Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Co
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 (No 1) 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
1913 Australian referendumAustralian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & CoConfectionery Workers' Union of AustraliaFederated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty LtdList of High Court of Australia casesR v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHPR v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Whybrow & CoSection 109 of the Constitution of Australia
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Co
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 (No 1) 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
has abstract
Australian Boot Trade Employee ...... rovide for common rule awards.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
53,133,149
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
968,508,399
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
date decided
1910-03-30
1910-07-10
1910-10-10
full name
Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co and others
@en
Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Co and others
@en
The King v the Commonwealth Co ...... parte Whybrow & Co and others.
@en
judges
Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor & Isaacs JJ
@en
Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor, Isaacs & Higgins JJ
@en
name
Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co
@en
Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Co
@en
R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Whybrow & Co
@en
prior actions
''Australian Boot Trade Employ ...... CAR 1 per Higgins J President.
@en
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
Australian Boot Trade Employee ...... to obey both laws. In Whybrow
@en
label
Australian Boot Trade Employees' Federation v Whybrow & Co
@en