PROTEST MADE

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 164, 13 July 1945, Page 8

PROTEST MADE

COAL MINERS' WAGES

ATTITUDE OF EMPLOYERS O.C. WELLINGTON, this day. An protest against the council dealing with the dispute was made by the Hon. T. O. Bishop, secretary of the New Zealand Coal Mine Owners' Association, when he appeared yesterday before the Coal Mines Council in connection with a claim by the United Mine Workers of New Zealand for an increase in wage rates of 3id an hour and an increase in piece rates of 10 per cent.

WELLINGTON, this day

Mr. Bishop said he had received a letter l from the president of the United Mine Workers' Union, Mr. A. Prendiville, on April 9, stating that he had been instructed by his union to make application to have the coal miner"' agreements amended in accordance with the recent pronouncement of the Court of Arbitration on the question of standard rates of wages. His union asked that the rates of all day wage workers be increased by 2/4 a day, and that all piece work rates and all shift allowances, dirty work, allowances, special work allowances and meal money" allowances be increased by 10 per cent.

Mr. Bishop added that representatives of his association had met representatives of the United Mine

Workers. The spokesman and advp* „. cate for the miners on that occasion had been Mr. Prendiville. There had been a full discussion, and finally the claims had been declined by

representatives of the coal companies. From that date until the chairman's letter announcing the present sitting, they had no further approach from the miners' organisation, nor any intimation as to intentions to refer the question as a dispute to the Coal Mines' Council. Surely it should have been necessary for one party to the dispute to notify the other party of its intention to refer the matter to a tribunal for settlement. Failure to do that indicated an entire disregard for ordinary procedure. Advocate for Miners His protest against the hearing by the council was made on the grounds that Mr. Prendiville, as advocate and spokesman for the mine workers, had long ago made up his mind upon the dispute. He had expressed his opinions emphatically. The members of the association did not wish to reflect upon Mr. Prendiville in any way. He was quite openly and frankly the advocate for the miners. In that capacity they were always happy to meet him, but they considered he should not be both advocate and judge. They did not say that Mr. Prendiville was biassed because he was president of the mine workers' organisation, but they did say that it was not right that he should sit in judgment on this particular dispute, because he had strongly expressed his opinion upon the claims, and had in fact made up his mind. They had not the slightest objection to Mr. Prendiville being a member of the Coal Mines Council as long as he kept an open mind as to any dispute until the council had heard the submissions of the parties. Mr. Bishop emphasised that during the whole of his term of membership of the council he had never sat in judgment upon any dispute in which he had first acted as advocate or spokesman for the coal mine owners. He submitted that the council was not the proper body to deal with the application for increased wage rates and contended that the proper body was the Court of Arbitration. The council should be asked to determine whether or not an increase in mine workers' wages should follow the court's raising of the basic rate of wages. Question of Authority He further contended that the Goal Mines Council had no authority to deal "with the application, because it had already dealt with it, and decided all wage rates and piece rates until April 30, 1946, by its decision given on July 19 of last year. It was laid down in earlier decisions of the Coal Mines Council that it would not, during the term of an agreement, amend any of its specific provisions unless it could be shown that there had arisen since the agreement was made some change in the conditions which made it clear that an alteration was necessary in order that the work might be carried on. In this case no such justification could be advanced for altering wage rates or piece rates. The council had no authority to go back on a decision, and any order of the council which would have that effect would be invalid. "Assuming that, in spite of the objections I have raised to the council's dealing with this application, the council does decide to deal with it," said Mr. Bishop, "then I submit that tne mine owners are strongly opposed to further increases, that the earnings of mine workers have been so substantially increased since the war began that ho further increase at the present time can be justified, and that the coal mining industry is unable to bear the additional cost. The position as to coal mining costs is worse now than it was a year ago." Improved Conditions After quoting average daily earnings of coal 'miners Mr Bishop said that there was, no worker in or about a colliery working for the basic rates determined by the Court of Arbitration, and applying in the majority of industries. The coal mine workers were among the most favoured in the Dominion, and conditions had steadily improved since the war began. In conclusion, Mr. Bishop said that in the event of the council giving a decision, they reserved their right to take any legal steps which seemed necessary. Decision was reserved hy the council on the points raised by MrBishop, and also oh the general issue. '[':-'

They had not the slightest objection to Mr. Prendiville being a member of the Coal Mines Council as long as he kept an open mind as to any dispute until the council had heard the submissions of the parties.

Mr. Bishop emphasised that during the whole of his term of membership of the council he had never sat in judgment upon any dispute in which he had first acted as advocate or spokesman for the coal mine owners. He submitted that the council was not the proper body to deal with the application for increased wage rates and contended that the proper body was the Court of Arbitration. The council should be asked to determine whether or not an increase in mine workers' wages should follow the court's raising of the basic rate of wages.

Question of Authority

He further contended that the Goal Mines Council had no authority to deal "with the application, because it had already dealt with it, and decided all wage rates and piece rates until April 30, 1946, by its decision given on July 19 of last year. It was laid down in earlier decisions of the Coal Mines Council that it would not, during the term of an agreement, amend any of its specific provisions unless it could be shown that there had arisen since the agreement was made some change in the conditions which made it clear that an alteration was necessary in order that the work might be carried on. In this case no such justification could be advanced for altering wage rates or piece rates. The council had no authority to go back on a decision, and any order of the council which would have that effect would be invalid.