{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024551463644948063, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018885741265344664, 'mean_word_length': 5.424242424242424, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Arbitration and Relations Between the Parties

Australia has developed a system, or systems of collective bargaining combining interactions between the parties, industrial tribunals, and political and legal processes. Arbitration has been one mechanism through which the parties have conducted their relationships. The nexus between arbitration and the parties is nuanced and fluid. It is not a simple command—obey relationship as characterised by Howard (1977) and Scherer (1985). Unions are not dependent on arbitration and tribunals have not been captured by union principles. Employer associations, in contradiction to Plowman (1988), have been proactive in pursuing the interests of employers. Following Mark Perlman (1954a, b), the successes of arbitration have been due to arbitrators being flexible and adaptable in fulfilling the diverse and changing needs of the parties. The inability of the federal tribunal to respond to the parties’ desire to adopt enterprise bargaining in the early 1990s, has resulted in a reduction in its role and influence.