John Heine and Son Limited v Pickard [1921] HCA 47
Where the relevant State law prescribes a minimum wage for an employee lower than the rate mandated by the Federal award, the employee is entitled to not less than the minimum rate prescribed by the Federal award. This follows the ordinary and clear language of the award.
- Parties
- Appellant: John Heine & Son Limited; Respondent: Pickard; Employee: Arthur Stephen McNamara
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 November 1921
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / High Court Hearing of Stated Special Case on Appeal From Stipendiary Magistrate
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Award Interpretation, Minimum Wage, Apprenticeship, Conflict of Federal and State Laws
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Heine & Son Limited
Appellant
Pickard
Respondent
Arthur Stephen McNamara
Employee
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Hearing of Stated Special Case on Appeal From Stipendiary Magistrate
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an apprentice is entitled to the minimum wage prescribed by the federal award or the lesser minimum wage fixed by the relevant State law when both apply.
Ratio Decidendi
Where the relevant State law prescribes a minimum wage for an employee lower than the rate mandated by the Federal award, the employee is entitled to not less than the minimum rate prescribed by the Federal award. This follows the ordinary and clear language of the award.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Conviction of company and fine of one shilling with costs affirmed
- Company ordered to pay McNamara £17 1s. 8d., being the difference between wages paid and those should have been paid, with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment