MINERS' DEMANDS

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 91, 18 April 1921, Page 8

MINERS' DEMANDS

OWNERS' REPLY

PROPOSALS REJECTED

WOULD MEAN DOUBLING PRICE

OF COAL.

NEGOTIATIONS BREAK DOWN.

The conference between the representatives of the Mine-Owners' Association and the Miners' Federation, which opened on Friday last with the object of considering the latter's demands for a- new agreement, was resumed this afternoon. Mr. A. H. Kimbell, Under-Secretary for Mines, presided. All the delegates were I present. > At the opening of, the proceedings the Chairman made it clear that the figures relative to the price of State coal did not include capital expenditure. He then asked Mr. Recce to make his reply to the miner*. Mr. Reeoe said that tiie owners had 1 devoted several hours to the consideration of the demands. The consideration had been a- serious one, arid he had been instructed to make the following reply : — "The demands now submitted to the representatives of the Coal Mine Owners by the Miners' Federation are practically the same as were submitted in 1919, and again last year. It is therefore evident that both sides have had ample time to think over the demands, and the decision of the Miners' Federation to insist upon the whole of the demands being granted (as announced by the President of 'the Miners' Federation, Mr. O'Rourke) must therefore be taken as the result of careful consideration; and not merely a^ a hasty statement made in the heat of debate. The owners' representatives have accepted it as a carefully-considered' decision, and after the most careful investigation as to ; 'the practicability of granting the 'demands a.re compelled to reply, as they have done on former occasions, that the' increase in the cost of coal that would result therefrom would cripple the mining industry and be disastrous to the industrial life of the country as a whole. "When they agreed to meet the federation in conference, the t Ooal Mineowners' Association expected that the miners' delegates would at least submit some sound arguments in support of their demands. In this expectation they have been entirely disappointed. The delegates on the other side, instead of putting forward any herpfnl 'Scheme, have contented themselves with malting entirely unjustifiable and unfounded statements *as to the conditions existing at the 'mines, and they have entirely failed to substantiate their case.

"The owners .desire to say emphatically that the conditions-, in the Nc#; Zealand mines compare favourably with any in the world, and, moreover, that they are at all times ready to adopt improvedl methods or machines which oan be made applicable to New Zealand requirements. submitted by the Mines Department representative in 1919, showed conclusively that had the miners' demands foV a six-hour day, five-day week, fortnight's holiday on full pay, and abolition of the 'contract system been granted the cost ofcoaj at the mine would have been more* than doubled. Since August, 1919, there has been a considerable increase in cost at the mine, as shown by the figures submitted by Mr. Kimbell, Under-.Secretary of! Mines, on Saturday, and if the miners' present demands were granted the already high cost of coal would be further increased by at least 100 per cent. "Under such conditions no 'New .Zealand mines /Could exist against outside competition, \

"For these reasons the Coal MineOwners feel it their absolute duty to say quite plainly that they cannot entertain the proposals made by the Miners' Federation." " . Mr. Recce adßed that the mineowners had given the matter every consideration, and that was their conclusion.

Mr. O'Rourke, in reply, said there was one part the miners felt compelled to take strong exception to in regard to unjustifiable Statements by the owners. The owners evidently thought,,it -was the miners' headache to manage the mines. They were charged—the miners were charged'—with making an unjustifiable dlemanid. This they challenged. Personally, be had been against any suoH policy altogether. The miners apparently were to be dettied any opportunity of debate. They fe# this sort of thW they felt they, had not been fairly treated). / ■' , '

Mr. ORourke admitted the press might not have been able to set out everything in proper sequence, not having an intimate knowledge of the induatry. They had put in two days trying to diecu'ss the problem, and the owners had put in no reply to' the miners' demands. The owners admitted they were charging 18s or 19s a ton more for coal than the State Mine and yet the State Mine was carrying on. The people had a right to know how this came ,about and why the industry could not stand the extra charge. Mr. Arbuckle said the statements made by the delegates were absolutely true, and could be borne out by'the check inspectors' reports. They knew it was in the interests of the coal owners to say the miners' statements were unfounded, but there wire headstones in, cemeteries to show that the justice of ,the statement that the mining industry of New Zealand was rotten. The owners were their own judge and own jury, and brought an a verdict to suit themselves. "It seems we have reached'the end of the rope," said Mr. O'Rourke, "seeing the other side are not going to continue the discussion any furthet Of course, the onus must be with the other side."

The Chairman : "I suppose the conference must close down."

Mr. O'Rourke: " Yes, there seems to be no alternative. The last paragraph in the repl.y seems to be quite mandatory."

The representatives of the Miners' Federation then prepared to depart. Before the conference broke up Mr. Recce moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Kimbell for presiding. This was seconded" by Mr. O'Rourke, who said he had no fault to find with Mr. Kimbell as a chairman, and carried unanimously. The delegates then left the room— fifteen minutes.after they had taken their seats.