federal awards in relation to a conflict of laws and (3) the facts necessary to establish the existence of an interstate industrial dispute.
Fundamental to the opinions of Griffith CJ and O'Connor J was the reserved powers doctrine, that the powers of the Australian Parliament were limited to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States.[6] The reserved powers doctrine was challenged by Isaacs and Higgins JJ and ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case.[7] While Griffith CJ and O'Connor J approached the arbitral function as an exercise of judicial power, this would also be subsequently rejected by the High Court resolving that arbitration was the exercise of a legislative function.[8] The decision of Griffiths CJ and Higgins J approached the conflict of laws issue on the narrow test of whether it was possible to obey both laws, an approach that was considerably expanded from 1926 by the adoption of the "cover the field test".[3] The paper dispute, doubted by Griffith CJ and O'Connor J in this case, would become an enduring feature of Australian industrial relations.[9]