852 THE FEDERATIONS AND THE UNION [PART Iv 
down, the actual awards were consistent with the determina- 
tions of the States Wages Boards, and, for the same reason 
as that given by Griffith C.J., he held that the Victoria Act, 
No. 2241, did not affect the point at issue. 
O’Connor J.! repeated the principles he had laid down 
in the Woodworkers’ case. He elaborately considered the 
meaning of the term ‘ arbitration ’, and he pointed out that 
the power of the Court could only be effective in some cases 
by varying the terms of existing contracts, and by dis- 
regarding the laws of the states by which the existing rights 
of contract were recognized and enforced. But beyond this 
it was impossible for the Court to disregard the states laws, 
and the award must be in accordance with state law except 
in so far as the disputants might themselves have lawfully 
agreed to the state law being disregarded. He pointed out 
also that rights created by an award of a state industrial 
tribunal in settlement of an industrial dispute stood on no 
higher ground than rights conferred by contract, and must 
be clearly distinguished from the determinations of Wages 
Boards which were legislative enactments of the states. To 
adopt the principle contended for by the federation would be 
to enable the Commonwealth indirectly to override the 
states’ control of industrial matters which the Court had 
assigned to the states. 
O’Connor J., like Griffith C.J. and Barton J ., held that 
the actual awards were not inconsistent with the state 
legislation. He pointed out, however, that the result of the 
difference between the form of apprenticeship indenture 
and that legal in South Australia would have the result 
that in future no apprenticeship in the boot trade could 
be created there, and he suggested that the President 
should modify his proposed award so as to avoid this result. 
He held that the Victoria Act was powerless to alter the 
position, 
On the other hand, Isaacs J.2 was of opinion that an award 
of the Federal Court could override the awards of the States 
Wages Boards. He insisted that, unless the determinations 
' 10 C. L. RB. 266, at pp. 301 seq. * Ibid., at pp. 310 seq.