THE REEFTON MINING DEADLOCK

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8178, 20 July 1912, Page 8

THE REEFTON MINING DEADLOCK

COMPANIES OBTAIN PROTECTION

BUT MUST HAVE ARBITRATION. ' The following particulars are given, of the applications for protection made by the raining companies concerned in the industrial deadlock at Ileefton. r lho Consolidated and the Blackwatsr Alines, Ltd., applied to the AVarden (Mr J. G. L. Hewitt) for three months’ protection for their leases, on the ground that the companies were unable to comply with the conditions required by the Mining Act by reason of labor troubles in the district. The applications were opposed by Air Mark Fagan, the secretary of the Inangahua, Miners’ Industrial Union of AVorkers, on the grounds, inter alia: (1) That the labor difficulties alleged had occurred by reason of the acts of the applicants, and that such difficulties could reasonably have been provided against, (2) that the said labor difficulties had arisen by reason of the wrongful acts and omissions of the applicants; (3) that the applicants had not made use of the means provided by law to secure a set-i tlcment of the difficulties alleged to. exist; (4) that the grant of the applications would prove injurious to the interests of the Crown and of the public. The applications came on for hearing at Rcofton on Thursday, 11th inst., Mr M. Hannan, Greymouth, appearing for the applicants, and Mr P. J. O’Regan, AVellington, for the objector. After it had been agreed to take the application of the Blackwater Mines, Ltd., to decide the several applications, Air Hannan asked that, in accordance with the usual practice of the Warden's Court, the objector should open. Air O’Regan objected to this course, on the ground that the onus rested on an applicant for the privilege of protection to make out his right. The AVarden upheld this contention. Air Hannan argued that consideration of the points in issue involved matters coming properly within the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration. It was not for the AVarden to decide whether two men should work the AA'augh drill, whether the company had caused a lock-out. or whether there had been a breach of award. He submitted that all the court could take cognisance of was that an industrial crisis had arisen, and that by reason thereof compliance with the labor conditions imposed by the Alining Act had become impossible. Mr O’Regan denied that the AVarden was asked to decide anything such as counsel had indicated. If Air Hannan's contention were correct, the mere occurrence of labor troubles entitled the company to protection without application at all. in which case the anplication was superfluous. Al 1 the AVarden had to do was to hear evidence ns to the cause of the crisis, and thereafter decide whether the oomenny was entitled under the circumstances to shut down its mine. ARBITRATION SUGGESTED.

The AA’arden said that almost invariably there was blame on both sides when labor troubles arose. He did not think be should bo asked to decide matters, really belonging to the Court of Arbitration, but Mr O’Regan’s statement bad simplified the position. He would still suggest, however, that

iio parties should agree t<i the matter /idng referred to arbitration lor set'Jcmont. Mr O'Kcgan said lie would agree to diat course it the company would mi.irrtako to resume work on the usual c inditions in the meantime. Alter conferring with Mr M inter ..vans, the attorney lor tho company, .Mr Hannan stated that he could not . agree to resume work, unless the other ■ido would agree to tho drills being worked single-handed. .Mr o’Kogan then intimated that he uould not consent to work on such terms, because consent would tacitly amount to an admission that it lias practicable to work the drills singlehanded, and his consent to arbitration was not required, because clause II of tho industrial agreement empowered cither side to anply to tho president ol the Court of Arbitration to appoint an arbitrator This course had been open to the company all along before shutting down, but they had first tried to goad tho miners into striking, and, having failed in that, had posted notices which they well knew the men would not comply with. If that t\as not a lock-out the Act forbidding lockouts was the veriest farce, but the miners had done nothing now in breach of their award nor during tho fifteen years they had been under tho jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration. Accordingly, having done nothing to provoke tho trouble, they would not lend color to tho accusation that they had bv giving a superfluous consent to arbitration. Tho company had suddenly discovered a virtuous anxiety ior arbitration. Let them proceed under clause 11, tho miners would not object, and they would assist tho arbitrator with evidence, but they would not oblige the company in the endeavour to cover a. palpable and unprovoked attempt to defeat tho existing agreement. After further contention between counsel, the Warden intimated that ho would hear no evidence. Tho existence of a labor difficulty was admitted, and the company had evinced a. desire to go to arbitration. Mr o>’Regan insisted that he had come prepared with evidence, and was surprised if the Harden would refuse to hear how tho company supported its application. Mr Hannan reiterated that tho Warden’s Court was not the forum to decide labor troubles, and pointed out that tho objectors had failed to prosocuto for a lock-out or for a breach of agreement, to which counsel for the objectors replied that only the Department of Labor could proceed for a lock-out, while proceedings for a breach of award would he futile to bring tho company to its bearings. He had adopted the most effective course to bring tbo matter to a head. The Warden decided to grant protection, subject to tho company proceeding within fourteen days under clause 11 of the existing agreement to have an arbitrator appointed by the president of tho Court of Arbitration, protection to expire after the lapse of three months or within fourteen days after the award of the arbitrator, whichever should first happen. The question of costs ivas deferred, and the applications by Mr. Fagan for cancellation of the companies’ Teases were withdrawn.