Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association

Last updated

Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association
Coat of arms of Australia (1908-1912).svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameJumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association
Decided6 October 1908
Citation(s) [1908] HCA 95, (1908) 6 CLR 309
Case history
Prior action(s) Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration reported in (1908) 6 CLR 309 per Higgins P.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor & Isaacs   JJ

Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association [1] is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to the Commonwealth Government's power to make laws for the conciliation and arbitration of interstate industrial disputes under subsection 51(xxxv) of the Australian Constitution and the incidental power under subsection 51(xxxix), [2] but in reaching a decision set principles on matters of statutory interpretation affecting the Constitution.

Contents

Background

Following strike action across Australia and New Zealand in the 1890s, the Constitution had been drafted to allow the federal government to make laws about the conciliation and arbitration of industrial disputes, but only where such disputes went beyond state boundaries. In 1903 there was industrial action in the Victorian coalfields which lasted for 70 weeks, initially at Outtrim, Victoria before spreading to the nearby Jumbunna Coal Mine in Victoria. [3] [4] [5]

Subsequently, the Victorian Coal Miners' Association sought to be registered as a union under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. The two coal mining employers affected by the strike, Jumbunna Coal Mine NL and Outtrim, Howitt and British Consolidated Coal Co NL. The Industrial Registrar decided to register the union and the two companies applied to have the registration annulled and presented two arguments, that a union could not be involved in an industrial dispute beyond one state when its membership was only from one State and the provisions that allowed the union's registration were constitutionally ultra vires. [6]

Decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration

In the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration the application for review was heard by H. B. Higgins. [n 1] His Honour rejected the companies argument that an interstate industrial dispute could not occur unless an employer carried on business in at least two states and . [7] From this decision the two companies then appealed to the High Court. The union did not appear on the appeal in the High Court, however the Industrial Registrar was represented.

Finding in the High Court

Each of the judges of the High Court of Australia gave separate judgements however all judges agreed as to the result.

The court held that a union that was limited to one state could be a party to an industrial dispute that extended beyond that state. Griffith CJ held that an industrial dispute could extend beyond one state by organizations of different States in temporary alliance for a common purpose. [8] Barton J similarly held that disputants in different States may make common cause to defend a common interest. [9]

The court ruled that for a law to be valid pursuant to sub-section 51(xxxix) as incidental to another head of power, such a law depends on its ends to be legitimate and the law must be appropriate and adaptable to that end. Because the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 were a legitimate means of achieving the ends set out in the head of power under sub-section 51(xxxv) of the Constitution they were therefore incidental to that power and were therefore valid laws. Griffith CJ held that the Parliament is unfettered in its choice of means, provided that they are really incidental to the attainment of these ends, and not manifestly unconnected with them. [10] Both Barton J and O'Connor J [11] cited with approval the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in McCulloch v. Maryland [12] including "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution are constitutional.”

In reaching this decision the court held that in matters where there are variable interpretations, the Court should assume that the intention of Parliament was that the statute would not exceed the constitutional power. O'Connor J held that "In the interpretation of general words in a Statute there is always a presumption that the legislature does not intend to exceed its jurisdiction" and that "… every statute is to be interpreted and applied so far as its language admits so as not to be inconsistent with the comity of nations or with the established rules of international law". [13]

Notes

  1. ↑ H.B. Higgins heard the application in his capacity as President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. While his Honour was a judge of the High Court and his judgement that was the subject of the appeal is included in the law report, he did not sit on the appeal to the High Court.

Related Research Articles

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.

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.

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

<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>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (2006) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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.

<i>R v Barger</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

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.

<i>Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills</i>

Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills is a High Court of Australia case that deals with a number of issues regarding the Australian Constitution, including the Express right free interstate trade and commerce, the implied freedom of political communication, and the role of proportionality.

<i>DEmden v Pedder</i>

D'Emden v Pedder was a significant Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 26 April 1904. It directly concerned the question of whether salary receipts of federal government employees were subject to state stamp duty, but it touched on the broader issue within Australian constitutional law of the degree to which the two levels of Australian government were subject to each other's laws.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

<i>Attorney-General for NSW v Brewery Employees Union of NSW</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union of NSW, commonly known as the Union Label case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 8 August 1908. The case was significant in relation to the endorsement by the majority of the court of the reserved powers doctrine and as the first case to consider the scope of the power of the Commonwealth regarding trade marks. It also addressed who could challenge a law as unconstitutional. There was a strong division in the Court between the original members, Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ and the two newly appointed justices, Isaacs and Higgins JJ.

<i>Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd</i> 1918 judgement in Australian law

Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v J W Alexander Ltd is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1918 regarding judicial power of the Commonwealth which established that Chapter III of the Constitution required judges to be appointed for life to a specific court, subject only to the removal provisions in the constitution. The majority of the High Court held that because the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was appointed for seven years and not life as required by s 72 of the Constitution, the Arbitration Court could not exercise judicial powers of the Commonwealth.

<i>Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead</i> Australian constitutional law case

Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead is a leading decision by the High Court of Australia that dealt with two issues under the Australian Constitution, the identification and extent of judicial power that is vested in the courts and the corporations power of the Parliament. The Court unanimously held that the inquiry provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 were not an exercise of judicial power. The judgement of Griffith CJ in particular continues to be cited in relation to its examination of the identification and extent of judicial power. The court, however, divided on the proper approach to the corporations power. The majority, Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ, strongly influenced by the now discredited doctrine of reserved State powers, held that the corporations power was to be construed narrowly because the trade and commerce power did not include intrastate trade and commerce. While the reserved powers doctrine was unambiguously rejected by the High Court in 1920, Huddart, Parker was not formally overruled by the High Court until Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1971).

<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>Deakin v Webb</i>

Deakin v Webb was one of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The High Court of Australia overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, holding that the States could not tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. This resulted in conflict with the Privy Council that was ultimately resolved by the passage of Commonwealth law in 1907 to permit the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case.

<i>Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation</i> (NSW) Australian tax case

Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW), and Flint v Webb, were the last of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer which had resulted in conflict between the High Court and the Privy Council. The two cases were heard together, however two separate judgments were issued with Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) addressing the substantive issues, and Flint v Webb addressing the applications for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council. The judgement of Griffith CJ in Flint v Webb suggested two ways in which that conflict could be resolved. Both suggestions were adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament by legislation that permitted the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer, and gave the High Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction on such constitutional questions. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' case.

<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.

<i>Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead was the last of a series of cases in which members of a cartel, described as the "Coal Vend" were prosecuted under the Australian Industries Preservation Act. The majority of the High Court held that the investigation power was spent once a prosecution had commenced and that under the Act, a corporation could not be required to answer questions. While the decision was based on the wording of the specific legislation, its ongoing significance is its foundation for the requirement that the government act as a model litigant.

References

  1. ↑ Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association [1908] HCA 95 , (1908) 6 CLR 309.
  2. ↑ Leslie Zines, Future Directions in Australian Constitutional Law, Federation Press 1994 page 251
  3. ↑ "The Outtrim Strike". The Argus . Victoria, Australia. 7 February 1903. p. 18 – via National Library of Australia.
  4. ↑ "Outtrim, Victorian Places". victorianplaces.com.au. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
  5. ↑ The Outtrim Howitt and British Consolidated Coal Company NL v Gregory [1903] VicLawRp 86 (1903) 28 VLR 586.
  6. ↑ George Williams, Labour law and the Constitution, Federation Press, 1998 page 75
  7. ↑ Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 at 313–4 per Higgins J.
  8. ↑ Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 at 336–7 per Griffith CJ.
  9. ↑ Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 at 342 per Barton J.
  10. ↑ Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 at 333 per Griffith CJ.
  11. ↑ Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 at 344 per Barton J and at 357 per O'Connor J.
  12. ↑ McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
  13. ↑ Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v Victorian Coal Miners' Association (1908) 6 CLR 309 at 363 per O'Connor J.
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.