Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

852 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART Iv down, the actual awards were consistent with the determina- tions of the States Wages Boards, and, for the same reason as that given by Griffith C.J., he held that the Victoria Act, No. 2241, did not affect the point at issue. O’Connor J.! repeated the principles he had laid down in the Woodworkers’ case. He elaborately considered the meaning of the term ‘ arbitration ’, and he pointed out that the power of the Court could only be effective in some cases by varying the terms of existing contracts, and by dis- regarding the laws of the states by which the existing rights of contract were recognized and enforced. But beyond this it was impossible for the Court to disregard the states laws, and the award must be in accordance with state law except in so far as the disputants might themselves have lawfully agreed to the state law being disregarded. He pointed out also that rights created by an award of a state industrial tribunal in settlement of an industrial dispute stood on no higher ground than rights conferred by contract, and must be clearly distinguished from the determinations of Wages Boards which were legislative enactments of the states. To adopt the principle contended for by the federation would be to enable the Commonwealth indirectly to override the states’ control of industrial matters which the Court had assigned to the states. O’Connor J., like Griffith C.J. and Barton J ., held that the actual awards were not inconsistent with the state legislation. He pointed out, however, that the result of the difference between the form of apprenticeship indenture and that legal in South Australia would have the result that in future no apprenticeship in the boot trade could be created there, and he suggested that the President should modify his proposed award so as to avoid this result. He held that the Victoria Act was powerless to alter the position, On the other hand, Isaacs J.2 was of opinion that an award of the Federal Court could override the awards of the States Wages Boards. He insisted that, unless the determinations ' 10 C. L. RB. 266, at pp. 301 seq. * Ibid., at pp. 310 seq.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation