OWNERS UPHELD

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 912, 4 March 1930, Page 9

OWNERS UPHELD

COAL INDUSTRY AWARD “BAD IN LAW” HIGH COURTS DECISION United I*.A. —By Telegraph Copyright MELBOURNE, Monday. By a majority decision, the High Court today decided that Mr. Justice Beeby's second interim award in the coal industry was bad in law and null and void. Four of the Judges, in a joint judgment, held that there was no dispute in the coalmining industry beyond the limits of one State, namely, New South Wales. The 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 four Judges said: —“We think it is quite clear that tlie council of the Miners’ Federation deliberately revised and remodelled its demands for the purpose of attempting to con fer on Mr. Justice Beeby authority to deal with the existing dispute on the Northern coalfields of New South Wales. In the circumstances, we think Mr. Justice Beeby’s award in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court on January 23 was bad in law and void, and that, the application of the New South Wales Government and certain coalmine proprietors for prohibition against that award should be allowed. JUDGE DISSENTS Mr. Justice Isaacs dissented. He held that the application for prohibition should be dismissed. The dissenting Judge described the position as amazing. Twice the owners and the miners had been brought into court to compose a serious national industrial quarrel. Twice in the name of the same law they had been summarily ejected. The reality of the industrial dispute in the sense required by tlie Constitution was satisfied, whatever the motives of the demands and whether or not defendants expected their claims to be granted in fulL If the touchstone of public welfare were applied as a guide they would at once escape from this labyrinth, of confusion. His Honour said he was quite convinced Mr. Justice Beeby was right MR. SCULLIN’S VIEW The Prime Minister, Mr. J. H. Scullin, questioned about the High Court’s judgment, said it was monstrous to think that the law. of the Commonwealth could not operate to settle a dispute, the effect of which was felt throughout Australia. The need for increased industrial powers for the Commonwealth had surely been emphasised by this and previous decisions of the High Court. In Sydney the tension caused by the coalmining dispute has been eased by the High Court’s judgment. The miners’ officials say the decision is what they expected. A further conference to try to effect a settlement of the dispute is to be held about the end of this week. Both sides have expressed their willingness to negotiate again. As a result the feeling on the coalfields is more hopeful. The principal miners’ officials have not yet returned to Sydney from the Trades Union Conference at Melbourne. * In the Commonwealth Arbitration Court on January 23 Mr. Justice Beeby, giving judgment on the miners' new Jog of claims, found that a serious industrial dispute existed; fixed February 18 as the date of hearing; and made an interim award prescribing the pre-stoppage hewing rates and conditions. He urged that the mines should be reopened immediately. He added: “To facilitate this end by way of interim award only, I order and prescribe that until February 18 next or further order of this Court, the wages, hewing rates and conditions of employment set out in the awards of the special tribunal of October 23 and November 6, 1925, and of any subsequent variations thereof, shall be paid and observed; that this interim award sliall be binding on the colliery proprietors, who were represented at the compulsory conference, as set out in schedule, as to their employment of members of the Australasian Shale and Coal Employees’ Federation, an.l on the said federation and its members. The nature and extent of the guarantee for observance of the award, which, under section 33 of the Act, the Court may deem necessary, will be embodied in its final award after argument on some future day.” Against this judgment and interim award the mineowners appealed to the High Court.