MR JUSTICE HIGGINS ON THE KOOMBANA CASE.

The Sydney Morning Herald, Saturday 25 November, 1911.

THE KOOMBANA CASE.

The President of the Commonwealth Arbitration 

Court, Mr. Justice Higgins, to-day delivered his 

proposed award In the claim brought by the 

Federated Seamen's Union against the 

Commonwealth Steamship Owners and others.

Continuing, his Honor said: I have indicated 

the kind of award which it is proposed

to make. I have not made it yet. I want the

parties to speak to the minutes of the award

next Thursday, and to point out anything that

I have overlooked in the complicated details.

But there has come to my knowledge officially

a curious position in connection with some

men of this union in Fremantle, and if possible, 

and if that position be not quickly altered, I 

shall have to consider what award I should 

make, if I make any award at all.

I understand that in spite of the warning and

remonstrances of the executives of the union

the steamer Koombana has been practically

boycotted by the firemen in Fremantle, because 

of some objection which the men have to a chief 

steward. The owners are willing to Inquire into 

the matter if the men will only go on working, 

and the detention of the ship is serious, especially 

as the owners are under contract to carry mails. 

It cannot be said that the men have struck. Those 

who left the ship did so after due notice, and those

who were brought down to fill their places have not, 

as I understand, signed the articles.

'Some objection' should have had clarity by this stage of proceedings. The firemen wanted the chief steward off the ship if they were to continue working. 'The owners willing to go into the matter' was evasive and misleading - the objection and conditions were made clear to them.

But there is an agreement in existence, and

under that agreement it is a breach on the part

of the union, if by reason of any dispute or

difference between the men and employers a

vessel be detained 24 hours. 

Finally an explanation for the Union's action against the 'instigators' (scapegoats). The firemen had placed all parties in a very awkward position.

The agreement is not one made under the auspices 

of this Court, and its faulty framework may be a cause 

of some misapprehension. It is pleasing to find 

that there has been no case yet of any breach 

of an award of this Court, and that there has 

not even been in this era of strikes any (admitted) 

strike, in a dispute of whlch this Court could take 

cognisance. 

But surely it is not for the public interest that I

should make an award in favour of a union

which, by its disobedient members, 13 breaking 

a collective agreement.

The Union must have been furious. And all of this said without referring specifically to the objection to the chief steward staying on Koombana. Whatever had gone wrong with due process the kernel of the issue was carefully and definitively evaded.

It was almost like revenge on the Unions in the 'era of strikes'.

MUST BE BROUGHT TO BO0K.

"I know that the men are acting in defiance

of the executive of the union, but the union

has by its agreement taken absolute responsibility 

for its members' acts, and it must devise some 

system whereby unruly mobbers can be brought to 

book. No doubt this means that the innocent are 

punished with the guilty, but that cannot be helped 

where there is collective responsibility. The 

employers look to the union to keep its contract, 

and rightly so. 

Although there has been no infringement, 

so far as is known, of any of this Court's awards, 

I have to look ahead, and all round me when I 

see what a few men on the Koombana can do.

I am at present inclined to think that even after 

an award has been made the Court has power 

under section 38, to vary its awards by striking 

out in whole or in part the relief already granted 

to the union if it appears that the men of the union, 

although taking the benefit of the award, are not 

prepared to take up the burden also. I shall have 

this case put down for Thursday to speak to the 

minutes but if the trouble be not over by that time

I must consider what I should do. I had hoped to 

make the increased wages apply to December's 

work, but I certainly shall not do so in the present 

position of the Koombana.

Wow! There was absolutely no doubt left as to the Judge's strategy. The mess had to be resolved or else all would suffer the consequences. He did not mince his words and they were given a week to 'sort themselves out'. It was ridiculous to expect the Union, some 1200 miles away, to thoroughly resolve a dispute relating to the detention of the Koombana, all within 24 hours. Although Justice Higgins represented the Arbitration Court, there is a distinct impression given that the anti-Union stance of the status quo had had the last say.

It was not all bad and during this time Justice Higgins oversaw a general improvement made in working hours, pay and conditions on board coastal steamers.

  

Justice Henry Bournes Higgins - courtesy the University of Sydney.

courtesy Trove