The following memorandum has been submitted to me for advice:

With reference to the shipbuilding agreement (copy attached), I desire to inform you that the Federal Shipbuilding Tribunal has taken exception to certain action by the Naval Board in regard to its decisions (see copy of letter attached). The general administration of the staff of the Cockatoo Island Dockyard comes under the control of the Navy Department, and authority to apply the decisions of the Tribunal to the staff at the Dockyard is considered as vested in the Minister for the Navy and the Naval Board. I am desired, therefore, by the Naval Board to ask your advice on the following matters in connection with the agreement:

1. Does the agreement apply to all work in connection with shipbuilding, including work on naval and mercantile ships?
2. Does the agreement apply to clerks, storemen, labourers, and others, who, although not actually employed on shipbuilding, are employed in a dockyard maintained for building and repairing ships?

The members of such unions have signed the agreement.

3. Has the Shipbuilding Tribunal power to fix terms for settlement of all industrial disputes in the Dockyard, whether in regard to piecework or day-work rates (see clause 5 of agreement)?
4. Has the Tribunal power to vary the application of any award or agreement in its application to the employees of the dockyard?

Examples: 1. In applying the award of the Australian Clerical Association, New South Wales Gazette No. 126 of 2 July 1920, prescribing a minimum rate of £4.4.6 for 48 hours per week, may the Tribunal vary the award to apply the wages only, and retain existing hours (36 1/4) provided by Regulations?

2. Award for ironworkers' assistants prescribes 13s 4d per diem. It has been the practice to pay Is extra at the Dockyard. Has the Tribunal power to authorise continuance of this extra payment over award rates?
3. It has been a practice to pay store assistants the same rate as ironworkers' assistants, but the Naval Board does not consider the practice should be continued. Has the Tribunal power to order that the payment be continued on the ground that it is an 'existing condition' or 'custom' in the Dockyard?
4. In regard to clause 5 where the Commonwealth Government is not a party to industrial agreements which are subsequently applied to the Dockyard employees, is the agreement to take effect so far as the Dockyard is concerned, from the date of such agreement?
5. Has the Tribunal authority to give a decision in the case of a claim for compensation on behalf of an employee for glasses alleged to have been damaged by the circumstances of his employment at the Dockyard?
6. Blacksmiths in the Tool Room objected to being placed under the supervision of the Engineer Foreman of that Department. The Tribunal maintains that the supervision should be exercised by the Foreman A. The management holds that this is not a 'dispute' under the agreement. In the circumstances, has the Tribunal power to decide what supervision should be provided?
7. Has the Naval Board authority to veto the decisions of the Tribunal when they relate to day-work rates and conditions of employment?

By the terms of the form of agreement the employee agrees to accept work in connection with shipbuilding by the Commonwealth. The word 'shipbuilding' is sufficiently wide to include both merchant-ship and warship construction, but the conditions of employment have to be ascertained by reference to a statement attached to the agreement. This statement comprises the report of a shipbuilding conference and a statement by the Prime Minister on the Government shipbuilding scheme. The report is certified by the members of the conference as a correct summary of the proceedings thereof in regard to conditions of employment in the proposed shipbuilding industry. From these words and from the remarks of the Prime Minister in his statement, it is apparent that the scheme referred to is a programme of merchant-ship construction to replace shortage caused by the war.

Paragraph (2) provides 'that the conditions and principles in relation to shipbuilding work set out in or which may be reasonaby inferred from the printed statement hereunto annexed shall be mutually binding upon the parties in relation to the work'.

As I have shown above those conditions and principles are laid down in relation to a scheme for the construction of merchant shipping. The agreement provides in paragraph (4) what rates shall be paid to persons working day work in any yard or shop which is engaged on shipbuilding under the Commonwealth scheme. This scheme is presumably that referred to in the statement attached. By paragraph (5) authority is given to the tribunals appointed as agreed to by the Conference to settle piecework rates etc.

The position is not free from doubt but I incline to the opinion that an employee who has signed the agreement is entitled to the conditions of employment as settled by the Conference or the tribunals appointed as agreed to by the Conference, only if he is engaged on work in connection with the shipbuilding scheme. Clerks, storemen and others engaged in connection with such work are competent to sign the agreement and work under the conditions contained in or inferred from the statement.

With regard to the fixation of piecework and day-work rates, it is assumed that the Tribunal was appointed in accordance with the Conference decisions, to settle disputes relating only to the shipbuilding scheme. In this view the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over disputes arising in relation to warship construction.

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (4) and (5) of the form of agreement, the powers of the Tribunal depend upon the terms and authority under which it was appointed.

In view of the condition as to piecework, I think the provisions of paragraph (5) of the form of agreement are consistent with the terms of the annex, that is to say that the Commonwealth can by individual agreement with the workers exclude the Tribunal from the determination of day-work rates.

The Tribunal can adjudicate as to the day-work rates (if any), payable to employees under the agreement, only if such rates have not been the subject of award by a Commonwealth or State Arbitration Court or by a State Wages Board.

The Tribunal can, therefore, make a determination at variance with an award only so far as the award affects piecework rates.

The agreements referred to in paragraph (5) of the above memorandum, not in force at the date of the making of the individual agreement under the scheme, operate from the date they are applied. If the agreements are existing agreements within the meaning of paragraph (4) of the form of agreement submitted, or are agreements which have the force of an award (e.g. agreements filed under section 24 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act) they take effect automatically by force of paragraph (4).

The matter referred to in paragraph (6) of the above memorandum is not, in my opinion, one for decision by the Tribunal.

The dispute referred to in paragraph (7) is cognisable by the Tribunal if the workmen in question are engaged in work to which the agreement and annex relate.

The Naval Board has no authority to veto any decision of the Tribunal. Where the Tribunal has adjudicated in excess of authority, its determination is not binding.

[Vol.17, p.93]