Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T21:50:50.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legal Status of the Australian Railways Services and of Railways Employment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Garth Nettheim
Garth Nettheim*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the years there have been established, at Commonwealth and State levels, a multiplicity of independent or semi-independent public bodies outside the traditional departmental structure. As far as conditions of employment with such bodies are concerned, some fall within the Public Service Board system, while others are governed by separate legislation which tends, however, to bear considerable similarities to the prevailing Public Service Board system. In addition, there may be some intersection of institutions—in New South Wales, for example, employees of a number of bodies which are not under Public Service Board control have, in common with public servants, a right of appeal to the Crown Employees' Appeal Board (though railway and transport employees retain their own appeal tribunal).

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 122 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This comment is part of a work in progress on the law relating to public employment.

References

1 Benjafield, D. G. and Whitmore, H., Principles of Australian Administrative Law (3 ed., 1966) 314–326Google Scholar.

2 Id., 52.

3 Ex parte Wurth; re Tully (1954) 55 S.R. (N.S.W.) 47, 58 per Brereton J.

4 Blair, L., “Public Employment—An Australian Contrast”, [1960] Public Law, 246Google Scholar.

5 (1887) 12 A.C. 643, 649.

6 (1905) 3 C.L.R. 316, 338.

7 For a concise account of the administrative history of one State railway system in the 19th century, see Wettenhall, R. L., “Early Railway Management Legislation in New South Wales”, (1960) 1 Tas.Univ.L.Rev. 446Google Scholar.

8 It has been suggested that the Australian railway services provided the prototype of the public corporationas an instrument of public administration: ibid.

9 Id. 456-459.

10 For example, Watson v. Collings (1944) 70 C.L.R. 51.

11 The Federated Amalgamated Government Railway and Tramway Service Association v. The New South Wales Railway Traffic Employees Association (1906) 4 C.L.R. 488..

12 (1920) 28 C.L.R. 129.

13 (1906) 4 C.L.R. 488, 534-535. See also Wynyard Investments Pty. Ltd. v.Commissioner for Railways (N.S.W.) (1955) 93 C.L.R. 376, 385, 390 per Williams, Webb and Taylor JJ.; Sawer, G., “The Public Corporation in Australia” in Friedmann, W. (ed.), The Public Corporation (1954) 10Google Scholar.

14 Attorney-General of New South Wales v. Collector of Customs for New South Wales (1908) 5 C.L.R. 818, 841.

15 [19281 S.A.S.R. 342, 348.

16 See per Herring C.J. in delivering the opinion of the Victorian Full Supreme Court in Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Herbert [1949] V.L.R. 211, 212-213, overruling the decision of Gavan Duffy J. in Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Greelish [1947] V.L.R. 425.

17 Skinner v. Commissioner for Railways (1937) 37 S.R. (N.S.W.) 261; Ward v. Blue and Red Buses Ltd. [1956] Q.S.R. 515.

18 Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Herbert [1949] V.L.R. 211.

19 Wynyard Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Commissioner for Railways (N.S.W.) (1955) 93 C.L.R. 37.6, 384. But see the dissent of Fullagar and Kitto JJ.

20 In re Commonwealth Agricultural Service Engineers Ltd. [1928] S.A.S.R. 342; In re Oriental Holdings Pty. Ltd'. [1931] V.L.R. 279.

21 [1942] S.A.S.R. 91.

22 (1957) 60 W.A.L.R. 83.

23 Id., 87.

24 (1959) 102 C.L.R. 392.

25 The Commonwealth v. Quince (1944) 68 C.L.R. 227.

26 Attorney-General for New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustee Co. (Ltd.) (1952) 85 C.L.R. 237; [1955] A.C. 457.

27 Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Hambrook [1956] 2 Q.B. 64L.

28 [1955] A.C. 457, 489.

29 Id., 490.

30 (1959) 102 C.L.R. 392, 442-443 (Italics supplied).

31 Id., 418-419.

32 Id., 419.

33 Id., 427.

34 Id., 438.

35 Id., 463.

36 Id., 406.

37 Id., 410.

38 Id.,404.

39 Watson v. Collings (1944) 70 C.L.R. 51, 57.

40 For example, Shenton v. Smith [1895] A.C. 229; Dunn v. The Queen [1896] 1 Q.B. 116; Hales v. The King (1918) 34 T.L.R. 341, 589; Denning v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1920) 37 T.L.R. 138; Rodwell v. Thomas (1944) K.B. 596; Riordan v. War Office [1959] 1 W.L.R. 1046.

41 For example, Adams v. Young (No.2) (1898) 19 N.S.W.R. 325; Ryder v. Foley (1906) 4 C.L.R. 422; Carey v. The Commonwealth (1921) 30 C.L.R. 132, 135; Pletcher v. Nott (1938) 60 C.L.R. 55, especially at 67-68 per Latham C.J.