THE MINING DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11644, 4 May 1901, Page 6

THE MINING DISPUTE.

[BY TELEGRAPH.— BEPOBTEB.] Waihi, Friday. When- the Board of Conciliation resumed the hearing of the mining dispute this moving, the Chainean {the Re*. A. H. Collins) referred to the case ot tie man Humphrey, who was dirnissed from the Jubilee mine. He said ho had announced that an amicable settlement had been arrived at between thi parties, but it had ben suggested to hi'ja. that in justice to Humphrey he should have adue'. that part of the settlement was that Humphrey should De taken back to the mine. The Chairman then gave the. Board's ruling on the application of Mr. Drumm, who wished some indication as to the mode of procedure the Board proposed to follow. The Chairman said the Bo&rd had decided that at the conclusion of the union evidence in Waihi they would adjourn to the Thames, arid hear such evidence as might be produced for the union. They would then proceed to Coromandel and hear the union's evidence in that township. When the union had completed its evidence in Coromandel, the Board would call upon the employers to open their case, and examine their Corsrnandel witnesses. The Board would then, if the employers had any witnesses to ctll at the Thames, return to that place, hear evidence, and then adjourn to Baeroa and hear such evidence a3 might bo produced by the employer*. Should the employers desire to calf Thames and Paeroa witnesses at Bac-roa, th» hoard would bo prepared to follow that : course, and they would also hear Waitekauri ' witnesses at Paeroa. The Beard, would then adjourn to Waihi to hear Waihi and Waikinrf witnesses, and it would then be for the union to call rebutting evidence upon any new mat- j ter that had been produced, and reply on the whole case. The Board would then go into committee, and at some place that they might afterwards determine their recommendations would be presented to the parties concerned. Mr. Charles Rhodes wished to know who ther the employers could call the Waihi and Waikino witnesses at Paeroa if they dosired. The Chairman said the decision of the Board was as he had stated. Hull Ingram Murphy, a greaser in the em ploy of the Waihi Company, who was the next witness examined, said lie was in receipt of 7- 6-J per day six days in the week. He considered that a greaser in charge of in engine, as he was, should get 9s a day, tho same »s firemen. He held an enginedriver's certificate, and understood that the new Inspection of Machinery Act required him to do so. Mr. Fawcus said he thought the witness' interpretation of the Act was incorrect. He was of opinion that it did not require a ■ greaser to hold a certificate. William 11. Morton, a miner in the Waihi mine, gave it as his opinion that the contract system should be abolished, as it was all in favour of the employer and against the work ing man. Contracting reduced the wages. In one contract in which he took part ne enly mc.de £10 lis 9d for 32 days' work. He was at present receiving 8s per day from the company. He had known of a petition that had been placed before the men at the mine. It was s petition requesting monthly payment of wages, which the men were asked to sign. He did not believe in that principle of petitions being put before the men. and then the bosses asking them to sign thorn. It would have a tendency to coerce them to sign agrvin=t their better judgment. To Mr. Morgan: At the first- pay he received from the company eight days were kept back from witness. It amounted to £3 4s. That amount was paid at the end of the next month, but he wa.s again £3 is short on that month. The company always kent cieht days' pay in hand. To Mr. links : The pay-sheets had to .K sent to the office after being made up, and it was eight days later that the men were paid. They were paid in full for the tim? on the pay-sheet sent in to the office, and the eight days which he said were kept l>aok were no; included in that month's pay-sheet. He had been in the company's employ about six years, and only remembered one petition being presented to him. He tiiought the best way to remedy the evils of contracting would be to have a minimum price per foot fixe! for the work, and allow no person to tak? it at a less price. Each side should have a say in fixing the price, and if they could not agree a third party should be named is arbitrator. Witness admitted his proposal would mean arbitration about every contract. Mr. Barry: In what way does placing a petition in the shift bosses' office tend to coerce the men?

Witness: Well, they are asked to sign : t, as you know, and although they are not threatened to be sacked tfi»v might be. They sign it to be on the safe side.

Mr. Barry: From your knowledge of men, do you really think they would sign a thing for that reason?

Witness ; Some would and some would not.

Mr. Bagnall : I presume that what you mean with regard to contracting is that there are too many persons to do the work? Witness: That is so. Mr. Bagnall: and in orde. to get work they put in too low a price? Witness-: That is the trouble. Mr. Bagnall: Well, that, of course, is no fault of the mine-owner, is it? Witness: No. Mr. Bagnall: And you don't know cf any other way than that .someone should fix a minimum price, and no one should be allowed to take the work at a lower price? Witr.cs.l: That is my idea. In answer to Mr. Lucas, witness said the petition he had referred to had been presented to him for signature. He was not against it, and signed. Nathaniel Hal!, shift boss at the Union battery, Waibi (wet crushing), stated he was receiving 3s per day. Hi* was a responsible billet. He and others had asked for higher wages. Witness worked seven days a week, and worked a lot of overtime. During the past six months he had had two whole Sundays off. Home Sundays he finished at midday, and very often it was seven o.- eight o'clock at night be-fore he got through. He was a single man. and could not live respectably en 3s a day without the overtime. Witness was paid the same rate for overtime and Sunday labour as he was for an ordinary shift—2s an hour. He did not consider that rate fair for overtime. In the Union battery the greasers received 6s a day: filter press men, 7s: and the engine-drivers, 3s. Witness' first exp^ri of mining was at Waitekauri, where he received 8s a day. He approved of the union scale of pay for hands in a wet-crushing battery. Witness first received 7s per day. and then B*, with the premise of more. They were told oy the manager they would get probably 3s or 10s.

To Mr. Tunks: When he took the billet witness knew it would mean seven days' work a wc-k.

To Mr. Whalley: Work in a wet-crushing battery was not laborious, but there was ./he responsibility when anything went wrong. To Mr. Alison : On 8s a day witness could just about live resoectably, and that was all.

To Mr. Faweus : In the L'nion mill it was absolutely necessary to work on Sundays.' He thought if double time were imposed 't would do away with Sunday work. .losiaii F. Carter, at present employed in the Waihi mine, stated that when engaged upon a contract one of his workmen named Shaw was dismissed by the mine manager. Witness was quite willing to employ the man. and had nothing against him. Witness also gave evidence as to making small wages on contracts in the Martha mine. He had given the present contract system a good trial, and did not approve of it. He thought Miners' f'niori Day should be established as a holiday by lav.-. To Mr. Hugnall: He would advoeata it being a holiday all over the peninsula. To Mr. Fawcus: Miners' Union Day was the first Monday in March, and had been recognised since the union started, nine ve-ais ago. Mr. Lucas pointed out that union day nad to ta.ke the place of all other holidays .r. the mining districts, as none of them were observed. It was already a bank holiday in mining districts.

Henry Bainbridge, the holder of a winder's certificate, said he was employed in the Wailit mine, and received 9s 6d a shift. He worked 56 hours a week. He was aware that winders in Reefton received lis 8d a shift. Witness was of opinion that the union was not applying for enough when they asked for 10s 61 for winders in Wn-ihi. The pay should be the same as that given in Reefton. The position was a most important one. Witness woe compelled to hold two certificates— winder's and a first-class stationary ongincdriver's —in order to retain hif prowii position. To Mr. finrry; VVitnoss worked eight hour; a Mil.

frank f'ullock. h battery hand, lately employed [it. the VVaikiiio battery, spoke of uhe unhealthy find fimctimoa dangerous nature of the work in fi battery. He considered the fact nt » rna.fi working shifts would in itself entitle him to h a day extra, as it tool: more '.'it. of his system than ordinary day work.

At thi* rlM'/f. Mr. Drumin intimated that the union had only one more witness to examine, and lh«y would like to call him tomorrow morion;.;, im they had not briefed ,iis evidence. Mr. ruin in also asked tho Board to visit the Waihi battery in order to .jot m idea of the conditions under which the m*tti worked.

Several of those present wished to get away to catch the Paeroa steamer, and Mr. Rhodes suggested thai the witness, might be called at the Thames. Eventually it was agreed that the union should recall the witnesses at the Thames, or else to give rebutting evidence at Waihi. Mr. Dm mm then declared th<, case for the union closed as far as "Waihi was concerned. The Board agreed that they would visit the batter}- when they returned, and then adjourned till next Wednesday ai ten o'clock, when they will meet in the Miners' Hall, Thames. _____________