Beath, Schiess and Co v Martin [1905] HCA 29

Beath, Schiess and Co v Martin [1905] HCA 29

A contract for manufacture between independent parties, such as Beath, Schiess & Co. and Mrs. Rodgers, registered factory proprietor, is not a contract of employer and operative to which sec. 15(19) of the Factories and Shops Act 1900 applies. The section cannot be interpreted to extend statutory liability in such wholesale contracting situations. Therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted under sec. 15(19) and (20) for paying less than the prescribed piece-work rate in this case.

Parties
Appellant: Beath, Schiess & Co.; Respondent: Edwin Charles Martin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 1905
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Factories and Shops Acts, Minimum Wage, Piece Work Rates, Definition of Employer
Industrial Law Statutory Interpretation Factories and Shops Acts Minimum Wage Piece Work Rates Definition of Employer

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beath, Schiess & Co.

Appellant

Edwin Charles Martin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the word 'employer' in sec. 15(19) of the Factories and Shops Act 1900 (Vic) applies to independent contractors or only to persons in the employer-operative relationship
  2. 2 Whether contracts between independent parties for manufacture are within the statutory prohibitions against paying less than prescribed piece-work rates

Ratio Decidendi

A contract for manufacture between independent parties, such as Beath, Schiess & Co. and Mrs. Rodgers, registered factory proprietor, is not a contract of employer and operative to which sec. 15(19) of the Factories and Shops Act 1900 applies. The section cannot be interpreted to extend statutory liability in such wholesale contracting situations. Therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted under sec. 15(19) and (20) for paying less than the prescribed piece-work rate in this case.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order appealed from discharged
  • Order nisi discharged with costs