Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association

Last updated

Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided17 December 1906
Citation(s) [1906] HCA 94, (1906) 4 CLR 488
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ
Case opinions
(3:0) State railways employees could not be part of an interstate industrial dispute under the doctrine of "implied inter-governmental immunities".
Laws applied
Overruled by
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd [1920] HCA 54, (1920) 28 CLR 129

Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association, known as the Railway Servants Case, [1] 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, [2] applying the doctrine of "implied inter-governmental immunities". The doctrine was emphatically rejected by the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case , [3] and in 1930 the High Court upheld the validity of an award binding on state railway authorities. [4]

Contents

Background

Whether State railways employees should be covered by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was a politically contentious issue. When the Australian Labor Party sought to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill to cover State railway employees, a number of radicals in Deakin's government supported the amendments and helped bring down the government, with Labor forming a minority government under Prime Minister Chris Watson. [5] When finally passed in December 1904, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, [6] purported to cover State railway employees with "Industrial dispute" defined as "including disputes in relation to employment upon State Railways". [6]

The NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association was, as the name suggests, a union that represented railway employees of the State of NSW and only those employees and sought to be registered under the Commonwealth Act. Another union, the Federated Amalgamated Government Railway and Tramway Service Association, objected to the registration of the NSW union and the issue was referred to the High Court. [7] Higgins KC who appeared for the respondent union, [8] in arguing that the Act was valid, relied not only on the conciliation and arbitration power, [2] but also submitted that railways were vital to interstate trade and commerce and as such was an exercise of the trade and commerce power. [9] Isaacs represented the Commonwealth in his capacity as the then Attorney-General, also arguing for validity based on both the conciliation and arbitration power and the trade and commerce power. NSW and Victoria intervened to argue that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 was invalid in so far as it purported to include State railway servants.

The High Court had held in D'Emden v Pedder that salary receipts of federal government employees were not subject to state stamp duty, holding that a State parliament could not fetter, control, or interfere with, the free exercise of the legislative or executive power of the Commonwealth. [10] Griffith CJ, delivering the judgment of the Court said

In considering the respective powers of the Commonwealth and of the States it is essential to bear in mind that each is, within the ambit of its authority, a sovereign State, subject only to the restrictions imposed by the Imperial connection and to the provisions of the Constitution, either expressed or necessarily implied... a right of sovereignty subject to extrinsic control is a contradiction in terms. It must, therefore, be taken to be of the essence of the Constitution that the Commonwealth is entitled, within the ambit of its authority, to exercise its legislative and executive powers in absolute freedom, and without any interference or control whatever except that prescribed by the Constitution itself... It follows that when a State attempts to give to its legislative or executive authority an operation which, if valid, would fetter, control, or interfere with, the free exercise of the legislative or executive power of the Commonwealth, the attempt, unless expressly authorized by the Constitution, is to that extent invalid and inoperative. [10]

Decision

The High Court held that the doctrine of inter-governmental immunities worked both ways, that is, that the States were also immune from Commonwealth laws. To regulate the terms and conditions of the engagement, employment and remuneration of the State railway servants was to interfere with the control of the State railways and the doctrine of implied inter-governmental immunities operated to protect the States from legislative or executive action by the Commonwealth which "would fetter, control, or interfere with, the free exercise" of the legislative or executive power of the States. Griffiths CJ again delivered the judgement of the Court, which emphasised the federal nature of the Constitution, stating that "The Constitution Act is not only an Act of the Imperial legislature, but it embodies a compact entered into between the six Australian Colonies which formed the Commonwealth. ... the Constitution as framed was to be, and was, submitted to the votes of the electors of the States." [11]

The statement in the decision as to what was "intended by the framers of the Constitution" [12] is a reference to the judges experience as leading participants in the Constitutional Conventions in which their Honours are properly seen as among the framers of the Constitution. [13]

Aftermath

The Labor party twice attempted to overcome this decision by way of a constitutional amendment to give it the power to make laws with respect to conciliation and arbitration for prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in relation to employment in the railway service of a State referendums. The first attempt, in 1911 was part of an omnibus of changes under the heading of trade and commerce. The 1911 referendum fell well short of the required double majority, with just 39% of voters in favour and approval in only one State. [14] The second proposal in 1913 was essentially the same, however the amendments were broken up into six separate questions. The Railway servants case was one of the High Court decisions identified by the Attorney-General, Billy Hughes, to have cut down the Commonwealth's powers until they were futile. [15] Voter support significantly increased, however still fell short of the required double majority, achieving neither a majority of voters nor approval in the majority of states. [14]

Results [14]
Question NSW Vic Qld SA WA Tas States in favour Voters in favourResult
(4) Trade and Commerce NoNoNoNoYesNo1:539%Not carried
(11) Railway Disputes NoNoYesYesYesNo3:349%Not carried

The High Court emphatically rejected the doctrine of implied inter-governmental immunities in the 1920 Engineers' Case after changes in the composition of the Court. The Court now insisted on adhering only to the language of the constitutional text read as a whole in its natural sense and in light of the circumstances in which it was made: there was to be no reading in of implications by reference to the presumed intentions of the framers. In particular, since there is no mention of "reserved State powers," only one express inter-governmental immunity (regarding property taxes: section 114), and, an express provision asserting the superiority of valid Commonwealth laws over inconsistent State laws (section 109), there was no longer any room for the doctrine previously asserted in favour of the States. [3] The Court of Conciliation and Arbitration subsequently made an award that was binding on State railway authorities and in 1930 the High Court upheld the validity of that award. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

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.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

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 separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia is the part of the Constitution of Australia that deals with the legislative inconsistency between federal and state laws, and declares that valid federal laws override inconsistent state laws, to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 109 is analogous to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution and the paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence in one jurisdiction is considered persuasive in the others.

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>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>Henderson v Defence Housing Authority</i> 1997 High Court of Australia case

Henderson v Defence Housing Authority, also known as the Residential Tenancies case, is a landmark Australian High Court decision on intergovernmental immunity and states' rights under the Australian Constitution.

<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.

In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.

<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>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">Constitution Act 1902</span> Australian legislation

The Constitution Act 1902 is the founding document of the State of New South Wales, and sets out many of the basic principles of the Government of New South Wales. This act created the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Government of New South Wales. Most of the Constitution can be amended through ordinary Acts of Parliament, however some sections can only be amended through a referendum of NSW voters.

References

  1. ↑ Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association (Railway servants case) [1906] HCA 94 , (1906) 4 CLR 488.
  2. 1 2 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, section 51(xxxv).
  3. 1 2 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (Engineers' Case) [1920] HCA 54 , (1920) 28 CLR 129.
  4. 1 2 Australian Railways Union v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1930] HCA 52 , (1930) 44 CLR 319.
  5. ↑ "Alfred Deakin in office". Australia's Prime Ministers. National Archives of Australia . Retrieved 14 November 2016..
  6. 1 2 "Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904". Commonwealth of Australia.
  7. ↑ It is not clear from the judgement who the objecting union covered in addition to State railway employees and they did not take any part in the argument of the appeal.
  8. ↑ While a member of Parliament, Higgins maintained a practice as a barrister.
  9. ↑ Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, section 51(i).
  10. 1 2 D'Emden v Pedder [1904] HCA 1 , (1904) 1 CLR 91.
  11. ↑ Railway servants case (1906) 4 CLR 488 at p. 534 & 537-8.
  12. ↑ Railway servants case (1906) 4 CLR 488 at p. 536.
  13. ↑ NSW v Commonwealth (the WorkChoices case) [2006] HCA 52 , (2006) 229 CLR 1 at [48]-[49].
  14. 1 2 3 Handbook of the 44th Parliament (2014) "Part 5 – Referendums and Plebiscites – Referendum results". Parliamentary Library of Australia..
  15. ↑ Billy Hughes,  Attorney-General (19 November 1912). "Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. pp. 5607–5609.
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.