MINERS' SAFETY LAMPS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19502, 4 December 1926, Page 15

MINERS' SAFETY LAMPS.

CANDLE-POWER IN DISPUTE. CLAIM FOR HIGHER WAGES. NON-SUIT IN A TEST CASE. A case of wide application concerning coiilmmers" wages, as affected by the candle-power of their electric safety-lamps, was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday. As a result a test claim against a mining company for arrears oi additional wages was dismissed. .John and Joseph Redfern, miners, of Huntly, sued Taupiri Coal Mines, Ltd., for £9O 3s 9d, representing 3d a ton on 7215 tons of coal hewn by them jointly in the defendant company's Rotowaro mine between May 7, 1923, and October 15, 1926. The case was ' heard by Mr. Justice Adams. Mr. o'Regan appeared fo;r the plaintiffs and Mr. West for the company. The claim was made under clause 33 of the award, which came into force in May, 1924. This clause provides that there shall be an addition of 3d to the hewing rate if, in the event of changes in the working conditions in a mine, the men are required to work with lamps of less than one candle-power. Mr. O'Regan stated that when the award came into force the " Oldham " safety-lamp had been in use for 12 months. It was an electric lamp with a self-con-tained storage battery, and was still used in the mine. Both the company and the men had assumed that it was of one candle-power, 3«d accordingly from its introduction the lower hewing-rate was paid. The lamp had been approved by the Home Office in England and the Mines Department in New Zealand, and was stated by its makers to be of one candle-power. Allegations From Tests. It was now alleged; said Mr. O'Regan, that tests made by Professor P. H. Powell, director of tho School of Engineering, Canterbury College, upon an "Oldham" lamp from Westport, showed that the lamp was of less than one candle-power. The plaintiffs, who, according to the usual procedure, worked as a pair, were claiming arrears at 3d 3 ton from the introduction of the lamps. The case was in the nature of a test. Thomas Hall, secretary of the Rotowaro Miners' Union, said he had been present as a delegate when the terms of the award had been agreed to. He had then considered that a one candle-power lamp meant a lamp giving the same, amount of light as a tallow candle. John Lock, secretary of the Millerton Miners' Union, and agent for the Rotowaro Union at a conference with the company, said there had been no agreement about any method of testing the power oi lamps. Professor Powell, who was then called, stated he had tested an " Oldham " lamp in the condition in which ho received it. Ho had no instructions regarding the method of testing, and having regard to the purpose for which the lamp was used he ascertained the mean horizontal candlepower by what was known as the revolving test. This gave six-tenths of a candlepower over eight hours. Under a stationary test, however, the lamp maintained one candle-power for tho same period. There were at least four methods of calculating the candle-power of a lamp, but the custom was to use that which was reasonable considering the purpose for which the lamp was used. . Application for Non-suit. Mr. West moved for a non-suit on the grounds: (a) That the plaintiffs, to establish any claim for the higher rate, must show that they had hewn a definite quantity of coal, using lamps of less than one candle-power; (b) that the evidence did not show that the lamps used in tho Rotowaro mine were of less than one candlepower; (c) that the clause in.the award on which the claim was based had no effect in this instance, seeing that conditions in the mine had not changed since the award, the same lamp being in use as in 1923. Counsel said that Professor Powell's tests had been made upon a lamp from another mine. There was no evidence about its condition when tested, though the age and condition of the storage battery and bulb were essential factors. Mr. O'Regan remarked that the union jiad been refused a test by the company, f His Honor interrupted the argument, ,|tating that the plaintiffs must be nonsuited. They had failed to produce evidence that the lamps used in the mine were of less than one candle-power within the meaning of the award. The award did not specify any method of determining the candle-power, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to select a method which gave a result in their favour.