Court of Arbitration (New South Wales)

Last updated

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. [1] 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. [2] 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. [3] 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.

Contents

Background

Regulation of employment in the early nineteenth century was simply based on the common law concepts of contract. These concepts provided that an employer and employee were free to bargain as the nature and the terms of employment. Where either party breached the contract, there was recourse to the law in the normal courts of the land. This could prove to be an expensive exercise and a lengthy one as well. It was also possible under various “Master and Servant Acts” for employees who broke employment contracts to be prosecuted for a breach of the criminal law. In this situation, either the employer or employee could be fined or imprisoned. Dr Geoffrey Partington outlines an example in 1858 where German masons who were brought to Australia to work on the Victorian railways, broke their contracts after being persuaded to work for another employer. This was due to a shortage in the supply of experienced masons in Australia. The masons were imprisoned as a result of their breach. [4]

A maritime strike in 1890 led to the introduction in 1892 of the Trades Dispute Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1892 (NSW). [5] This Act provided the first legislated non-common law arbitration scheme for disputes between employers and employees. The new law required the agreement of both employer and employee to engage in conciliation or arbitration. However, a declining labour market meant that employers were not prepared to accept arbitration and Patmore [6] reports that only two of twenty two cases under that law were settled. Unions found the legislation ineffective in getting employers to the bargaining table.

Disillusionment with the system led to a royal commission. [7] In 1899 a new law made under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1899 (NSW) which gave the Minister for Labour of the New South Wales Government the power to mediate any industrial dispute. However, this also failed because employers were not legally bound to follow the directions of the Minister. [7] In proposing change, Bernard Wise said:

“I believe that those who have most experience of courts of law will be the first to admit that their machinery is unsuitable for dealing with these subjects. Not only are they overburdened with business – and so there would be delay where urgency was of the utmost importance if we would prevent industrial warfare – but their forms of procedure and their rules do not readily lend themselves to dealing with these delicate questions, half of fact or entirely of fact, that would have to be determined by the tribunal called upon to interpret an industrial agreement. It is not our judges who determine facts under our system, but our juries; and surely everyone will see that there would be a waste of time, a needless cost, and in the end a most unsatisfactory result, if it were necessary to refer on every occasion to a jury, or even to a bench of lawyers, the question whether or not an industrial agreement had been broken, or whether the altered conditions of a trade required the rate of wages to be lowered or raised.”. [8]

Establishment of the court

The failure of the previous systems led the New South Wales Government to introduce a new means of dealing with industrial disputes. Industrial disputes were now to be determined by compulsory arbitration in a court, and not through voluntary conciliation or through wage boards. The Court of Arbitration was established under the Industrial Arbitration Act 1901 (NSW), which came into force on 10 December 1901. Certain procedural matters had to be attended to before the court could formally sit. Once this was done, the court first sat on 16 May 1902. [9] The court was a court of record. The court was constituted by a president and two members. One of the members was to be an employer representative and the other an employee representative. The president had to be a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The first President of the Court was the Honourable Mr Justice Henry Cohen. [10]

The Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine any industrial dispute or matter referred to it by an industrial union or the registrar of the court. [11] The court could make decisions on wages and conditions even when both parties did not agree. This was to be made in the form of “awards”. Industrial agreements could still be made voluntarily but now, they could also be registered with the court. [7] Unions had to registered to participate in the court, and their registration possibly led to an increase in membership from 58,200 in 1902 to 68,600 in 1904. [7] The new laws attracted international attention when it was claimed that they were “"the most radical arbitration law in the world". [7]

Notable cases

The first case heard by the court was a dispute between the Newcastle Wharf Laborers’ Union and the Newcastle and Hunter River Steamship Company. The court found the employer guilty of locking out its employees and it was ordered that certain union members should be employed. The court also ordered the union to provide employees to the company, and in default, the company was able to use non-union labour. [10] Other cases heard by the court included cases concerning the Cigar Makers' Union, the Tailoresses' Union, the Saddle and Harness Makers' Union, the New South Wales Clickers' Union, the Boot Operators' and Rough Stuff Cutters' Union, the Journeymen Coopers' Union and the Trolley Draymen and Carters' Union. [10]

Apprenticeships

The court was the first court in Australia to regulate apprenticeships. Unions at the time usually advanced the argument in court that apprentice numbers should be restricted so that they could be properly trained. Heydon rejected this argument and considered that it was only a way of unions restricting the number of members in the industry. At the same time, Heydon required apprentices to attend proper trade classes to learn their trade. Unfortunately, wage rates weren’t regulated by the court, and this appears to have occurred because neither the unions nor the employers sought it. [12]

Appeals

Section 32 of the Act provided that there was to be no right of appeal from the court. That appeared to be the intention of the New South Wales government. Parliamentarian Bernhard Wise in Parliament said:

“The [court’s] decision is final – absolutely final. The right of appeal to the Privy Council will remain, in the exercise of her Majesty’s prerogative. There will be no appeal, however, to the Federal Court [ie, the High Court of Australia, not the current Federal Court], or to the Supreme Court of New South Wales”. [13] However, in 1904, the High Court of Australia in Clancy v Butchers Shop Employees Union [14] held that proceedings by way of prohibition could be taken to the Supreme Court of New South Wales on matters where the court had exceeded its jurisdiction. [15]

Abolition

The court was replaced in 1908 by the Industrial Court which was established by the Industrial Disputes Act 1908 (NSW). This was in part due to the High Court’s decision in allowing decisions of the court to be challenged. [15] Sexton refers to a speech by parliamentarian George Beeby where he said:

“Unfortunately, the High Court, which, with all respect to the learned gentlemen that constitute it, is entirely out of touch with the industrial affairs of this country and out of sympathy with industrial unions, took a strict view of the law, and gave a certain judgment, whereas it could have given just as logical a judgment in favour of the trade-union that had the case before the court”. [16]

The Court of Arbitration in its short life had established a precedent for the regulation of apprenticeships which no other previous Australian court had done before. However, the courts impact was limited by the few cases it had the opportunity to hear before its abolition.

It, indirectly, a predecessor of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales.

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.

Trade unions in Malaysia are regulated by the Trade Unions Act of 1959.

The Australian labour movement began in the early 19th century and since the late 19th century has included industrial and political wings. Trade unions in Australia may be organised on the basis of craft unionism, general unionism, or industrial unionism. Almost all unions in Australia are affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), many of which have undergone a significant process of amalgamations, especially in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The leadership and membership of unions hold and have at other times held a wide range of political views, including communist, socialist and right-wing views.

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.

Australian Workers Union Trade union

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) is one of Australia's largest and oldest trade unions. It traces its origins to unions founded in the pastoral and mining industries in the 1880s and currently has approximately 80,000 members. It has exercised an outsized influence on the Australian trade union movement and on the Australian Labor Party throughout its history.

<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.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (2006)

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 the Australian Commonwealth Act 1901. 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.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 United Kingdom legislation

The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is a UK Act of Parliament which regulates United Kingdom labour law. The Act applies in full in England and Wales and in Scotland, and partially in Northern Ireland.

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

The Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales 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 New South Wales, a state of Australia. The Commission was established with effect from 2 September 1996 pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1996.

Chief Industrial Magistrates Court

The Chief Industrial Magistrate's Court of New South Wales, a division of the Local Court of New South Wales, is a court within the Australian court hierarchy established pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW).

Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904

The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 was a law passed by the Parliament of Australia and received assent on 15 December 1904. The Act sought to introduced the rule of law in industrial relations in Australia and, besides other things, established the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.

A Court of Arbitration is a court, sometimes outside of the official judicial system of a country, that resolves certain kinds of civil disputes, primarily between industrial or commercial entities, or between employers and employees.

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

South African labour law regulates the relationship between employers, employees and trade unions in the Republic of South Africa.

The Federated Moulders' (Metals) Union of Australia (FMMUA) was an Australian trade union which existed between 1899 and 1983. It represented moulders – skilled tradesmen who fabricated the moulds for casting metal products in foundries. In spite of only organising within a single skilled occupation, which kept total membership low, the vital position of moulders in major industries such as mining, manufacturing and the railways, ensured that the union remained industrially powerful with a reputation for being highly militant.

<i>Fair Work Act 2009</i> Australian industrial relations law

The Fair Work Act 2009(Cth) is an Australian law passed by the Rudd Government to reform the Australia industrial relations system. Replacing the Howard Government's 2005 WorkChoices legislation, it established Fair Work Australia, later renamed the Fair Work Commission.

<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.

References

  1. ↑ Transcript, 1 May 2002, Lance Wright, “The Centenary of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission” – ABC Radio http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2002/542681.htm
  2. ↑ Vol 16-6: Trade Unionism and the New Protection Dr Geoffrey Partington Archived 2007-08-29 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ↑ Ross Gittins, Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/work-choices-blue-is-class-warfare/2007/05/06/1178390141294.html
  4. ↑ Partington. "Vol 16-6: Trade Unionism and the New Protection Dr Geoffrey Partington". Archived from the original on 29 August 2007. Retrieved 7 October 2007.
  5. ↑ Medium neutral citation is used in this article for the citation of NSW laws. See Medium Neutral Citation guidelines at Austlii, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/CompLRes/1999/1/4.html
  6. ↑ Patmore 2003a, pp. 7–11
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Pearce
  8. ↑ (NSW, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 28 June 1900, p 648 (Bernhard Wise))
  9. ↑ Patmore. http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2005/09/patmore.html
  10. 1 2 3 Wright
  11. ↑ State Archives
  12. ↑ Stromback
  13. ↑ (NSW, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 4 July 1900, 649-650) as cited by Sexton
  14. ↑ (1904) 1 CLR 181
  15. 1 2 Sexton
  16. ↑ (NSW Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 19 March 1908, 317-319 as cited in Sexton

Sources

www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/publications/papers/docs/2003/84_MichaelSexton.pdf

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.