Coalminers, Arbitration and the Workplace

Abstract

Historians who have asked "why it was the Australasian colonies opted to introduce a compulsory element into their dispute solving mechanisms have given broadly similar answer. Compulsion resulted from the conjunction of a particular stage of union development, a heightened predisposition towards what might be called liberal rationality or a belief in the possibility of resolving clashes of interest by negotiation. Commonly enough historians have also tended to concentrate upon the leadership or sponsorship of a particular individual. Thus the persistent advocacy of William Pember Reeves in New Zealand, C C Kingston in South Australia and B R Wise in New South Wales is often seen as critical to winning acceptance for the legislation. There is much to commend this general explanation for the adoption of a compulsory system of arbitration through out Australasia. It is an historical framework which Jim Holts Compulsory' arbitration in New Zealand endorses. It is when he turns to examine the evolution of the system that he widens our perspective. He stresses the subtle interplay between employers and unions, politicians and administrators and the Arbitration Court itself as each sought to respond to changing circumstances.