SETTLEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES. 495 



that the employer, if the conditions do not suit, can give up his 

 business, it may be rephed that, in the average industrial concern, 

 such is not practicable. There are current contracts for raw 

 materials and for output, andthe employers' capital is sunk in his 

 buildings, plant an 1 stock. He cannot suddenly determine to 

 close down, without facing ruin ; whereas the men, in an under 

 supplied labour market, can usually find employment elsewhere, or, 

 at the worst, subsist on "strike pay " until the difference is settled. 

 The reputable employer also feels some injustice in the consciousness 

 that " compulsory " arbitration legislation was brought in mainly 

 in order to check the " sweating " practices of a few employers — 

 practices he always condemned, and never himself permitted. 

 Ready to deal directly and reasonably with his own particular 

 employees, he now finds it difficult to accommodate himself to 

 negotiation with the foreign union secretary, whom, rightly or 

 wrongly, he regards as a paid agitator. 



I will now review, in outline only, the arbitration machinery 

 of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, and New 

 Zealand, taking them, that is, not in the chronological order in 

 which they respectivelv legislated, but rather in the order of 

 importance of the areas concerned. Also, I propose to give briefly 

 ths results as actually experienced, and the outlook. 



The Commonwealth. — The Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 

 1904 applies only to industrial disputes affecting two or more 

 States ; that is to say, it gives the Federal Arbitration Court no 

 jurisdiction as regards a dispute confined within the limits of any 

 one State. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that, if the referenda 

 pass in April next, the Federal Court will be able to deal with the 

 settlement of any Australian dispute, and with the conditions of 

 any employ. Its jurisdiction will extend to railway servants, 

 agriculture, and domestic service. 



The President must be a Judge of the High Court, and from 

 his decision there is no appeal. Preference to unionists may be 

 granted. No legal man to be employed at the hearings, except 

 by consent of both parties. A recent High Court decision laid it 

 down that the Federal Arbitration Court has no power to make a 

 " common rule," and its awards can only apply therefore to the 

 parties directly cited. This robs the Court awards of any general 

 application, and therefore of any general value. The power to 

 make a common rule should be vested in the High Court in respect 

 of disputes affecting two or more States ; otherwise industries 

 carried on in several of the States might tend, in cases where transi- 

 tion was easy, to gravitate to the one State where wages were 

 lowest and hours longest. 



To date there have been six Federal awards, three agreements 

 under the segis of the Court, and one ex parte award. Out of the 

 nine awards and agreements no less than four relate to inter-State 

 shipping. The second case heard was that of the shearers, and the 

 award by Judge O'Connor was so extremely and unexpectedly 



