The Dominion. SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 1920. AN ILLUSORY DEADLOCK.

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 233, 26 June 1920, Page 6

The Dominion. SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 1920. AN ILLUSORY DEADLOCK.

Only about four months ago a serious dispute of long standing in the coal industry was settled under an agreement which, on top of earlier concessions, gave contract miners an increase of 50 per cent, on pre-war rates of payment, and wage-workers in and about the mines an increase of 60 per cent. At the present moment another upheaval of the whole industry is threatened because the parties have failed to reach an understanding regarding the application of the agreement to the special circumstances which exist in a few smaii mines. In all the important mines, and in most of the smaller pits, the agreement reached in February is operating quite satisfactorily. The National Disputes Committee has failed, however, to adjust the questions in dispute at four small mines, and the possibility is raised that tho whole industry may be cast into turmoil, and that production at all mines may be limited or brought to a standstill, Miners and mine owners ought to be as ready as the general ■ public to recognise' that it would be an act of imbecility fo allow matters to take this course. Even if serious grounds of dissension existed, it would still be true that a strike or any serious trouble in the coal industry in the dead of winter would be an unmitigated calamity for all concerned. In actual fact, however, the issues now raised between miners and their employers are trivial in relation to the scope and importance of tho total industry, and it hardly needs to be pointed out that extreme action by either side, besides occasioning wholesale hardship, suffering, and loss, would seriously delav and impede the satisfactory settlement wjiinh, in the fscfcs in sight, is quite' easily attainable.

The so-called deadlock iifc which the parties have arrived- hardly doserves that name. It is quite evident that their ultimate differenca is a- mere matter of phraseology, and that while they declare themselves unable to agree they are in fact demanding the same thing, or at all events stating condition* which are in no way irreconcilable. Looking at the statements' submitted by the parties, it, will bo seen that when tlv National Committee failed to ■ arrange a settlement, the employers proposed to refer the dispute to an independent chairman. f To this the miners, after some resistance,, agreed, but their assent was paddled, with the proviso that the chairman would he instructed to give his" decision along the lines of the spirit of the. February conference, and not on the literal interpretation of the clause granting th» increase fin.rates of pay]. : The employers refused to accept this proviso, holding (according to their present spokesman, Mil. Pryor) that . . . it would be impossible to 'diotale to a chairman «s to how he would decide the questions put. to him, an -h« would have to.consider the ovidenpu submitted to him in accordance with the terms of the national agreement, which specially provides (clause 21) that should any dispute ariso as to any matter affected by the agreement, the intention of the parties shall, as far as possible, be determined by reference to the official report of the proceedings.

A decision in the spirit of the Feb-, ruary conference (as distinct from the literal interpretation of a particular clause). could hardly mean anything else than a decision taking full account of the intention of tho parties at the conference a.s disclosed in the official report of their negotiations. It. is only by reference to this report that aii independent chairman can possibly ascertain or estimate the spirit of the February conference and of -the' agreement it framed. It thus seems clear that'the representatives of the miners and those of the mine owners, though they use different words, are in the most definite sense • demanding one and the sani*' thi ; Mn. Pryor, it is true, states on behalf of the mine owners thafc. it would bo impossible to dictatef'to a chairman, but in adding that the chairman would have to determine the intention of the parties by reference to the official report of the proceedings of the February conference he evidently approves the only "instruction" that would be necessary to give full effect to the demand of the Miners' Federation. There is no reason why the stipulation made by this body and that of the Coal Owners' Association, aa they are quoted above, should' not be combined in a letter drawn up for the guidance of the chairmanarbitrator when he is appointed. In these circumstances there is neither need nor justification for talking about a deadlock. It is perfectly open to the miners and their employers to promote an impartial settlement of the a%nparatively trivial issues in dispute and avert the serious consequences to all concerned which would result, especially at f;his time of the year, from any ex> tended upheaval in .the coal in'flustry.