N.S.W. COAL TROUBLE

Hokitika Guardian, 4 March 1930, Page 6

N.S.W. COAL TROUBLE

HIGH COURT DECISION. FEDERAL ARBITRATION FOILED (Australian Press Association) SYDNEY, March 3. By a majority decision, the High Court has decided that Judge Beeby’s second Arbitration, Court interim award in the coal case was bad in law, and null and void. MELBOURNE, March 3. Four Judges of the High Court in joint judgment in the- coal case, held that there was no dispute in the coal industry beyond the limits of one State, namely, New South Wales. 'l'lie question which the Court had to decide was whether the formation of a “paper demand” for increased wages and other advantages, and its refusal could and did operate to bring into being a real and genuine dispute, or a real and genuine extension of the present dispute. The judgment says: “We think It quite .’ clear that - the Council of the Miners’ Federation deliberately revised and remodelled their demands for tlie purpose of attempting to confer on Judge Beeby authority to deal with the. existing dispute on the northern coalfields —New South Wales. In the circumstances,• we think Judge Beeby’s award of the Federal Arbitration Court on January 23rd. was bad in law and void, and that the application of tlie New South Wales Government and of certain of the coal proprietors for a prohibition against that award should he allowed.” Air Justice Isaacs dissented from tlie Judgment. He holds that application for prohibition against the award should have been dismissed by the High Court. JUDGE ISAAC’S STRAIGHT TALK. MELBOURNE, Alfideh 3. Regarding the Melbourne High Court decision Air Justice Isaacs described the position as.. “amazing.” Twice, lie said, the coal owners and the miners , had been brought into the Court to compose a! serious national industrial quarrel, and yet in the name, of the same, law they had -.summarily been ejected. He added—The . reality of an industrial .dispute in the souse required by the:constitution, is satisfied, whatever the motives of the demands, and whether the defendants expected their claims to be granted ax full or not. If the touchstone of the public welfare were applied as the guide, we should atmnee escape from this labyrinth of .confusion.” He is quite convinced that-Judge Beeby was right, and - prohibition., should fail.

been ejected. He added—“ The reality of an industrial .dispute in tlie sense required by the::constitution, is satisfied, whatever the motives of the demands, and whether the defendants expected their claims to be granted ill full or not. If the touchstone of the public welfare were applied as the guide, we should at:once escape from i his labyrinth of . confusion.” He is quite convinced that-Judge Beeby was right, and -prohibition''; should fail. CO A 1 AiriNWE ALTH’S..; ,NEE D. ; MELBOURNE, At arch 3., When Air : d. :;'H. S.euHin, the Fed-, •eral Prime Minister, fiw-as aljou|t .tlie High Court’s judgment in the. coal case; he said: that .it was monstrous to, think that the Commonwealth; law caiihqt operate?'to Settle this dispute, sje Effect bf which 'is being felt throughout Australia. . “The need lor increased industrial powers ■ for tlie Commonwealth,” he. added, “has surely 'been emphasised by this and by the previous decision of the High Court. ; MINERS NOT SURPRISED. SYDNEY, March 3. Tension in the coal dispute eased as the result of the High Court judgment. The miners’ officials l declare that die decision given is as they expected. A further conference to try and effect a setleriient of the dispute is being held about the end of this week. Both sides have expressed a willingness to negotiate again in consequence of which tlie: feeling on the coalfields is more honeful- and optimistic. Tlie. principal - miners’ officias have not yet returned to Sydney from the All Australian Trade Union Conference.