MINING CONFERENCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 31 May 1928, Page 6

MINING CONFERENCE

OPENED AT WESTPORT Wages and working conditions at the West Coast coal mines are being discussed at a conference representatives of the employers and employees, which opened at Westport yesterday, the object being the arrangement of a new agreement to replace that which expired- at the end of April. Attending the conference as representatives of the owners are: Messrs J. C. Brown (District Manager Westport Coal Co.); Strongman (Granity); Marshall (Denniston); McGhie (Stockton); Leitch Main); Parsonage (Blackball); O’Donnell (Roa); Hughes (Dobson) and T. O. )Bishop, Secretary to the Mine Owners' Association. .. Representing the miners are Messrs Whittle (President); Balderstone (Secretary) ; Coppersmith (Treasurer); W. Clark (Millerton); J. Muir (Denniston); J. Jenner• (Westport Main); J. Williams (Reefton); F. Theobald (Ngakawau); W. Wylde (Roa); H. Chilton (Blackball); J. Connell (State Mine); J. Smeaton (Dobson) and the National President, Mr. Hayward, and Secretary, Mr. McLagan. .‘The owners are seeking a fiv<e per cent, reduction in wages, and a reduction of seven and a-half per cent, in contract rates; also alterations in the clauses dealing with the minimum trucking, starting of new men, and “wet" time. STOP-WORK MEETINGS. . L... ' - ■ v (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND,' May 31. An appeal by Pukemiro Collieries, Limited, from a decision by Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court in Huntly, has been disallowed by the Arbitration Court. Reserved decision has been given by Justice Frazer, affirming the judgment of the Lower Court, and allowing £5 5/costs to the respondent Union, the Pukemiro Coal Mine Workers’ Union., Appellants, as plaintiffs in the Lower Court, were non-suited on a point of law, in an action brought aaginst the Pukemiro Coal-mine Workers’ Industrial Union, for the recovery of £ 200, as a penalty under the Labour Disputes Investigation Act, for a breach of a working agreement. The breach in question, according to the original statement of claim consisted in the loss of two workings days, as the resui.'. of the holding of stOp-work ■ meetings called by the officials of the Union. The grounds on which the Magistrate had granted a nonsuit were that there was no liability for the penalty unless the working agreement between the employers and employees had been filed with the Clerk of Awards. This had not been done. 3he interpretation placed on the clause being that registration was a voluntary matter. The Arbitration Court, before it could decide as actionable, a breach of an agreement that had not been filed, fiiad To be satisfied that the language of the section clearly indicated tli£,t such an agreement was enforce-, able under the provisions of the Act. The Court was not satisfied on this point, and the appeal was accordingly disallowed.