disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State; The scope of this constitutional power had previously been considered by the High Court in 1908 in the Jumbunna case, and in 1909 in the Broken Hill case, and the Sawmiller's case, Court of Conciliation and Arbitration The Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation, a registered union sought the assistance of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, in relation to what the union said was an industrial dispute with boot manufacturers that extended beyond the limits of any one State. While Whybrow & Co is named in each of the three judgements, it was one of a wide range of boot manufacturers in four States, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria, who had received a letter from the union which gave the employers an ultimatum, either the employer agreed to the union's demands or the union would approach the Arbitration Court. Higgins J held that this was a valid means of establishing an industrial dispute and that there was discontent among employees that would have broken out in strikes but for the hope of relief from the Arbitration Court. The process of a establishing a dispute by way of serving a "log of claims", referred to as a paper dispute, was controversial at the time. The demands primarily concerned wages, unskilled labour, apprentices and boy labourers. In the Arbitration Court George Beeby appeared for the union, Mitchell and Starke appeared for some employers and various other employers were separately represented. In fixing the minimum wages, Higgins J adopted the requirement of a "living wage" he had established in the Harvester case despite the High Court holding in R v Barger that the Excise Act 1906 which gave rise to the Harvester decision was constitutionally invalid. Higgins J attributed criticism of the living wage as "the natural discontent of defeated parties and their partisans". In considering the claims in relation to apprentices, the Arbitration Court looked at the conditions for apprentices in the boot trade, community concerns, the implications for employers as well as the availability of technical schools as part of that apprenticeship. While the decision states that the scale of wages should be higher towards the end of the apprenticeship, the proposed award set wages for apprentices and other boys according to their age. The question of law for the