H.C. ov A. 1916. ay) MErBoURNE, Sept. 8. Griffith ©, i HIGH COURT [1916. (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] THE WATERSIDE WORKERS' FEDERA- } CoMPLAINANTS ; TION OF AUSTRALIA AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH STEAMSHIP } Responvents. OWNERS' ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Ex parre THE COMMONWEALTH STEAMSHIP OWNERS' ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS. Industrial Arbitration—Award—Breach—Minimum wages—Refusal to accept employment—Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1915 (No. 13 of 1904—No. 35 of 1915), sec. 48. Where an award of the President of the Commonwealth Court of Con- ciliation and Arbitration provided that the minimum wages to be paid to members of a certain organization of employees by employers who were bound by the award should be at a certain rate per hour, but did not impose upon the employees any obligation to accept employment, Held, that it was not a breach of the award for members of the organization of employees to refuse to accept employment. CasE STATED. On a plaint in the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration by the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia against the Commonwealth Steamship Owners' Association and a number of other persons, firms and companies who were owners of steamships, the President made an award on Ist May 1914 and orders varying it on 18th December 1915 and 23rd June 1916. On an application by the Commonwealth Steamship Owners' OF AUSTRALIA. ation and certain of its members against members of the Federation to compel compliance with the award, the President stated a case for the opinion of the High Court which was guby stantially as follows :— 1, An application has been made by the above-named Association and certain of its members against members of the above-named _ Federation at Mackay to compel compliance with an award made in this dispute. _ 2. The award was made on Ist May 1914, and orders were made varying it on 18th December 1915 and 23rd June 1916. 3. Since the said award and orders waterside workers who are members of the above-named Federation at Mackay refused to accept employment from shipping companies members of the "Association to load or unload vessels at Flat Top unless they were _ paid at the rate of 2s. 4d. per hour not only for the time of actual _ work but for meal hours at Flat Top, in which they did not work. __ 4. Subsequently they waived this demand for payment during _ meal hours, but refused to accept employment as aforesaid unless the companies conveyed them to Mackay for their meals and back to Flat Top. 5. Flat Top is about seven miles from Mackay at the entrance of is: a channel on which Mackay stands, and the channel is at low impracticable for navigation. _ Istate this case for the opinion of the High Court upon the follow- questions, which in my opinion are questions of law :—Were the members of the Federation who refused to accept employ- they were paid for meal hours in which they did not work ; (b) in refusing to accept employment unless the companies conveyed - them to Mackay for their meals and back to Flat Top for work? 'The only material provisions of the award were that a minimum _wage at the rate of 2s. 4d. per hour should be paid to members of - the Federation at the port of Flat Top in Queensland, and that time during which employees might be travelling from and to the town of Mackay to and from Flat Top should be treated as time of duty 'in addition to the time of actual working. H.C. or A. 1916. Sw WartersIDE Workers' FEpERATION or AUSTRALIA v. Common- WEALTH STEAMSHIP Owners' AssocraTIon. H. C. or A. 1916. Warersipe Workers HIGH COURT [1916. H. I. Cohen, for the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia. Grirritu C.J. We are told that an award was made by which Frprrarion Minimum wages were fixed. At a port called Flat Top, in Queensland, or AUSTRALIA ComMon- WEALTH Sreamsnir Ow : Griffith C.J. the minimum wage was payable in respect of the time during which employees were going to and coming from Mackay, a distance of about five miles by a river which is almost dry at low water. The award did not in terms impose upon the employees any duty or ~ any obligation to accept employment. Some men refused to accept employment unless they were paid for meal hours while they were not working. Alternatively, they refused to accept employment unless they were carried to the town of Mackay for their meals and back to Flat Top and paid at full rates during the trarsit. The question is whether they were guilty of a breach of the award by such refusal to accept employment. As the award is absolutely silent as to any duty to accept employment, it is a mere truism to say that they were not guilty of a breach of it. An award might be drawn up in such a form as to impose mutuality of obligation upon employees as well as employers. As this award does not do so, there cannot be any breach of it by the employees. Barton J. No obligation. is imposed upon employees to accept employment even by implication. That being so, there can be only one answer to the question. Isaacs J. I agree. As there is no obligation, there is no breach of the award. Also it cannot be too strongly borne in mind that the President cannot make an award except on a matter in dispute. Hicers J. I may add that the award did not impose a maximum wage, and that, if it had done so, it would have been beyond the Court's jurisdiction, because the only thing in dispute was a minimum wage. I am very glad to have the opinion of my learned brothers upon a matter which, to my mind, was obvious, but which un- fortunately has been made the subject of frequent discussion and bitter controversy. OF AUSTRALIA. 645, Tagree with what has been said by the learned H. C. or A. 1916. aL EY WATERSIDE, Powers J. I also agree. = Workers' Bs ae FEDERATION oF AUSTRALIA uJ. Iconcur in the judgment of the Chief Justice. v : WEALTH Question answered in the negative. "On ae SOCIATION. for the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia, v & Barker. . B. L. {HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) APPELLANT ; AND PUBLIC TRUSTEE 4 3 . | RESPONDENT. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT Or NEW SOUTH WALES. cy—Life assurance policy effected by bankrupt—Protection from ereditors— yy ©, op A. acquired property—Life, Fire, and Marine Insurance Act 1902 (N.S.W.) 96, ro. 49 of 1902), secs. 4, 5, 7—Bankruptey Act 1898 (N.S.W.) (No. 25 of 1898), . 3, 10, 52. Sypyey, Aug. 7, 8, 31. "See. 4 of the Life, Fire, and Marine Insurance Act 1902 (N.S.W.) provides nat "The property and interest of every person who has effected, or shall Gritith ©... or effect, any policy for an insurance bond fide upon the life of himself "Quvag Dutly" . ,orfor any future endowment for himself. . . ,and the property Cetera aah interest of the personal representatives of himself . . . in such ey, or in the moneys payable thereunder or in respect thereof, and in the