Pickard v John Heine and Son Limited [1924] HCA 38

REPORTS OF CASES

DETERMINED IN THE

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1924-1925.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

PICKARD if '; i$ " A ' é . APPELLANT ; INFORMANT, AND JOHN HEINE & SON LIMITED. ' . REsPponpDENT. DEFENDANT,

Industrial Arbitration—Award—Interpretation—Employees on weekly wages— yy & op 4

Deduction of payment for day on which employee cannot be usefully employed" 14.0 Breach of award—Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1921 : (No. 13 of 1904—No. 29 of 1921), sec. 38 (0). Sypney, By an award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration , ar. 31; July 28; Aug.

it was provided that employment could only be terminated by a week's notice 14, 20. on either side, but that this should not affect "the right of the management ar

to deduct payment for any day the employee cannot be usefully [free 4.02. employed because of any strike by the union or any other union or through 4 Starke JJ. any breakdown of machinery or any stoppage of work by any such cause

which the employer cannot reasonably prevent."

Held, that a stoppage of work on a public holiday because the employer was unwilling to pay to certain of his employees double pay, to which they would have been entitled if they had worked on that day, and it would have been uneconomic to employ those of his employees who were bound by the award in the absence of the former employees, was not a "stoppage of work hy any such cause which the employer cannot reasonably prevent."

HIGH COURT [1924.

H.C. or A. Apprar from a Deputy Stipendiary Magistrate of New South Wales.

1924.

An information was on 20th December 1923 heard by a Deputy

cae Stipendiary Magistrate for the Metropolitan Police District of

Jow

"a

xx New South Wales, whereby Harry Pickard alleged that John Heine

& Sox Lm. & Son Ltd. on 25th April 1923, being then bound by the provisions