Railway management had no strategy to resolve the dispute. The decisions of the conciliation commissioners could only be appealed on legal issues. Railway management and unions then sought new ways to re-introduce the September agreement to Hall and Austin in the hope that it could be ratified in some way. At the request of the railway commissioners, Hall convened a mandatory conference of employers` and trade union representatives on 17 and 18 November. Such conferences should be an opportunity for the parties to work towards an agreement, but the hearing was unproductive. Harrison, who represented AFULE, told Hall that he had discredited arbitration and played the communists` game.  Hall was not impressed and his judgment of 20 October was peppered with homilies on the evils of industrial appeasement.  Austin decided on the same day that AFULE did not have an agreement with the separate ARU railways. As a result, he found that the right to AFULE could not be granted independently.  On Sunday, September 3, Brown led a delegation of guards to interview the railway commissioners. According to the ARU, the commissioners promised to “go to the arbitration tribunal in agreement with the union” to provide for the payment of all service time as active time and the daily payment of overtime after eight hours.
 The promise was not bi-decantable – did the commissioners agree in good faith with the union`s demands or did they simply reconcile the matter in anticipation of the Commissioners refusing concessions? On Monday, 18 September, a new joint delegation of the ARU and AFULE met with the Commissioners. Wishart told them that the concessions offered to guards would also apply to musculoskeletal vehicles that must be ratified by the Court of Arbitration. Wishart said he felt it was unlikely.  The reaction of the participants to Hall`s decision was to try another arbitration option. On 3 November, a meeting of government, railway and ACTU ministers agreed to support the ARU in the Arbitration Tribunal`s approach to ratifying the September agreement. The court ruled on 14 November that the certification of the agreement was not within its jurisdiction, as these were not matters that fell under the Tribunal`s jurisdiction through the 1947 amendments.  On Thursday, September 21, Hall began reviewing the agreement.