COAL MINERS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 79, 21 July 1944, Page 5

COAL MINERS

CONCESSIONS GRANTED EXTRA COST OF FUEL PAY FOR NINE ADDITIONAL HOLIDAYS Wellington, This Day. Decisions of the Coal Mines Council in regard to wages anc conditions in privately-owned mines were announced yesterday. These were made by the council following an application by the United Mine Workers of New Zealand to it to exercise its powers by requiring tlie owners of coal mines to amend the various agreements in force by incorporating in them the terms, conditions and provisions agreed to between the* United Mine Workers and the Minister of # Mines for work in State coal mines. The concessions embodied in the decisions involve time and a half for all Saturday work: payment for nine additional holidays in the year: an increase in the allowance for shift work; an extra payment of lid a ton to miners in steep places; an additional allowance of Gel a day to outside workers who are not sheltered in the course of their work: an allowance to experienced miners who lake inexperienced men as work-mates in coal faces; an increase of Is 2d a day in the minimum wage for miners; payment of transport fares to and from work so that the maximum payment by the worker in any case shall not exceed 8d a day; an increase in the allowance for miners’ travelling Lime underground. HIGHER PRICE OR SUBSIDY In a letter to the New Zealand Coal Mine Owners’ Association, the chairman of the Coal Mines Council, Mr John Dowgray, suggests that the extra costs involved should be met by an increase in selling prices or by subsidy. Mr Dowgray states in his letter that the following recommendation of the council was being sent to the Minister of Mines: —

“After hearing the evidence adduced on the question of mining costs and of the financial position of collieries generally, and having regard to the hazards associated with coal mining, the Coal Mines Council is of opinion that the owners of coal mines arc not in a position to meet the additional costs involved in giving effect to the council’s decision in the matter of amendments to the various agreements and should not be required to do so. In the council’s opinion therefore the extra costs involved should be met by an increase in selling prices or by subsidy according to the policy of the Government. Dissent from the decision of the council was recorded by one of its members. Mr A. C. Mitchell. He gave the history of the case and said that in all his experience it had been held to be essent' 1 that an applicant for new provisions in an award or industrial agreement should furnish proof of the necessity for the granting of his application. In this case not one scrap of evidence was called by the applicant and the council was ask -d to decide this important matter on the unsupported word of an advocate. On the other hand, said Mr Mitchell, the employers submitted evidence from several witnesses which established clearly that (a) Mine workers were enjoying shorter hours of work than other industries; (b) their earnings could not be regarded as in any way unsatisfactory; in fact, they compare very favourably with those of other workers and particularly so in proportion to time worked; (c) the industry whs already being very heavily subsidised —the Mines Statement for 1942 gave the amount paid out between May, 1940, and March, 1943, at £713,3LB, and in spite of this many coalmining companies were working at a loss and the profit shown by the most fortunate of them was very small.

PAYMENT OF EXTRA CftST

"I understand the Government has undertaken to pay the additional costs arising out of the Coal-Mines Council’s present decision estimated to average about Is Gd a ton on an output of about two and a half million tons per annum,” added Mr Mitchell. “The question, however, is not who shall pay the extra cost but whether there is any justification for its being incurred at all. “The only proper conclusion the council could come to in the light of these facts is that the application should be dismissed for want of any evidence to support it. A further reason for my dissent from this decision is that it is in direct conflict with the Economic Stabilisation Emergency Regulations. 1942. and I cannot see my way to being party to a breach of the

STATEMENT BY ASSOCIATION “Coal mines agreements for the Northern, West Coast, Otago and Southland districts since 1924 have been negotiated between the employers and workers every two years,” said a statement issued by by the Coal Mineowners’ Association. "The last one was made in 1942 and expired at the end of April this year. The secretary of the Miners’ Federation asked the Coal-mine Owners’ Association before Easter to arrange a date for the holding of a conference of the parties to discuss the federation’s proposals for a new agreement, and there was correspondence between the secretaries of the miners and coal owners’ organisations on that question. There was no refusal by the owners of the miners’ request for the usual conference, but the owners asked the consideration ot the mine workers for certain suggestions, and desired the conference to be postponed till a later date. “Before arrangements for this conference were concluded the Minister of Mines sent a telegram to the Coal Owners' Association inviting them to be represented at a conference to which he was also inviting the Miners’ Federation. The coal owners expressed their willingness to participate in this conference, but asked that it be arranged a little later than the date the Minister had suggested as the notice was too short to allow of a full representation of their members. The Min.A r did not reply to this request, but proceeded with the conference in the absence of any representatives of the owners. At this conference between the Minister, officers cf his department and representatives of the mine workers a complete agreement was reached for the State coal mines. NATIONAL COAL BILL “Subsequently a conference between 'he coal-mine owners and the mine workers was arranged, and held at Wellington on 10th and 11th May. At this conference the mine workers submitted their original demands, and these were discussed. After consideration the mine owners declined the whole ot* the proposals on the grounds that in the light of the short hours being worked in coal mines and the high earnings of mine workers there was no justification for loading the national coal bill with heavy additional costs. The mine workers through their advocate, Mr Prendiville. then offered to conclude an agreement with the mine owners on the same terms as had been agreed-upon be-1 tween the mine workers and the Minis- j ter, but this offer was also declined for |

the same reason as applied to the first proposals. “The Coal Mines Council, which consisted at that time of Mr Strongman, superintendent of State coal mines, and Mr Prendiville. acting-president of the United Mine Workers of New Zealand, notified the mine owners it would deal with the matter of a new agreement for privately-owned mines as an industrial dispute in the coalmining industry, and the mine owners were required to attend a sitting of the council on 31st May. "At the hearing the mine owners, through their counsel, Mr J. F. B. Stevenson. objected to the constitution of othe council, as Mr Prendiville had already emphatically expi*cssed his opinion on the matter before the council and therefore could not be held free fron\ legal bias. A further objection was raised on the ground that thei-e was not in existence an industrial dispute in accordance with the Coal Mines Council Regulations. The hearing was adjourned till Ist June, and on that date the chairman announced a further adjournment to a date to be fixed.” The association stated a copy of a letter dated 2nd June from the secretary of the United Mine Workers of New Zealand. Mr McLagan, was posted up at the entrance to the Waikato mines. It was later, published in the “Auckland Star” of 29th June. It was as follows: “Comrades, —It is reported that there is some misunderstanding as to the payment to be made for work done on King’s birthday. sth June, and this circular is being sent out to explain the position. At the present time, an agreement has been made for the State-owned mines which 'provides for payment for one day’s pay for each of nine statutory holidays a year including King’s birthday, and also May Day. plus a further payment of double time for any work done on any of these nine days. That agreement is to be extended to the Waikato State-con-trolled mines at the meeting of the Waikato Coal Mine Control Board of Control which is to be held during the week beginning sth June. We made application to the Coal Mines Council to extend the agreement to all the other mines, and it w r as hoped that the Coal Mines Council would make a decision at its meeting held on 31st May. However, at the coal owners’ request, the Coal Mines Council adjourned the hearing of our application for a fortnight to allow the owners to prepare their case in opposition to our application. The matter will, therefore, not be decided till 14th June. “Until the Coal Mines Council has made its decision, all mines will continue to work on the terms of the old agreement. Payment for King’s Birthday will accordingly be made at the rate of double time, just as double time has already been paid for May Day, but there is a provision in the new agreement for its terms to be retrospective to Ist May. and as soon as the Coal Mines Council has given its decision a further day’s pay will be paid for King’s Birthday and a similar day’s pay for May Day, making three days’ pay in all for each of these days. To put it briefly, you will get an initial payment of double time*for King’s birthday. and you will later get a further day's pay for May Day and King's Birthday, making treble time for each of these days.” On 6th June a meeting of the Waikato Control Board was held at Auckland. and true to Mr McLagan’s forecast it was decided, on the casting vote of the chairman. Mr Webb, to apply the State mines agreement to the Waikato mines. Subsequently the Coal Mines Council Regulations were amended, and a new Coal Mines Council was set up, consisting of Messrs John Dowgray, director. Bank of New Zealand, chairman, Thomas Muir, ex-miner, and A. C. Mitchell, consulting engineer, of Wellington. This Council sat at Wellington on Wednesday, sth July, and the following day. The mine workers were represented by Mr Prendiville, who submitted as claims the terms of the agreement which had been ma< with the Minister of Mines. No evidence was submitted in support of the claims, and Mr Prendivilie’s principal argument was that as the Minister had agreed they should apply to the State mines, and as they had later been made applicable to the Waikato controlled mines they should also apply to the privately owned mines. The mine owners were represented by Mr T. O Bishop, who opposed tlie claims on ifiree grounds: <1) That the mine workers were working short h..:•••> :id earning good wages: (2) owing to the fixing of prices at the 1939 level and the increased costs of coal production, which had been only partially met by the State subsidies, the industry could not absorb any increased costs; (3) there was no justification for increasing the national coal bill in the light of the short hours of work and high earnings of the workers. Evidence was submitted in support of the arguments. “The decision of the Coal Mines Council has just been announced by •ie chairman.” says the association. “It discloses the accuracy of the second part of Mr McLagan’s forecast on 2nd June, and grants the miners’ claims in full.”

By special arrangements Reuter* world service in addition to other special sources of information is used in the compilation of the overseas intelligence published in this issue, and all rights therein in Australia and New Zealand are reserved.