R v Foster [1944] HCA 22

R v Foster [1944] HCA 22

The Board's decision was based on an incorrect construction of 'work' under reg. 6(1), treating it as the manufacturing of scientific glassware, whereas the Regulations required attention to the specific operations performed by employees. As a result, the decision was not authorized and prohibition must issue.

Parties
Prosecutor: Crown Crystal Glass Company Proprietary Limited; Respondents: Judge Foster and members of the Women's Employment Board; Respondent: Australian Glass Workers' Union
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Writ of Prohibition / Judgment on Order Nisi
Outcome
order nisi made absolute; writ of prohibition to issue
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Industrial Awards, Jurisdiction of Industrial Boards, Women's Employment, Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Employment Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Industrial Awards Jurisdiction of Industrial Boards Women's Employment Judicial Review of Administrative Action

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Crystal Glass Company Proprietary Limited

Prosecutor

Judge Foster and members of the Women's Employment Board

Respondents

Australian Glass Workers' Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Writ of Prohibition / Judgment on Order Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct meaning of 'work' under reg. 6(1) of the Women's Employment Regulations?
  2. 2 Did the Women's Employment Board have jurisdiction to make the impugned decision under reg. 6(1)(c)?
  3. 3 Was the Board's decision sufficiently specific regarding grades and rates of pay?

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's decision was based on an incorrect construction of 'work' under reg. 6(1), treating it as the manufacturing of scientific glassware, whereas the Regulations required attention to the specific operations performed by employees. As a result, the decision was not authorized and prohibition must issue.

Court Disposition

order nisi made absolute; writ of prohibition to issue

Orders

  • Decision of the Women's Employment Board quashed; writ of prohibition issued prohibiting further proceedings on the impugned application and decision.