When the campaign becomes the case: differences between bargaining and arbitration
Queensland Teachers' Journal, Vol 131 No 7, 2 October 2026, page no.8
When an enterprise bargaining campaign reaches a difficult stage, it is easy to think that arbitration is simply the next battleground.
In reality, arbitration is an entirely different contest. The skills, strategies, and expectations that help secure a strong bargaining outcome are not necessarily the same as those needed to succeed before an industrial tribunal. Understanding that difference is important for every Union member.
Bargaining is fundamentally about achieving an agreement with an employer. It is a process driven by negotiation, collective strength, and member participation. Whether through workplace meetings, campaign activities, delegate engagement, or member communications, the goal is to persuade an employer to improve its position and reach a settlement that reflects members’ interests.
Arbitration operates on a different foundation. Once a matter is before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC), the focus shifts from negotiation to determination. The audience is no longer the employer, but an independent decision-maker. In the current matter before the QIRC, that independent decision-maker is the Full Bench. The question is no longer “How do we move the employer?” but “What is our case?” and “How do we establish the merits of our case?”
That difference influences everything that follows.
We necessarily shift from high visibility and collective actions that send a clear message that workers are united and prepared to advocate for a fair outcome. In arbitration, success depends less on visibility and more on preparation. Well-constructed submissions, persuasive evidence, and careful compliance with legal and procedural requirements become critical. The strength of the case rests on its merits rather than campaign momentum.
Accordingly, the role of members also changes. Bargaining is a member-led process. Members shape priorities, provide feedback, and ultimately determine whether an offer is accepted or rejected. Union negotiators are instructed by resolutions of Council and Executive and seek outcomes that reflect the intentions of those democratic decision-making bodies.
Arbitration is different. While members remain at the centre of the dispute and the outcome will affect them directly, their role becomes less hands-on. Union advocates assume responsibility for presenting the strongest possible case, while members stay informed and support the process as it progresses through the QIRC.
Perhaps the most significant difference is who makes the final decision. In bargaining, members have the last word. A proposed agreement succeeds only if members vote to accept it. In the current arbitration, that authority rests with the Full Bench. After considering the evidence and arguments of all parties, the Full Bench will deliver the decision that determines the outcome.
There is also a difference in what happens when the parties cannot agree. Bargaining allows for further negotiation, renewed campaigning, and escalation processes. Arbitration is the end of the line. Once the Full Bench has delivered its decision, and unless there is an error in the application of the law, the matter has reached its conclusion.
In summary, bargaining and arbitration are not different stages of the same process. They are fundamentally different processes that require different approaches. Bargaining is a contest of collective strength, negotiation, and influence. Arbitration is a contest of evidence, legal argument, and procedural discipline. Knowing when a campaign has become a case is essential to understanding how victories are achieved, and why success looks different.
