THE MINERS' DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11625, 12 April 1901, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE MINERS' DISPUTE.

CONCILIATION BOARD AT WAIHI. DECISION TO AFFECT THE WHOLE : PENINSULA. ALL MINEOWNERS TO BE CITED. - CONSIDERATION OF CASE • ADJOURNED. [BY TELEGRAPH.— KEFOIITER.] 'Waihi, March 26. THE Conciliation Board met in the Miners' Union Hall, Waihi, this morning, to consider the dispute between the 1 names Miners' Union and the gold mining companies at Waihi. There were present: Ihe Rev A. H. Collins (chairman), Messrs. L. J. Bagnall, E. W. Alison, J. Fawcus, and W H. Lucas. Considerable interest is being shown, in. the proceedings, and the hall was well filled with miners during the proceedings. On one or two occasions they gave expression to their feelings in a round of applause, but such demonstrations were quickly suppressed by the chairman. Messrs. VV. H. Potts (president), G. E. Morgan, and E. -J. Brumm appeared for the union. , Mr H. P. Barry represented the waihi Company; Mr. Charles Rhodes, the Union Waihi; Messrs. E. Bell and A. Wright, the Waihi Consols; Mr. A. Wright, the Waihi Extended; Mi. C. J. Tunks, the Waihi Grand Junction; Mr. J. Ziman, the Waihi Consolidated; and Mr. J. Laugford, the Waihi Gold Reel's, known as the Waihi Gladstone. _ _ The union representatives objected to Mr. Tunks appearing for the Grand Junction, on the ground that the Act expressly excluded solicitors from appearing, unless both sides agreed. Mr. Tunks pointed out that he was the only legal representative of the company in the" colony, and if he could not appear the company would not be represented. He was not appearing as counsel, but as an attorney, and surely the accident that he was a solicitor should not deprive the company of representation. Mr. Potts said the union would be quite agreeable that Mr. Tunks. should appoint some other person not a lawyer to represent the company. Mr. Tunks replied that he could not delegate a power to someone else, if he had not that power himself. He was not contending the point merely for the present case, but for the principle of the thing. The Board retired to consider the matter, and after about half-an-hour's deliberation the chairman announced that they had decided the point, which was a very fine one, in favour of Mr. Tunks.

Mr. Tunks said he did not appear in any antagonism to the workers, who were no doubt contending for what they thought was right, but they must concede the same intention to the employers. Mr. ■ Potts intimated that his colleagues desired him to ask if it would be possible for one of them to retire, and a legal gentleman to take his place. In the future every mine might appoint a solicitor as attorney, and then conciliation would be thrown to the winds. <

Mr. Rhodes, in answer to the chairman, said, as far as the Waihi and Waihi Union Companies were concerned, they would be quite .agreeable so long, as they could also be represented by counsel. The Chairman remarked that the Board was quite • clear as to the intention of the Act, that solicitors could not appear before the Board, and they would not admit representation by counsel. Mr. Tunks represented the company as attorney, being practically the employer, and as such he appeared before the Board and not as a solicitor. ! The union representatives bowed to the Chairman's ruling in the matter. The preliminaries having been disposed of the Chairman called on the union to state their case. . Mr. Rhodes: Before that is done I would

like to make an application. As representative of the Union Waihi and other companies, I beg to apply that the whole of the mining companies in the Waihi district. and also in the rest of. the Hauraki goldfields, be cited to appear with us in the hearing of this industrial dispute, and be bound by the-award of your Board. We think that the question of rates of wages, and particularly the suggested limitation of contacts, is ol such vital importance to every mining company that 'all should have an opportunity to be heard before an award is made or a log established, which, even if not for the moment binding on other districts, will pretty clearly be taken as the basis on any. award in a similar dispute in any other part of the Hauraki goldfield. The Act, in section 86, sub-section lc and 3, says that every employer in a district connected with an industry to which an award applies shall be bound thereby, and as your district embraces more than the Hauraki Peninsula it follows that your award in this dispute will embrace all mining companies therein. I don't suppose it is necessary to point out that section 102, sub-section la, of the Act gives you power to join other parties with those already in an industrial dispute, but I may remind you that you have already established, in the case of the saddlers' dispute 18 months ago, a precedent by joining saddlers as far apart as Whangarei and Gisborne with those of Auckland, and I understand they are all working at this minute under your award. We think that there is absolutely no reason why companies working at Karangahake and Waitekauri, under conditions practically identical with those at Waihi, should nob be placed on the same footing, and we extend this idea to the whole of the peninsula, for the conditions are little worse at Thames, Coromandel, \ and Opitonui. Another reason why we think that you should grant our application is that' we understand the whole of the miners in the peninsula were at liberty to vote by ballot on the question of this 'citation, and many did so vote, from which we argue that they, too, must be anxious to be bound by, and have the benefit of, your award. We* therefore, formally ask that you will great this application. As far as I know there has never been a case before the Board in which there has been any mention of an award in favour of any particular part of.a district. All the other representatives of the companies cited concurred in Mr. Rhodes' application. Mr. Potts objected to the application, but after consultation with his colleagues said they would agree on condition that the Board would cite every district separately. It would not be fair to ask the Waitekauri, Thames, and Coromandel people to come to Waihi, and moreover, what suited the southern portion of the peninsule would not ' suit the northern part, The conditions were altogether different. Mr. Drumm admitted that all the miners in the district voted on the question referred to by Mr. Rhodes, but claimed that that should have no weight, as under the constitution of the union every member of the union had to vote on a question. Mr. Wright pointed out that there was a great diversity of interest in the different mines, many of which were struggling hard to keep themselves together. In the mine he represented the wages were out of all proportion to the return; in fact, there had been no return.

Mr. Rhodes said he had no objection to the Board sitting in some central place. He would object, however, to the Board holding a sort of peripatetic sitting. Mr. Alison wished to know if the union meant that they desired a separate finding for each district. Mr. Potts admitted that was their desire. Mr. Pawcus asked if the union were paying the mm whe had been dismissed by the Waihi Company;

Mr. Potts replied that they were paying £30 per week, and the longer:,the .natter, was kept hanging over the more the union would have to pay. ... Mr. Ba-mall thought it hardly fair tc introduce that question, at this stage. Mr. Drumm said that in.fixing the rate of wages the Board would have to consider the important factor of the cost of living, Which, owing to the methods of transit, was higher at Waihi/ than at some other places. Mr. Tunks said that was a matter of evidence. He was interested in mines at the Thames and Puriri, which, according to the Act, must be bound by the Board's finding, and' it would be manifestly unfair if they were not allowed an opportunity of appearing before the Board. Mr. Morgan said the union would agree to the Board sitting in the various districts, and also that the award should only bind the companies cited in each- district. Mr. Tunks looked upon it as a very grave question whether the Board had power to consider what the union put forward. As he read the Act, the representatives, of one district should Hear the evidence given by the other districts. The Board adjourned to consider the point and on resuming the chairman explained that they found the question submitted to them one of considerable difficulty. In reply to the application that all the mines on the peninsula should be cited, the Board had come to the following conclusion:_ That the mineowners of the various mines in the Hauraki mining district, bo joined in this dispute, and that citation notices be issued forthwith; that the Board adjourn to meet at Paeroa on Thursday, April 18, at ten o'clock, tc hear the dispute, the Board to meet at the Thames and Coromandel on dates that shall be subsequently fixed. - The Chairman said the Board was very sensible of the point that had been raised by the Miners' Union to the effect that they were : at present under a heavy cost of £30 per week, paying wages to the men recently disengaged from the Waihi mine, and the Board had interested itself in the matter, and he had to report that Mr. Barry would consent to employ the twelve men recently i discharged on contract work until the next sitting of the Board, the terms and the i work to be done to be mutually arranged between Mr. Barry, the discharged men, and the president "of the union, with the understanding that this action was not to prejudice the position and rights of the company as at present existing. Mr. Rhodes handed in a list of the names of a number of the other companies on the Hauraki Peninsula, which was added to by several of the representatives of the companies present. Mr. Drumm remarked that each company might appoint a solicitor to represent it, and if that was the case the union Would have 30 or 40 lawyers against it. If that was possible, he wished to enter a protest against it, and also against Mr. Tunks. Mr. Morgan said" they accepted the Board's decision, but would like to know if the Board intended to give one rate of wages. If so. the union wished to emphatically protest. The Chairman: I don't think you had better protest until you know what we are going to do. Mr. Morgan said he was wanting information. The Chairman replied that the Board was clearly of the opinion that it was the intention that solicitors should be excluded as solicitors. They had dealt with the present case as an exceptional one. Mr. Morgan said it was only right that he should "give a word of thinks tc Mr. Barry for his kind offer, which was, no doubt, made in a kindly way, but according to the conditions of labour for which the union was asking contracts were debarred. Mr. Barry must also know that in making such an offer he was practically tying the hands-of the union, as the men who had been discharged were the men who were working up the evidence for the union. Besides, at a meeting of the union, nearly 700 members voted against the men going back to work. Mr. Drumm pointed out that all the men discharged had been working on wages previously. * The" Chairman thought it would be in the best interests of conciliation if nothing was said or done that would, lead to a continuance of friction. The arrangement would not simply lio between Mr. Barry and the men, but also with Mr. Potts. Mr. Bagnall was sure that Mr. Barry would, meet the parties in a reasonable way, Mr. Fawcus pointed out that nothing had been said as to where the additional mines cited were to appear. Mr. Bagnall explained that they would all be cited to appear at Paeroa, but would also be informed that they could, if they wished it, appear at either the Thames or Coromandel. Mr. Morgan stated that the union had 47 witnesses for Waihi, and tho^meant a great amount of expense if they were to be dragged all over the country. The union could not stand the expense. Such an arrangement would practically hreak the union. He did not think the intention of the Act was to break up the unions. He might point out that there were many men in Waihi who were wavering as to whether they should go'with the union, because they thought that too much pressure would be brought to bear on them. Mr. Wright said he. took it that the Board would not decide in the dispute till they had heard all the evidence. It was to be one pitched battle to decide the matter once and for all.

Mi. Bagnall thought it a mistake for either side to anticipate the finding of the Board, because they themselves had not the least idea what it would be. It would be quite unnecessary to take witnesses from Waihi to Coromandel, for instance. He had suggested that the Board -should meet at the Thames, the headquarters of the union, but it had been decided to meet at the different districts in order to save expense. After some furtive* discussion, Mr. Bell said he thought it was ungracious for either side to traverse the Board's decision. The Board then adjourned to meet at Paeroa on April 18.

Waihi, April 1. A largely attended meeting of the Waihi branch of 'the Thames Miners' Union was held in the Union Hall, Waihi, on Saturday night. Mr. W. H. Potts (president of the Thames Miners' Union) ,occupied the chair. Mr. Potts said the meeting was called to decide if the 12 men discharged by the Waihi Gold Mining Company should accept Mr. Barry's offer to employ them on contract work until the sitting of the Conciliation Board' on April 18. After a resolution passed by the Thames Central Committee had been"read, Mr. Potts invited expressions of opinion bearing on the question from members of the Waihi branch. Several speakers, expressed the opinion that as live ol the men discharged could not possibly be put to follow their usual avocations on contract, and as the contract system itself was one of the matters in dispute, the men should not accept Mr. Barry's offer of contract work at the present juncture. Two of the union members thought the offer ought to be accepted, as they had been told such acceptance would not prejudice their case before the Conciliation Board. After some little discussion, it was proposed, and carried almost unanimously, "That the discharged men do not go back to work until such times as they are properly reinstated." An amendment, "That the men go back to work," was lost, only three voting for it. The following resolution was unanimoisly carried:—"That this meeting emphatically protests against the action of the Conciliation Board in adjourning the sitting of the Board to Paeroa for April 18, to decile a dispute occurring at Waihi, thus compelling the Miners' Union to incur extra expense in bringing witnesses a distance of 15 miles." It is the intention of the Waihi branch of the Thames Miners' Union to forward a copy of the last resolution to the Government. --'.•;'