THE MINERS' DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 132, 5 June 1901, Page 2

THE MINERS' DISPUTE.

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

WAIIII, this day

In addressing the Conciliation Board Mr Barry said he only proposed to touch oii three points. This was by arrangement with other representatives, ' who would deal with further points, and was in order to obviate any needless reiteration. With regard to the hours of labour, he did not take any exception to the demand for a week's work for miners to consist of 40 hours for men working- day and afternoon, this to apply to all men working underground and to men working shifts on the surface in the mining- department, with exception of those men who had to work full seven days a week, such a-s firemen, engineers, etc. He djd not consider the claim had been justified, that other surface men on the mines should onlywork from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and oti Saturdays from S a.m. to U p.m. The consensus of opinion expressed by various witnesses clearly showed that when comparing conditions of working under ground and on the surface, the balance was in favour of shorter hours under ground than on the surface. Mr Barry then reviewed the evidence given by various Union witnesses referring to this matter and re shorter hours on Saturday. Referring to Sunday work and overtime, ho pointed out that it had been stated by many of the U.nion witnesses that overtime was necessary, and that an hour or two special job entailed no hardship on a man, even at the ordinary rate of pay. On Sundays, it had been admitted by most witnesses that it was necessary to do some repairs that could only bo done when the whole mill was stopped, such as overhauling the main driving engines, main shafting, etc., besides which men working in dry crushing mills agreed that it was more comfortable and less dangerous to do ordinary repairs when the whole uyill was stopped on Sundays than to do them on week days. Admitting the necessity of stopping for repairs, it did seem unreasonable to demand double pay for necessary work. By making the coat of repairs on Sundays prohibitive, it would be necessary, in the case of the Waihj Company, to stop entirely for 13 hours on a week day, and thus reduce the output, a.nd consequently necessitate the dismissal of a proportionate number of men in the mine, which would be 48. Considering the already heavy cost of maintenance and repairs, the Board would do well to let the rates for overtime and Sunday work remain as at present. Being asked if he had stated clearly the hours that were at present worked, >lr Barry said lie stated clearly that the hours of work were 47, but if men chose to work 471 to suit themselves that was a matter -for themselves. They had approached the Company by petition to make the hours 47J in order to suit their convenience on Saturdays. The. hours in the battery were from 12 on Sunday night till 12 on Saturday night. The battery was closed 24 hours by law

Mr Woolmer, manager of the Waitekauri Extended, briefly pointed out that any rise in wages would prove disastrous to his company, as all work in that mine had to be carried on as economically as possible. He contended that overtime was not profitable to employers; and not desired by employees, and that it should, if possible, be avoided. Investors in England were guided by their mining engineer's reports in New Zealand, and any increase of wages here would cause bad results. He submitted that there was no widespread dissatisfaction regarding wages given by his company. , Mr Tunks, in a lengthy speech, said, judging from the claim of the Union in regard to the rate of pay set out in the printed claim attached to the citations of labour served on the companies, from the statements of witnesses, and also from all the surrounding circumstances, was originally meant to apply to the Waihi district and mines therein only. The development of the case had, however, made it necessary to consider what fate of pay should be fixed for .the whole of the peninsula. It was further clear that it was considered by the Union that miners in Waihi were in a worse position so far as the rate of living was concerned, than miners in many of the other districts, as emphasis had been laid on the various points which more particularly applied to Waihi only, such as cost of cartage of firewood and coal, and the high rates of rents. It was very certain that the circumstances of other districts were not taken into account when the rates of pay were fixed by the Union. It was therefore absolutely clear and a fair inference —if, in fact, it has not been actually admitted —that if the rate.of pay had been fixed by the Union for any other district than Waihi, it would have been at a considerably lower rate than that fixed for Waihi. That was made very clear by the statements made by Mr Potts and Mr Drnmm when the application was made at Paeroa that all mining companies should be cited. Mr Potts then said that, so far as the awards was concerned, what would suit the northern end of the district would not suit men here. Eeferring to the contention that the wage now being pafrl was a starvation wage, a mere pittance, barely sufficient to keep body and soul together, and the fact elicited from certain storekeepers that they had made bad debts, Mr Tunks contended that not one particle of evidence had been adduced to show that there was any poverty or distress amongst those who received the socalled pittance; neither had there been any evidence to show that they could not afford to provide proper food and adequate clothing and honse accommodation for themselves, their wives, and families. He thought it obvious that in this country, where mining was just staggering along, with most of its mines only carrying on works by mean^s of the liberal supply of money forthcoming from capitalists, it wonld in many cases be suicidal to further increase the cost of labour, and thus still further lessen the chances of success. After exhaustive comment on the evidence, etc., Mr Tunks submitted that the Union had entirely failed To justify any one of the grounds advanced for increased wages. He, representing employers, contended that one rate of pay must be fixed for the whole peninsula, and that it wonld be most unjust and unfair that that rate should be fixed upon a basis of what Waihi or any other prosperous concern could afford to pay. He would again point out that what the Board had to fix was a lowest rate, that could anywhere in the

peninsula be legally paid, and the employers said there was obsolutely no reason why the rate paid to miners at Thames should be exceeded.

Messrs Rich, Woolmer, and Brown stated that they had nothing to do with the conference at Paeroa, and were not prepared to grant any concessions. .Messrs Rich and Brown also stated they fully agreed with Mr Tanks' statement, having assisted to draw it up.

Mr. Montgomery, in addressing- the Board, said Iliat he agreed with Messrs. Brown. Tunks, and Rhodes in all other matters relating to the dispute as expressed by them. He had 1o address the Board on differential rates as first applied for by the Unon. He submitted such was never contemplated by the letter or spirit of the Conciliation Act. The speaker quoted sections of the Act gogerning this matter referring to the hours of labour, rate of pay, etc. He submitted that tho evidence produced by the Union Packed preciseness. The witnesses had nothing in support.of such demands better to advance than what, they themselves thought. He also contended that the Union had not showed that any abuse of overtime, had existed on the part of employers. Coming to the contract question, he thought the evidence in support of this had been conducted in a very slipshod mariner, and had not supported the claim in any manner. He would ask the Board not to entertain the demands re fortnightly pay,, and said in conclusion he would submit that they were entitled to ask the .Board, considering the insufficiency of the Union evidence and .manner in which employers had answered it, to make no change in the present conditions.

Mr. Rhodes next addressed the Board. , lie stated that naturally as a matter of seq nonce he agreed with the former speakers. He won Id. however, deal on certain points referring to surface work. He considered no reason had been shown why the general custom should he departed from. Such work was independent, of surrounding circumstances, and there was no evidence to show why it should be considered as being affected by oiher work, lie would "refer the Board to the memorandum of Mr. Justice Edwards in the Eeefton award relating to such matter. With regard to hours claimed for the battery, Mr. Montgomery considered fhero had been no claim established. He considered it would be unfair to further curtail the hotirs of running of .stampers, lie claimed that Mr .Tusiice Edwards' statement, that if hours of labour were reduced, a corresponding reduction would take place in wages. Regarding Sunday work and overtime, he submitted that most witnesses had agreed thai such work was a matter of contract and not, exercised except absolutely where necessary. Tt was nol to the interest of companies to have it. Coming 1o the question of contract, he. would. point out that according 1o the evidence the average earnings had amounted to 25 per cent, above the usunl rates of wages. It- was not a sweating system, but il' bad been proved that the men worked half as hard again on contracts. That in itself was a strong indictment against the employment of -wages men. The only two points in connection with this question which the Board had not been previously satisfied on was the clause referring to the dismissal of men. and the question of annulment of contracts. Tt had already been pointed out that contractors were regarded as wages men, and mine managers were held responsible for them equally with wages men. Tie submitted no abuse bad ever taken place with regard to annulment of contracts. Unforeseen conditions must ocenr, but, experienced miners would know this, and tender accordingly. Mr. Rhodes aJso touched on the retention of 25 per cent, by companies, which he argued was in every way necessary, and also to the employment of boy labour. He did not consider the Union had made out any case regarding employment of unionists or non-unionists. Coming to the question of terrorism and boycott, he considered that, if the Union had failed in proving any one thing they bad utterly failed in this, and no evidence whatever had been produced to substantiate the. -charge with the exception of two slight cases, which were not proved at all. He submitted that the Board should pass severe censure on Mr. Drupim and Mr. Morgan for such statements. He considered if the clauses were granted it would completely destroy industry and force, .many companies into liquidation, besides hampering properties which were, developing. It was idle for any one to entertain the idea that if companies did throw up properties they could be made, use of afterwards. He further submitted that fully one thousand men would be thrown "out of work if the increased wages were allowed.

Mr. A. 11. Curtis next'briefly addressed the Board. He fully agreed with all that had just been said by Mr. Rhodes. He also agreed with Messrs. Woolmer. Rich, and Brown, that he was not in concord with the conference held at Paeroa.

This closed the case tor the employers.

Mr. Potts, in his opening speech for the Union, said he would not take up much time, but would confine his remarks to the principal points in the case. He expressed thanks to the Board for the kindness and courtesy to himself and colleagues. He thought that the scale of wages was fair, and agreed with Mr. Daw that a practical man who had done work was the pro~ per person to judge its value. He believed the Board would also view the question in the same light. He stibmitted that the questions asked by the employers had shown that, men who had actually been engaged in work could only say as to its value. He further .submitted that it was men who did such work and had practical experience that had drawn up the schedule of wages. Tt was the result of the collective judgment of miners as a whole, and not of any individual. He considered that the Board must allow that miners had sufficient intelligence to know that they must not do anything to injure the minin<r industry, for by so doing they would injure themselves. This fact they fully understood, and were consequently very careful in drawing up the schedule, and he contended they were capable to judge whether such demands would injure the industry. He would not go into the evidence, but would point out that a miner in earning his money had to work in damp, underground, and wet, amongst- fumes of geßgjiite, and

breathing compressed air. At the Thames a man's life might be ended any moment owing to an inrush of gas. He had also to work amongst the fumes and dangers of cyanide. He submitted that no other occupation was so dangerous or unhealthy. As to pay, why should bricklayers receive 12/, and miners only 8/? He though! by such comparisons that the miner was underpaid. Ue pointed out the unhealthy nature of the following, and hoped the Board would grant the w! hole scale. He also considered six hours in wet places was long enough for any man. Referring to overtime, and Sunday work, lie submitted that the. Board hud already, in other cases, allowed time and ahalf for overtime and double time for Sunday, therefore, why should that be denied the miners. Mr. Potts also touched on boy labour and other clauses stated in the demands. He also referred to the evidence of em-, ployers, briefly reviewing the same. In conclusion, he said he did not think non-union men would refuse to accept a higher rale of wages it such were granted.

Mr JDrumm followed air Potts in thanking the Board for their patient hearing. He hoped that he had not said or done any tilling which might give offence to uny man. He had endeavoured to suppress his persona] ieelings and do his duty to his fellow man; therefore, he was not going to speak about the question of terrorismj but lie would remind the Board that the Union had not abandoned their claim as- regards the dismissals, hut would leave it to the Boards judgment to sec that right was done between them and their employers. Referring to his own position as regards dismissal, he .felt the Board were powerless to aid him. They nii"ht order him to be reinstated, but the question was for how long? But nevertheless he would ask the Hoard to see that justice was done to his follow men. As to the wages demanded, he considered his fellow workmen in the mines .were not fairly paid. They work underground away from fresh air and sunlight that the rest of mankind enjoyed. They worked in insiduously slow poisoning fumes of nitro-glycerino, unhealthy damp, with every danger which might terminate their lives at any minute. Others had to work in dry batteries, dust filling up their lungs arid .shortly cutting off their career. He had considered all these things, and he conscientiously and honestly believed that they should have an increase of pay. Following out that feeling, he knew that when he asked for an increase of pay he would get into trouble, but if he could make things easier for his fellowminers he would not consider the sacrifice that would fall on himself. Referring to the application for increase of wage, he said the defence of the employers had not. been that miners did not earn their money. He would submit that the cardinal"point of their defence was, and is, that the mines could not afford to pay more, and would have to shut down 'if wages increased. He would ask, in reply, had that not been the cry of capital all along when labour wanted itfi fair share?. Concessions to factories in the way of shorter hours and increased pay had1 not resulted in injury to mankind. He contended that the management expenses of compa-nies should be cut down and added to miners' wages. There were many claims only held for market purposes, and the sooner such closed the better He submitted that the law had not been kept as regards employment of labour. He should also like, to point out that the rise in wages at Reef ton had not. frightened away capital, and had not injured the industry. Miners there had been granted 12 per cent, more than they demanded in Waihi. Mr Rhodes had asked the Board to be guided by Mr Justice Edwards' award regarding certain conditions, but he would point out that to be consistent employers would have to agree to the rest of the award as affecting wages. Mr Drumra alao reviewed evidence of employers and contended that the Union had fully proved their case. He submitted that the evidence produced on the companies' side had shown that repairs could a.nd had been done in the battery when the mill was running seven days per week. The employers had offered no evidence against the demands for increase for battery Avorkers. Regarding fortnightly pays, he was willing to include a clause that companies not being in a radius of three miles of a bank should not be compelled to pay fortnightly. He nJso submitted that Mr Rhodes when stating the amount of deposits by miners in the savings bank had carefully kept back the amount of withdrawals. In conclusion, Mr Dmmm thanked the Board for their hearing and added as far as he was concerned his fate was sealed in Waihi as to obtaining work.

Mr Morgan then addressed the Board. He said after the lengthy statements by his "colleagues be would not tako up much time. As to.the contract system, he would prefer,to see it abolished altogether. It was not a fair system, for no man could calculate the probable cost as he could in any other trade. He considered the power of the manager regarding the dismissals of contractors' men one-sided and unfair. He also considered the power to annul contract by companies was unjust, Referring to monthly take system, he agreed with the witness who said it w ras the worst under heaven. Union Day as a holiday he thought should be allowed by the Board, as the Union had no Labour Day, nor did they have even Good Friday. He considered their demands were fair and just.

At the conclusion of the address, which terminated the Union's ease, Mr Alison asked what the Union'demanded as regards conditions of payment.

Mr Potts replied that it only applied to companies within a radius of three miles of the nearest bank. That arrangement would suit those companies in out of the way places.

Mr Alison, further inquired if the Union wished that a minimum rate should apply throughout the entire Peninsula.

Mr Potts replied that was now generally understood. The employers bad brought it on themselves.

The Chairman then announced that the case for both sides had finished and he had to offer hearty congratulations that they had at last reached the final stage of this case, which was undoubtedly without parallel in the history of the Board ami Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Tt would likely prove historically important also. He felt that on? and all were deeply impressed with its gravity. With regard -to the -Board's decision, they would take a careful and painstaking survey of the evidence. They had an earnest desire to free their minds from passion and prejudice and to act in perfect equity to both sides. He would also appeal to the parties concerned to maintain goodwill in their relationship. Their award would be given on Monday morning next at 10.30 in the Boardroom, Supreme Court, Auckland,