CHARGES REFUTED

Northern Advocate, 2 July 1935, Page 8

CHARGES REFUTED

ALLEGED ABUSE OF FUNDS HIKURANGI MINING AFFAIRS “ONE AIM TO HELP WORKERS.” STATEMENT BY MR BROMLEY. Allegations of abuse of unemployment funds, victimisation, and the breaking down of trade union conditions were made against the Hikurangi Coal Companyi by deputations o.t relief workers, who waited upon Mr W, Bromley, chairman of .the Unemployment Board at Hikurangi, last ' night. Mr Bromley commented that it was significant that none of the deputation, themselves, had first-hand knowledge of such abuses, which he said did not exist. At the conclusion of his re-, marks, Mr Bromley gave a very full and frank statement of steps taken by the Unemployment Board to keep 4he, industry alive in Hikurangi, particularly dealing with arrangements entered into with the Hikurangi Coal Company. "Please remember that whatever we are'doing/’ he said, “is to save Hikurangi, and assist miners to get back to full-time jobs.” A Woman’s Claim. The first insinuation against the company officials was made by a member of the deputation of unemployed workers’ wives, who said that her husband, working on No. 5 Scheme, had- been deprived of employment about the - mine because he refused to work his allocation hewing coal. “The manager,” she said, “asked that the certifying officer remove my husband’s name from the mine list, and he was transferred to the Town Board list. “I am satisfied that you have not quite got the story right,” said Mr Bromley. “I have been to the mine today and there is no one hewing coal at relief rates, and, ,to the best of our knowledge, this has not been done.” The matter was again introduced by Mr A. Laird, leader of- the men’s deputation. “Every facility is provided for relief workers to be used by the company,” he said, “but they are denied the right of receiving allocations when engaged on developmental work on their own account. Even if they received the privileges the market would be closed to them.” Victimisation Charge. Mr R. Dunn quoted an alleged case where men on No. 5 Scheme worked round the mine for 2% days' on their allocations, and then continued for the rest of the week on the same work at 15/- per day. Because one man v/ould not do shift work on allocation, the speak A: asserted, he had been told that there was nothing for him to do. Men receiving 37/6 per week from relief funds for prospecting on the Hikurangi Coal Company’s property, Mr Dunn alleged, were in some cases working eight shifts a week, including Sunday, with the chance of getting payment for the coal when it was opened up. “No. 5 Scheme is being used and misused at Hikurangi,” said Mr T. Dunn. “The industry is going to pieces as far as we are concerned as miners. There may . not be any men actually hewing coal, but fully qualified miners on relief are engaged at 10/- per day picking over old ground, which necessitates skilled labour. Men are working for nothing opening up old workings, and ‘ when they are producing they will be paid what the company thinks fit.” “Flagrantly Violated.” The deputation pressed for the abolition of No. 5 Scheme in Hikurangi, claiming that under it trade union conditions were being flagrantly violated. “There is no 'Hope of anyone who desires to protect his principles getting a chance with the company,” one r ' speaker said. Pressed by Mr Bromley to suggest an alternative to No. 5 Scheme, the deputation asked that practical miners be paid sustenance while opening up prospects on their own account. Mr R. Nesbitt, chairman of the Town Board, said that the position in Hikurangi had not developed on the lines - anticipated. The Town Board had recognised No. 5 Scheme as a neces--1 sary makeshift for. the opening up of L a permanent coalfield. It was diffi--5 cult to obtain information as to what ' line this assisted developmental work was taking, and Mr Nesbitt asked the - chairman of the Unemployment Board - to give a statement on the prospects of the re-establishment of the ini' dustry in Hikurangi. It was difficult to see why parties working under the company shduld receive assistance T from national funds, while those prosit pecting on their own account were the same treatment. ■ No, Proof, ■ - “It is significant that none of the delegates present here happens to have experienced the difficulties which .’ you allege,” said Mr Bromley in reply. “You say that men are prepared to dome forward and substantiate your /allegations about being asked to hew |coal on relief, but none has put in in appearance. I have been here all Jhe afternoon trying to get a more l&'-to-date picture, but nothing quite lears out your implications.” !/ To Save Hikurangi. I; Mr Bromley then proceeded to outline the associations of the UnemployInent Board with the Hikurangi Coal Company, and its aspirations for the re-establishment of the Hikurangi

field. In 1931 the chairman of the Town Board t , had asked the Unemployment Board to provide £2OOO to help developmental work in private mines; and again, in 1932, a deputation, introduced by the member for the district, had asked for a loan or a gift of £12,000 for the same purpose. This had not been granted, because experts differed as to whether the solution lay in pumping or surface drainage. In 1934 came the crisis, when the men were thrown out of work by the flooding of the mines.. A perusal of the balance sheets showed that the private companies could not meet the position, and the Unemployment Board commenced the payment of 30/ per week subsidy, provided the men were engaged on standard rates at full time in developmental work. When it was found that this arrangement would not absorb all the miners offering, Mr Stevens was called to Wellington, and it was decided that private prospecting parties: be assisted in developing outcrops on the Hikurangi Company’s field, the coal, when produced, to be purchased by the company. Representatives of the men, however, preached against acceptance of these conditions, which they termed “scabby,” the ringleader being a man who himself, being in. receipt of compensation, was not affected. Thui prospecting, while the men were working their ordinary allocation on No. 5 Scheme, was largely blocked. Company Co-operates, The management of the mine, where possible, assisted by giving extra work, but did not pay more .than would render a man ineligible for further contributions from the Unemployment Fund. While working on relief a man was entitled to earn £1 each for himself and wife and 4/ per child per week from supplementary sources. “After a full examination of wages sheets and other documents,” said Mr Bromley, “I am convinced that every man working below the surface in the Hikurangi mine is receiving standard rates.” “Our object is to assist practical miners to get back into full time jobs,” Mr Bromley continued, “and you must not quibble when we cooperate with the company to that end. We do not do it to assist the company, but to create standard-pay, fulltime jobs for the workers. If the mining industry here is not re-estab-lished, Hikurangi will become a second Charleston, where the population once was about 50,000, but where today there is only one hotel and no houses. Please do not jump to conclusions too quickly, and do try to stop people throwing spanners in the works when they only know half truths.” Mr Bromley said that he had hoped to have been in the position to make a definite statement about the development of the new Hikurangi field in January of this year, but unfortunately difficulties h=>d been met with, and nothing definite could be said as yet. Prospecting Parties. With reference to the payment of sustenance to private parties undertaking developmental work on their own account, there was the difficulty of supervision, but the Unemployment Board would go closely into the position, Provided the inspector of mines could supply the necesasry information as to how long a party would be engaged in developmental work before striking the coal, when the members would automatically cease to be a charge on the Unemployment Fund, something on the lines suggested might be practicable