Related Research Articles
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), known from 1956 to 1973 as the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and from 1973 to 1988 as the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, was a tribunal with powers under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 that existed from 1956 until 2010. It was the central institution of Australian labour law. The AIRC replaced a previous system of industrial courts, which broadly speaking, was engaged in the same functions, but with superior independence and powers.
Australian labour law concerns Commonwealth, state, and common law on rights and duties of workers, unions and employers in Australia. The main source of law is the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009, while state and territory laws can add to protection, and judge-made common law provides a default set of rights.
The 1913 Australian referendum was held on 31 May 1913. It contained six referendum questions and was held in conjunction with the 1913 federal election.
R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, known as the Boilermakers' Case, was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and their employer body, the Metal Trades Employers' Association.
WorkChoices was the name given to changes made to the federal industrial relations laws in Australia by the Howard government in 2005, being amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, sometimes referred to as the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, that came into effect on 27 March 2006.
The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.
Section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution of Australia is a provision in the Australian Constitution which empowers the Australian Parliament to legislate on matters referred to it by any state. As Australia is a federation, both states and the Commonwealth have legislative power, and the Australian Constitution limits Commonwealth power. Section 51(xxxvii) allows for a degree of flexibility in the allocation of legislative powers.
The Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was an Australian court that operated from 1904 to 1956 with jurisdiction to hear and arbitrate interstate industrial disputes, and to make awards. It also had the judicial functions of interpreting and enforcing awards and hearing other criminal and civil cases relating to industrial relations law.
The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law, along with some summary and indictable criminal matters. Cases are heard at first instance mostly by single judges. In cases of importance, a Full Court comprising three judges can be convened upon determination by the Chief Justice. The Court also has appellate jurisdiction, which is mostly exercised by a Full Court comprising three judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the supreme courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other courts in the federal stream, it is superior to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for all jurisdictions except family law. It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.
New South Wales v Commonwealth is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia, which held that the federal government's WorkChoices legislation was a valid exercise of federal legislative power under the Constitution of Australia. In essence, the majority found the Constitution's corporations power capable of sustaining the legislative framework, while the conciliation and arbitration and territories powers were also seen as supporting parts of the law. Furthermore, the majority also held that the legislation permissibly limited State powers and did not interfere with State constitutions or functioning. A minority dissented.
R v Barger is a 1908 High Court of Australia case where the majority held that the taxation power could not be used by the Australian Parliament to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers. In this case, an excise tariff was imposed on manufacturers, with an exemption being available for those who paid "fair and reasonable" wages to their employees.
The Court of Arbitration was the first court in New South Wales, a state of Australia which dealt exclusively with industrial relation disputes in the early twentieth century. Justice Lance Wright claims that it perhaps was the first court of its type in the world. The court was unique at that time as it was the first court of its type to deal with labour relations between employer and employees on a compulsory basis. Previous arbitration measures between employer and employee had been on a voluntary basis or had been based on the criminal justice system through the use of criminal penalties. The conventional economic model is that both employer and employee enjoy equal bargaining power to set wages and conditions. This asserts that both parties are able to agree on a fair market price for the cost of labour free from distortions. However, where employers or employees group together, these outcomes can be distorted particularly in “boom” or “bust” economic conditions. The purpose of the court was to change the manner in which employers and employees negotiated pay and conditions. It was an attempt to reduce the power imbalances between employer groups or employee unions that arose from using collective bargaining, and the resulting use of that market power to influence wages, and also to reduce the threat of lockout or strikes to achieve those ends.
The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) was an Act of the Parliament of Australia, which established the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, besides other things, and sought to introduce the rule of law in industrial relations in Australia. The Act received royal assent on 15 December 1904.
In labour law, unfair dismissal is an act of employment termination made without good reason or contrary to the country's specific legislation.
The Fair Work Act 2009(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia, passed by the Rudd government to reform the industrial relations system of Australia. It replaced the Howard government's WorkChoices legislation, it established Fair Work Australia, later renamed the Fair Work Commission.
Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association, known as the Railway Servants Case, is an early High Court of Australia case that held that employees of State railways could not be part of an interstate industrial dispute under the conciliation and arbitration power, applying the doctrine of "implied inter-governmental immunities". The doctrine was emphatically rejected by the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case, and in 1930 the High Court upheld the validity of an award binding on state railway authorities.
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP, was an early decision of the High Court of Australia concerning the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in which the High Court controversially, granted prohibition against the Arbitration Court to prevent it from enforcing aspects of an industrial award. The High Court held that the Arbitration Court had gone beyond settling the dispute that had been submitted to it and in doing so had made a jurisdictional error.
Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case, was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.
Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd, commonly known as the Woodworkers case or the Sawmillers case 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, in what is sometimes described as a statutory majority. 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.
In Australian industrial law, unfair dismissal refers to an unlawful act of employment termination due to it being an unfair action on the employee by the employer.
References
- ↑ "What is a common rule award?". workplaceinfo.com. 5 August 2004. Retrieved 7 February 2017.
- ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 51 (xxxv).
- ↑ Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Co [1910] HCA 53 , (1910) 11 CLR 311 .
- 1 2 Constitution (Cth) s 51 (xxxvii).
- ↑ "Common Rule Awards in Victoria fact sheet" (PDF). AIRC.
- ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 51 (xx).
- ↑ NSW v Commonwealth (WorkChoices case) [2006] HCA 52 , (2006) 229 CLR 1.
- ↑ Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
- ↑ "16. Employment—The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)". Australian Law Reform Commission. 18 August 2011.
- ↑ "17. Employment—The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Continued—Awards". Australian Law Reform Commission. 18 August 2011.
- ↑ "Modern awards". Fair Work Commission. 10 May 2016. Archived from the original on 18 February 2017. Retrieved 7 February 2017.
 | This article related to Australian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |