496 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION GI. 



favourable to the employees that other employee unions have been 

 encouraged to seek Federal rather than State adjudication. To 

 effect this they had to extend the area of the dispute into two or 

 more States, with the consequence of some manufacturing of 

 technical disputes. The High Court, however, last year made a 

 pronouncement which precludes the purely artificial cases. 



The immediate point only turned upon such a dispute as 

 affected two or more States, and was therefore susceptible of 

 Federal adjudication ; but mcidentally the Court defined an 

 " industrial dispute," and the following quotation should therefore 

 be of interest : — 



'■ The term industrial dispute connotes a real and substantial difference 

 having some element of persistency, and likely, if not adjusted, to endanger 

 the industrial peace of the community. . . . Such a dispute is not 

 created by a mere formal demand and formal refusal, without more." 



(Note. — A mere claim, having for its real object the transfer of 

 the hearing from the State to the Federal jurisdiction, cannot lead 

 to a genuine industrial dispute.) 



" The dispute must be single, in the sense that there must be a sub- 

 stantial community of interest amongst the demandants and amongst those 



who refuse the demand There must be a substantial identity 



of subject matter. . . . The difference in one State may be as to hours 

 of labour, in the other as to terms of remuneration in the same industry. 

 In this case there would not be a ' single ' dispute. . . . The varying 

 conditions of climate and other physical conditions found in the Common- 

 wealth may make a demand couched in particular language in respect of 

 one State quite different in its essence from a demand couched in the same 

 words m respect of another. . . . There must be real community ot 

 action en the part of the demandants, and some community of 

 action on the part of parties on whom the demand is made. . . . If it is 

 found that large bodies of men in two or more States are in fact acting with 

 one accord, then, if the other elements of an industrial dispute are present, 

 an occasion arises for the exercise of the Federal power in question. 

 The dispute must be actually existing and actually extending beyond the 

 limits of one State before such an occasion can arise. Mere mischief makers 

 cannot, therefore, by the expenditure of a few shillings in paper, ink, and 

 postage stamps, create siach an occasion." 



If the April referenda pass, the men will no longer need to 

 create artificial disputes in order to secure a Federal Court hearing. 



So far, the decisions, recorded during a period of increasing 

 prosperity, have been in favour of the employee, in the sense ol 

 increased wages. The question therefore arises whether the Act 

 has under the circumstances been really tested. Probably not. 

 Experience in other directions leads to the inevitable conclusion 

 that the penal provisions of the Act will not deter men from 

 striking — as, for instance, the shearers—if an award should prove 

 adverse to their claims. No Act or penalty will hold any consider- 

 able number of employees to their Court- defined task — if they 

 quarrel with the terms. The authorities cannot incarcerate them 

 all ; nor indeed is it really desirable they should attempt to do so. 

 As long as the authorities preser\'e law and order, and see to it 



