The Press FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1947. The A.E.U. Strike

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25179, 9 May 1947, Page 6

The Press FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1947. The A.E.U. Strike

The settlement of the Amalgamated Engineering Union strike in Victoria, briefly announced a few days ago, requires that something should be added to what was said here on the progress of the strike up to the conference summoned by the Court of Arbitration. The first thing -to be said, obviously, is that the release of a great community from a stranglehold fastened upon it for weeks is welcome. Second, it may seem that in the terms of the present, provisional settlement the A.E.U. has confessed the disastrous error and folly of its strike policy, which was—it should be recalled—to press its objection to a Federal Conciliation Commissioner’s decision on its wage claim, not by appeal to the Arbitration Court but by appeal to force. This was, as the acting Chief Judge of the Court said, “ open rebellion ” against the arbitration system; and the A.E.U. saved itself from the effect of his deregistration order only by accepting the conference settlement terms as the 14 days’ suspense of the order 'was running out. The terms were that the men should at once return to work, accepting the increased rates decided by Commissioner Mooney, and appealing to the Court for an award in revision. On the-face of it, therefore, the A.E.U. has completely verified, in submission to the Court, Judge Drake-Brockman’s warning that, in the end, the union “ must “ come back to the Court and . . .

“ abide by its decision It returns to the Court, also, with this advantage, that the employers have agreed to support the appeal for a review of the Mooney decision; and the advantage may be greater if it is true, as is unofficially reported, that the employers will not Object to the 15s marginal rate increase to which the union is ready to sink its original demand for 20s. It may be that appearances are not deceptive, and that the union’s submission, to which it was urged by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, is unconditional. If so, the cause of industrial order and the authority of the Arbitration Court have been greatly strengthened. But it is a little too soon to rejoice. It has not been officially stated that the A.E.U. has undertaken to abide by the Court’s decision, whatever it is; and the Court, which has already let it be known that the A.E.U. demand for 20s cannot be approved, is under no obligation to accept any lower figure that the union and the employers are ready to compromise on. The Court may award less than the hypothetical compromise figure of 15s. It should, and no doubt will, award exactly what it thinks equitable, on the merits of the appellant union’s case. Everything therefore depends on the A.E.U?s attitude to a decision whieh will certainly reject its original demand and may disappoint present expectations. If it does, the worth of the provisional settlement and the meaning the A.E.U. attaches to it will be tested. Either the A.E.U. Will show that it returned tb the Court and submitted itself again to the arbitration system unconditionally; or it will show that it returned on its own conditions and, therefore, did not submit to arbitration at all For an arbitration system rests upon the unconditional assent of both parties to its ultimate decision on the issue between them; or It rests on nothing—i and hangs over the abyss of lawlessness.