Australian Tramway Employees' Association v Prahran and Malvern Tramways Trust [1918] HCA 52

H.C. or A. Employer and Employce—Agreement—Interpretation—Termination of servi

1918. Ww MELBOURNE, Sept. 16, 17.

Barton, Higgins and Gavan Duffy JJ.

AUSTRALIAN TRAMWAY EMPLOYEES'

PRAHRAN AND MALVERN TRAMWAYS

HIGH COURT

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.}

ASSOCIATION 4 " i ' i } APPLICA

AND

TRUSL.: cs oie a RESPONDED

Charge against employee—Right to hare inguiry—Breach of agreement—Com monwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1915 (No. 13 of 1904—No. 8 of 1915), secs. 24, 38.

By an agreement made between an organization of employees and al employer, certified and filed pursuant to see, 24 of the Commonwealth Concil tion and Arbitration Act 1904-1915, it was provided (clause 29) that " Except in case of grave misconduct the services of an employee shall not be terminated without one week's notice on either side or (if the employer terminates th service) one week's pay in lien of notice," and (clause 30) that " When a cha involving suspension or dismissal is made by any person whether inside or outside the service of " the employer "against an employee of three mont service or over, the employee shall be forthwith notified of the charge in writing and shall be permitted to call evidence in his defence, and, as far a lies in the power of " the employer, "he shall be confronted with the pe making the charge. At the inquiry the man charged shall be entitled (if he choose) to be represented by an officer or member of the Association di authorized by the Association." :

Held, that where a charge was made against an employee which, if pro would have justified the employer in dismissing him, the employer was bou to hold an inquiry and to allow the employee to avail himself of the provisi of clause 30, notwithstanding that the employer had under clause 29 la terminated the service of the employee by giving him one week's notice.