Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904

Last updated

Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Parliament of Australia
  • An act relating to Conciliation and Arbitration for the Prevention and Settlement of Industrial Disputes extending beyond the Limits of any one State
Citation No. 13 of 1904
Territorial extent States and territories of Australia
Royal assent 15 December 1904
Legislative history
Bill title Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1904
Introduced by Alfred Deakin
Status: Repealed

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. [1]

Contents

The Act applied to industrial disputes “extending beyond the limits of any one State, including disputes in relation to employment upon State railways, or to employment in industries carried on by or under the control of the Commonwealth or a State or any public authority constituted under the Commonwealth or a State”.

The Act was amended many times and was superseded by the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and was repealed by the Industrial Relations (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 with effect on 1 March 1989. The Industrial Relations Act 1988 was itself replaced by the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .

Background

Constitutional basis

The Commonwealth’s power to make the law is based on section 51(xxxv) of the Constitution, which gives the Commonwealth power to make laws "in relation to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one state".

More controversially, the scope of the Act was “extended” to include disputes “...in relation to employment upon State railways, or to employment in industries carried on by or under the control of the Commonwealth or a State or any public authority constituted under the Commonwealth or a State...”. It excluded disputes in “...any agricultural, viticultural, horticultural, or dairying pursuit...”.

History

The Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (1903 & 1904) [2] was drafted by Charles Kingston, Australia's pioneer of compulsory arbitration, drawing on New Zealand's Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1894 . Kingston was a Minister in Deakin's Protectionist Government, which was supported by the Labour Party. In July 1903, Kingston resigned suddenly from the Deakin government in a fit of anger over the opposition of John Forrest and Edmund Barton to an extension of conciliation and arbitration to British and foreign seamen engaged in the Australian coastal trade.

The scope of the legislation was very controversial at the time, resulting in changes of governments of Alfred Deakin (Protectionist), Chris Watson (Labour), and George Reid (Free Trade). In April 1904, Watson and Deakin fell out over the issue of extending the scope of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill to cover state public servants. Labour members withdrew their support for Deakin, leading to the resignation of Deakin’s Government. Reid refused to form government, leading to the formation of the first Labour government led by Watson. Watson's government lasted only four months and was succeeded in August 1904 by Reid's which agreed to Labour's amendment to cover State government employees, and the Bill was passed with Labour's support.

The Act

The main objects of the Act were: [3]

See also

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. Australian labour law has a dual structure, where some employment issues and relationships are governed by Commonwealth laws, and others are governed by state and territory laws or the common law. It shares a heritage with laws across the Commonwealth of Nations, UK labour law and standards set by the International Labour Organization, the Australian legislature and courts have a built a comprehensive charter of rights at work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transport Workers Act 1928</span>

The Transport Workers Act 1928 (Cth), more widely known as the Dog Collar Act, was a law passed by the Australian Parliament. It achieved royal assent on 24 September 1928, after being instigated and introduced to Parliament by the Bruce government. It was ostensibly "relating to employment in relation to trade and commerce with other countries and among the states", which mirrors the wording of Section 51(i) of the Constitution of Australia.

<i>R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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.

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.

<i>Harvester case</i> Australian labour law decision

Ex parte H.V. McKay, commonly referred to as the Harvester case, is a landmark Australian labour law decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. The case arose under the Excise Tariff Act 1906 which imposed an excise duty on goods manufactured in Australia, £6 in the case of a stripper harvester, however if a manufacturer paid "fair and reasonable" wages to its employees, it was be excused from paying the excise duty. The Court therefore had to consider what was a "fair and reasonable" wage for the purpose of the act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration</span> Australian court (1904 to 1956)

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.

Common rule awards are a particular form of industrial award used in Australia to regulate minimum terms and conditions of employment. Awards are the end product of the processes of conciliation and arbitration where an industrial tribunal makes an award in settlement of an industrial dispute. Whereas awards are legally binding on all parties to the dispute which are named in the award, with common rule awards all employers in the industry or occupation covered by the award are bound by it.

The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission, as constituted under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, conciliates and arbitrates industrial disputes, sets conditions of employment and fixes wages and salaries by making industrial awards, approves enterprise agreements and decides claims of unfair dismissal in the State of Western Australia, with respect to those employers not regulated by the Commonwealth of Australia under the Fair Work Act 2009.

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.

In labour law, unfair dismissal is an act of employment termination made without good reason or contrary to the country's specific legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair Work Act 2009</span> Australian industrial relations law

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Watson government</span>

The Watson government was the third federal executive government of the Commonwealth of Australia. It was led by Prime Minister Chris Watson of the Australian Labor Party from 27 April 1904 to 18 August 1904. The Watson government was the first Labor Party national government in both Australia and in the world. Watson was aged just 37 when he became Prime Minister of Australia, and remains the youngest person to have held the post.

<i>Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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.

<i>R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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.

<i>Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd</i> Landmark Australian court case

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reid government</span>

The Reid Government refers to the period of federal executive government of Australia led by Prime Minister George Reid. It lasted from 18 August 1904 - 5 July 1905. Reid was the sole Prime Minister of Australia to belong to the Free Trade Party. Allan McLean of the Protectionist Party served as deputy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deakin government (1905–1908)</span>

The Deakin government (1905–1908) refers to the period of federal executive government of Australia led by Prime Minister Alfred Deakin. It lasted from 5 July 1905 to 13 November 1908. Deakin was the second prime minister of Australia, having previously led the Deakin government (1903–1904), and held the office again in 1909–1910.

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

  1. Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904
  2. "Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1903". Federal Register of Legislation. Retrieved 24 October 2003.
  3. Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, s.2

Further sources


See also