MINER’S CLAIM

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 March 1922, Page 8

MINER’S CLAIM

FORKS V. SHOVELS. A case of importauce to mining interests under the new award was heard at the Magistrate s Court at Inxeicatgill last. Thursday when Joseph Barton preceded against the Nightcaps Coal Compang (Limited) to recover £8 Ils, being wages due by the. defendant company to plaintiff for 9J, shifts work done as a miner working in the company s mine at Nightcaps, at tonnage rates, for a period' ending January 28, 1922, being the minimum wage as prescribed by clause 25 of The Nightcaps and Wairio and Wairaki District Coal Alines award, dated November 21, 1921. Counsel for plaintiff said the de-fi-mlant cotnpatiy had paid into court £5 3s 54, wlii'h if considered to be the amount due to the pdaintifl under the terms of the award. The case was in the nature of a test one, and there were important principles to be decided particularly with reference to clause 25, which set out: “A miner working on tonnage rales who shall be unable through no fault of his own to earn an average of 18s per shift for any fortnight, shall be paid such an amount as may be necessary to bring up his earnings to that average or that pi riod.” Prior io the introduction oi the existing award, which became operative on December 1, 1921, and was t<> remain in force till November 20, 1924, the men worked under a national agreement, in which they were paid at the rate of 10s per ton for coal and dross. The new award reduced these rates to 5s 9d per ton for coal and Is 6d for dross. There wore other clauses in the award which materially affected the winning of coal. Under the. agreement the plaintiff could earn 37s 6d per shift, under the new award his earnings were reduced to 11s per shift. There was not a miner in Knight’s mine, where the plaintiff was at present employed, who could earn the minimum wage of 18s. A factor in the decrease of output was the use of forks instead of shovels. It could not lx* contended that as much coal could be lifted with forks as with shovIs. The men had repeatedly cottilained to the company that they could not earn the minimum wage, but the company had never taken any action, nor h;td “go slow” been suggested till the present proceedings were opened. The witnesses for the plaintiff would deny any allegations of “go slow,” and were, also prepared to challenge any outside miner to go into the mine and earn a living wage, as the mine was working scarcely half time. The ‘miners also had to purchase their own explosives, and since the award had come into force there had been heavy increases in charges. Counsel was informed that powder in the Nightcaps Aline cost the miners Is lid per lb. whereas in Mount Linton and Wairaki Alines it cost only Is 2d. The question for his AVorship to counsel submitted, was whether the plaintiff had worked honestly over the period set out in the statement of claim, and whether or not his reduced earnings were caused by the award. Plaintiff gave evidence on the lines of counsel’s address. Counsel for the company called mine manager, who said the general effect of the award had been a reduction of output. Forking should not make any difference. A fork should fill a box quicker than a shovel, since it was large, and held more. The percentage of dross was smaller. The men did the blasting themselves under the old system, and the men earned much larger wages, and worked less hours The. falling off in output, compared to the old system, was approximately one ton per day per man. Scarcely any man in the mine at present earned more than the minimum. If the men liked they produced what they thought fit. They may not “go slow,” but they did not go as fast as they might do. If the minimum wage was fairly fixed the men could earn it at tonnage rates. Further evidence was heard and Air. Geo. Cruickshanks, S.M., reserved his decision.