Background← Previous revisionRevision as of 18:13, 24 October 2026 Line 18: Line 18: ==Background== ==Background== The case concerned the use of [[union label]]s to indicate that goods were produced by members of a [[Trade union|union]]. Isaac Isaacs, the then [[Attorney-General for Australia|Attorney-General]], supported the Trade Marks Bill in parliament, describing the union label as a guarantee of wholesomeness, in respect of the wages, hours of labour, and health requirements that applied to the manufacture of the goods.{{cite hansard |jurisdiction=Commonwealth of Australia |house=House of Representatives |date=2 August 1905 |page=505|speaker=Isaac Isaacs|position=Attorney-General|url=http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/hansard80/hansardr80/1905-08-02/toc_pdf/19050803_reps_2_25.pdf|title=Trade Marks Bill 1905 Second Reading Speech}} H.B. Higgins, then a member of the [[Australian House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], similarly spoke in support of the union label.{{cite hansard |jurisdiction=Commonwealth of Australia |house=House of Representatives |date=5 December 1905 |page=6198|speaker=H.B. Higgins|position=member for [[Division of Northern Melbourne|Northern Melbourne]]|url=http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/hansard80/hansardr80/1905-12-05/toc_pdf/19051205_reps_2_30.pdf|title=Trade Marks Bill 1905}} The Trade Marks Act 1905 provided that an employer could use the union label if there was a [[closed shop]] or if the union agreed.s 74(2) {{cite web|title=''Trade Marks Act'' 1905|date=21 December 1905 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1905A00020 |publisher=Commonwealth of Australia|accessdate=7 August 2016}}. The case concerned the use of [[union label]]s to indicate that goods were produced by members of a [[Trade union|union]]. Isaac Isaacs, the then [[Attorney-General for Australia|Attorney-General]], supported the Trade Marks Bill in parliament, describing the union label as a guarantee of wholesomeness, in respect of the wages, hours of labour, and health requirements that applied to the manufacture of the goods.{{cite hansard |jurisdiction=Commonwealth of Australia |house=House of Representatives |date=2 August 1905 |page=505|speaker=Isaac Isaacs|position=Attorney-General|url=http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/hansard80/hansardr80/1905-08-02/toc_pdf/19050803_reps_2_25.pdf|title=Trade Marks Bill 1905 Second Reading Speech}} H.B. Higgins, then a member of the [[Australian House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], similarly spoke in support of the union label.{{cite hansard |jurisdiction=Commonwealth of Australia |house=House of Representatives |date=5 December 1905 |page=6198|speaker=H.B. Higgins|position=member for [[Division of Northern Melbourne|Northern Melbourne]]|url=http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/hansard80/hansardr80/1905-12-05/toc_pdf/19051205_reps_2_30.pdf|title=Trade Marks Bill 1905}} The ''Trade Marks Act 1905'' provided that an employer could use the union label if there was a [[closed shop]] or if the union agreed.s 74(2) {{cite web|title=''Trade Marks Act'' 1905|date=21 December 1905 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1905A00020 |publisher=Commonwealth of Australia|accessdate=7 August 2016}}. The Brewery Employees Union of NSW registered a union label as a trade mark. The [[Attorney-General of New South Wales|Attorney-General (NSW)]] commenced proceedings in the High Court [[Ex rel.|on behalf]] of four brewing companies in [[New South Wales|NSW]]: [[Tooth & Co.]], [[Tooheys Brewery|Toohey and Co.]], the Maitland Brewing Company,{{refn|group=n|name=Maitland|The Maitland Brewing Company was acquired by Tooth & Co in 1913, {{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article126317512 |title=Maitland Brewing Co. |newspaper=[[The Sunday Times (Sydney)|The Sunday Times]] |date=2 November 1913 |page=2 |via=National Library of Australia}}}} and the Castlemaine Brewery and Wood Brothers Company.{{refn|group=n|name=Tooth|The Castlemaine Brewery and Wood Brothers Company was unrelated to the brewery company that became [[Castlemaine Perkins]] or the [[Castlemaine Brewery, Western Australia|Castlemaine Brewery, WA]]. The company was acquired by Tooth & Co in 1921 {{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article15933447 |title=Tooth-Castlemaine Wood |newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] |date=18 February 1921 |page=8 |via=National Library of Australia}}.}}{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5130899 |title=The Union Label Case |newspaper=[[The Advertiser (Adelaide)|The Advertiser]] |location=South Australia |date=31 March 1908 |accessdate=7 August 2016 |page=7 |via=National Library of Australia}} The brewing companies argued that some people would stop buying their beer if the union label was used and other people would stop buying their beer if the union label was not used and that union label would make it difficult for them to employ workmen who were not members of the union.''Union Label case'' [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1908/94.pdf (1908) 6 CLR 469] at pp. 473–4. The Brewery Employees Union of NSW registered a union label as a trade mark. The [[Attorney-General of New South Wales|Attorney-General (NSW)]] commenced proceedings in the High Court [[Ex rel.|on behalf]] of four brewing companies in [[New South Wales|NSW]]: [[Tooth & Co.]], [[Tooheys Brewery|Toohey and Co.]], the Maitland Brewing Company,{{refn|group=n|name=Maitland|The Maitland Brewing Company was acquired by Tooth & Co in 1913, {{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article126317512 |title=Maitland Brewing Co. |newspaper=[[The Sunday Times (Sydney)|The Sunday Times]] |date=2 November 1913 |page=2 |via=National Library of Australia}}}} and the Castlemaine Brewery and Wood Brothers Company.{{refn|group=n|name=Tooth|The Castlemaine Brewery and Wood Brothers Company was unrelated to the brewery company that became [[Castlemaine Perkins]] or the [[Castlemaine Brewery, Western Australia|Castlemaine Brewery, WA]]. The company was acquired by Tooth & Co in 1921 {{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article15933447 |title=Tooth-Castlemaine Wood |newspaper=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] |date=18 February 1921 |page=8 |via=National Library of Australia}}.}}{{cite news |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5130899 |title=The Union Label Case |newspaper=[[The Advertiser (Adelaide)|The Advertiser]] |location=South Australia |date=31 March 1908 |accessdate=7 August 2016 |page=7 |via=National Library of Australia}} The brewing companies argued that some people would stop buying their beer if the union label was used and other people would stop buying their beer if the union label was not used and that union label would make it difficult for them to employ workmen who were not members of the union.''Union Label case'' [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1908/94.pdf (1908) 6 CLR 469] at pp. 473–4.