MINERS' DEMANDS.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 199, 22 August 1919, Page 7

MINERS' DEMANDS.

I EFFECT ON INDUSTRY. £1 A TON RISE INVOLVED. TWO MIXTION MORE FOR MINERS. I CABLXET'S REPLY TO DEPUTATIOX.! COXDITIOXS IX STATE MIKE. (By Association.) | WELLIXGTOX, Thursday. I The following reply to the represents- I tions of the Xew Zealand Alliance of Labour on the mining dispute has been forwarded by the Prime Minister. Air. I W. F. Massey. to Air. J. Roberts, secre-1 tary of the Alliance:— '"Dear Sir—The Cabinet has given careful consideration to the matters' submitted to it on August 16 by the deputa- ' iron representing the National Alliance oi Labour. In all matters of this kind it must be borne in mind that the Goveminent has no power to dictate to either party in an industrial dispute, nor has it authority to intervene, except by the express invitation of the parties. But the Government is necessarily concerned with the interests of the "silent third party in all such disputes, namely, the general public, and when the Government is asked to impartially review such a position as has arisen "with respect to the coal industry it is bound to consider not only to what extent the terms of settlement proposed by one party are fair and just from the point of ■view of the other party directly interested, but also the effect upon the general public- of such settlement. It is consequently necessary for the Govern-

nieiit in a case UKe tne present to en- i deavour to ascertain as accurately as I possible what is the actual rate of profits made by the employers as they now I exist, because if such rate of profit does not exceed a fair and just mercantile profit it is obvious that any increase in i the cost of production msst be charged to the consumer—the general public. Whereas, if the profit under the existing conditions ex-eeds a fair commercial profit there exists a margin which may be properly used to increase wages and the cost of production without an increase of cost to tbe consumer. BOARD OF TRADES REPORT. 'With this object and for the purpose of ascertaining the rate of profit made under the existing conditions by the employers engaged in the coal industry the Government directed an inquiry under the Cost of Living Act by the Board of Trade, associating with the Board of Trade under the powers conferred by that Act. Mr. James Hight. professor of economics in the Canterbury University. That inquiry was conducted with grc.it care and ability, aud the report, dated May --in. 1010. has ben printed and circulated. The Government has no reason to doubt the accuracy of that report, which shows that The average dividend to shareholders in companies owning coal mines in Xew Zealand is less than 5 per cent, without making any provision for depreciation and sinking fund. The Government has further means of itself confirming the accuracy of those figures by reason of its control of the State coal mines. 11 has been suggested by the miners that the result of the Board of Trade's investigation is not satisfactory, and that different results might have been arrived at by an inquiry held by a Royal Commission, but tbe scope of the matters which may be the subject of a Royal Commission is very strictly limited. By the Commission of InquiryAct it is not lawful to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the private »(?.,;.(: rtf onv- norsnll or eomnanv. For

anairs oi any person ... cuiuimu... j >-. , Tihe purposes of the ( ost of Living Act ■lone Parliament has granted special, powers of inquiry into private concerns. but has required that any such inquiry ' must be conducted by the Board of Trade or its delegates. COXDITIOXS OF INDUSTRY ! "It, therefore, has been apparent to the Government that in respect of the j coal industry an increase in the cost of production cannot fairly be borne by the mino owners. The ("lovernmont has therefore to approach the consideration of wagss and conditions from the point of view- that the prices to the consumer j ■will be increased by the increase in the cost of production. Tbe first point raised , by the deputation was an objection to the condition attached to an offer made by the mineowners, that condition being that increases in wages and contract prices should not apply in mines where industrial agreements were in force until these industrial agreements had expired- The view taken by the Government upon this point is in accord with that of the miners and of the deputation. Indeed, the Government introduced into Parliament in the second session of 1918 section IS o: the War Legislation Act of that year, which for the first time empowered a Court of Arbitration to alter ■ the provisions of an existing award during the term of an award, and required the Court to take into its consideration alterations in the conditions affecting the industry and cost of living which had occurred since the date of , the award. THE NATIONAL ORGANISATION. "The Government, however, cannot see that there is any foundation for the suggestion made by Mr. Hampton that the object of the condition was to prevent the operation of a national organisation of coalminers. It is clear that j the mineowners, though separate agreements exist in the case of the mines, have agreed to meet the members of a I national organisation, and met them in conference on two occasions. But it must be recognised that there arc prac- • tical difficulties in arriving at an agreement applicable in its details to every coal mine in New Zealand, and that ii' a national agreement is capable ot expression so as to have full application to < every mine, it must contain separate , schedules expressing special conditions j for each of the several mines. STATE MINES AND THE MINIMI M. | " With regard to your statement that the improved working- conditions for j wnich Cue miners were a-king were practically in operation already in tne State ' mine,., and that the State mines were paying a minimum wage, averaging 14/7 A per shift for three mine-, the Government has been unable to find any cvi- j dence that the working conditions in the State mines are better than the average conditions existing in other mine.-. It is true that the minimum wages arc j fixed for certain parts of ihe >tate mines, but the minimum wage is very rarely paid because higher wages are earned.

The reference by you to the average weekly earnings in" the Point Elizabeth mine for the six months ending September 30, 19],S, does not provide a basis of comparison with other mines because the whole of the coal from the Point Elizabeth mine is now produced from pillar working, and is therefore easily gained. ""The. deputation appeared to attach some importance to the fact that the price charged to consumers for coal from the State coal mines is less than that charged for coal from private mines. The deputation was apparently not aware that is is only with respect to coal supplied for household purposes that the difference in favour of the consumer applies. For all other purposes the cost is the same for coal of the same, quality, whether produced in the State coal mines or in private mines. But the Suite Coal Department actually makes a loss in respect of household coal, and therelore the difference in price cannot be uswl as an argument when considering the questions which have arisen between the mineowivers and the workers. ''With the contention of the deputation that hewers in a mine should not he required, to do any trucking, the. (Joveni-ment is in sympathy, subject to the necessary limitation that exception to the general rule in t-hat respect should ;be. made in <-nses where it is demonstrated that coal cannot be extracted at a reasonable cost without some combination of hewing and trucking. PRE-WAR STAXDARDS. '"Mr. Hampton summarised the subjects in respect of which the deputation desired the consideration of the Cabinet by stating the following three questions: I (1) Are the miners entitled to a wage .equal to pre-war conditions; (•_) does the : employers' offer bring the miners' wage up to the s-tardard: and (3) if not. wiiv ; not '! I "There is little difficulty in the con- ; sidenition of, and the reply, to the lirst question, as the answer has already been j given by the Government when last year it introduced into Parliament legislation i which enabled the miners to have their ■ wanes reviewed by the \rnHr»i; n „ r^.n-t

and raised where the Court oonsiders that the increased cost of living, together with the conditions effecting the industry warranted the same. But the second question which, put in other words, is a question of whether the offer of increased wages and prie;s recently 1 made by the mim/owners would, if accepted, be sufficient to compensate for the increase in the cost of living above the pre-war cost is one which only arises j because tin- miners do not consider that I the official figures on the subject are accurate. Since August. 1014. the foUo-w-I :ng increases have been granted to miners: — I n - Date. Contract-worker. \Ynsc-worker t'er cent. IVr cent. 'May. Win... 10 i„ ! June. 1t'11... 71 ~, : Sept., IMS.. T T ~ | ■ ~ ' (i | -The owner- ofiVr of the present montli is a further increase of 10 per; '.cent, to contract workers and 15 per jient. to wage workers, and. if accepted, ' iwuld raise the rate of earnings in the | cu-e of contract workers to an average I of :;:i per cent, above, pre-war rates, and, j liv the cisc of wage workers to 4") p,-r I cent, above pre-war race.-. That increase appears from ofKcial data to be ; -uliicient to cover tbe increased cost of i living, and. therefore, to comply with jtlw terms of Mr. Hampton's first i i|ue.-t:on. THE OFFICIAL FIGURES. "'The answer to the third question is that there should be no rea-on to pre- ] vent mil effect being given to the answer to the first question .and if the matters which the Cabim-t have considered at the invitation of the deputation can be reduced into the compass of Mr. Hampton's three questions, then, the single gmatteiin dispute appears to be whether in fact the oilicial data can be fully accepted by [both parties to the original* dispute, and. :if not, whether both parties cannot agree j upon some method of testing the accu-

j racy or the official data, which would be I satisfactory in both. The Government j itself ha- the utmost confidence in the | work, and results of the Government Statistician, and in the completeness of ! the inquiry made by the Hoard of Trade. I but the margin between the sum arrived lat by the addition of 35 per cent and 45 I ! per cent respectively to the pre-war earn- ; ings, and tbe sum arrived at by adding | the increase in tbe cost of Hying to the pre-war earnings, is not large, and a fair argument may be open on the question of whether the margin extends beyond one side of the line or the other. A COMPARISON". "For that reason the Government is of 1 opinion that the quantum of increase j cannot in fairness lip definitely fixed by , (he decision of the mineowners: alone or by tin- decision of tiie miners alone, and ' should, if possible, be the subject iff further consideration by Ixilli parties. But here again comes in the question of the effect upon the consumer, and tbe general public. "The Government finds from reliable e-timates that the offer recently mad; by the mineowners and rejected by the miners, involves a total increase in the <-«st of production of from £125,000 to £150,000, and a consequent increase in the price per ton of coal to the consumer of from 2/ to 3/. "if all the demands made by the miners were conceded—including the six points provisionally waived by tbe miners—the Government finds that the total increase in the cost of production would be approximately £2.0011.000. and tbe increase in the price per ton to the eonsumet approximately 20/. "These figures illustrate ami emphasise not merely the wide difference between the demands of the miners and the concessions of the mineowners, but also the grave importance to the consumers. The result is that while the Government considers an increase in the l price to the consumer of from 2/ to 3/ might be justified by the conclusion arrived at in the Government's answer to Mr. Hampton's first question, and though it cannot decide that there may not be elements outside the official data which might be found lo justify -ome slight . addition to that increase of from 2/ to 3/ I per ton yet: Firstly, the Government do , not consider it probable such elements, j leaving the official data open to fair question, do exist: secondly, that even if it could be shown that a margin does exist. < which is not fully covered by tbe ownersrecent offer, .-itch margin could not be ! large enough to be of practical importance. 1 "If the deputation de-ire the view of I the Government upon the second question for tbe guidance of the parties, then the emphatic opinion of tbe Government is Ifliat—firstly, the accuracy of the official data can be relied on. and secondly that accepting those data it appears clear that itlie increase offered by the owners would ! raise the miners' earnings to an amount lat least equivalent in purchasing power Ito their pre-war earnings, _

MORE MINERS WANTED. "There remains a question of the utmost importance which doer; not fall within the scope of Mr. Hampton's matter, but which indirectly was the soi.b- ---| ject of diecuggion by the deputation. There exists in Xew Zealand a number of coal areas still unopened and still undeveloped. The number of men engaged in mining in Xew Zealand is insuflicient to entirely man and equip the mines which have been already opened, and the supply from tlhe existing mines has been proved to be insuiiTicrent to meet the requirements of the .Dominion. Unless the number of miners is largely increased, production by means of undeveloped mines is impossible. An increase in the number of miners cannot effect the rate of wages or earnings so long as all that are added can 'find immediate and full employment. Xone of .the suggestions of the deputation meet this grave difficulty which is present and insistent by reason of the present shortage of coal supply, has demonstrated that the. number of men employed cannot by their labour during the hours to which they are limited by existing agreements, produce enough to even approximately meet the demand. That a further reduction in the hours of work would further reduce the possible supply is fairly obvious, but that is no point of the Government's present comment. The miners, by their organisation, nnule representations to the miners of Australia wihie.li prevented the Government from proceeding- with its efforts to procure labour for the mines' from that source. The Government i* unable to agree that the statements of the New Zealand Labour Organisation to tlie Au-tralian organisation with respect to hhe conditions of mining work in New -Zealand were justified. A condition that any addition to the number of miners must be of unionists is admitted, but there must be an addition to the number of miners to enable new development to which reference has lieen made. "Even the State is unable to enter upon the enterprise of opening new mines and providing necessary facilities for that purpose, because it could only obtain the labour necessary for that purpose by reilneinrr t.he ' nro.li.cl.ioii of ilt'e

or - exk-ttng mines. The Government invite the deputation to state frankly the! position of its organisation upon this| subject, and to met the Government fairly in some arrangement to ensure such an addition to the number of miners engaged in the coal industry as will enable the Dominion in the near future to rely upon its own supplies of coal for the purposes of its growing industries.—Yours fa.itthtul.lv, \\". F. MASSEY, Prime .Minister.'' "