198 HARVARD LAW REVIEW as if they were engines or horses. Many a grievance, or supposed griev- ance, would be removed before it developed into a serious trouble by a proper board of reference. I have hoped and worked for an agreement for such boards in this case, one at least for each undertaking; but the parties cannot agree as to the conditions. The companies want to insert a provision that before a grievance can come before the board of refer- ence it must be brought by the individual employee aggrieved before his foreman or immediate superior. The union desires that the grievance shall be brought before the management by the works committee of the imion, and then, if necessary, before the board of reference; but it is willing, as a compromise, to agree that either the individual or the board may approach the management. The companies imite in insisting that the individual employee must first make the complaint. Such a provision was not in the agreements of 19 13, and there is no evidence that the lack of it has had any ill-effect. But the companies are firm on the subject. It is suggested that I should exercise my power under Sec. 40-A to appoint a board of reference. That section enables me to assign to a board the function of deahng with "any specified matters or things which under the award or order may require from time to time to be dealt with by the board." Unfortunately these words mean, according to a majority of the High Court, that I must specify now, in my award, the specific grievances which the Board may deal with (Federated Engine-drivers v. Broken Hill Company, 16 C. L. R. 245). Apparently it is not enough for me to commit to the Board all or any matters which may arise — even arise under the award or order. As I have said in previous cases, it is impossible for me to specify before- hand the grievances which will arise or be alleged. Whether the view of the High Court is correct or not, I shall obey it. I had hoped that Parliament would have come to the assistance of the Court by an amend- ment of the section, but it has not done so. I cannot make use of the section, at all events, so as to meet the circumstances of this case." ^ The fundamental difficulty of the position seems to be that the employer and the union look at the methods used from different points of view. The employer — generally a company acting through directors — looks at money results, at profits, at expenses. The union looks at the results to the human instrument. Both sides of the subject ought to be considered. It is significant that the unions are always willing to have such boards, and the Court often manages to get an agreement on the subject. The board of
- Gas employees, n Com. Arb. (1917).
