N.Z. COAL AND OIL COMPANY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15986, 31 January 1914, Page 5

N.Z. COAL AND OIL COMPANY

ALLEGED BREACHES OP AWARD,

NOMINAL FINES IMPOSED,

Cases in which tho New Zealand Coal and Oil Company was charged with breaches of the Arbitration Court award excited, considerable interest in Kait&ngata yesterday, and occupied a great deal of tho yme ot the presiding magistrate (Mr ' Bartholomew, S.M). Mr L. D. JSrowett, inspector of awards, proceeded against the company for having on or about December 2, 1913, employed James M'Vicar and J Anderson in a level off Mundy s dip without talcing a ballot us provided by the award. The company was further chargcd with employing H. Hanson to drive a level on shift wages, between July 22 and August 22, 1913, contrary to the award. Alternative charges were that H. Hanson and James Kyle had been employed on three idle days in tho month of December contrary to the award, without any agreement between the manager and t.he union to allow such "work. Mr J. MacGregor appeared on behalf of the company. Mr Browett, in opening drew attention to the clause in. the award which- require.* that all places in tho mine 1 should be balloted for every three months. The first witness was James M'Vicar, miner, who said he had been in tho quarterly cavil in August and drew a place off Mundy's dip. Ho supposed it was a level. After finishing that place he was taken out and put on a place further down tho dip. He did not ballot for that place. He was being paid piece-work at level rates To Mr MacGregor: The work he was employed on ill the first instance was making an airway for the dip. In the seoond place he considered lie wa6 on a continuation of the firet job, and would bo kept there for tho quarter. James Anderson said that tho place he and previous witness cavilled was. cavilled aa an airway. When tb>cy were shifted lower down, he understood they were just continuing tho same job. There was no necessity for a second ballot, because theyhad already cavilled the place at the quarterly cavil. To Mr MacGregor: He understood that the work they balloted for was to complete an airway for ventilating one of the bottom dips. James Gray, jun., miner, also gave evidence.

W. A. Wilson, an ox-president of the -Miners' Union, said this was the first time in his experience that ho had known a place cavilicd ior as an "airway." It would ordinarily be caJled a level. 'Die union understood it was a level.

Mr Browett proceeded next with the alternative charge of having- employed H. Hanson to drive a. level on shift wages. If it was claimed that Hanson was on picce-vvork, then the company employed him on the idle days mentioned in the information oil piece-work. H. Hanson said he had been making aji airway on shift wages with a bonus in August. Ho did not cavil for this place, but went straight to it from tho dip. He had driven several airways before on tho same conditions. It was partly a level and partly a heading.

To Mr MacGreoger: He was put on shift wages because the union would not allow liiin to work on piece wages on idle days. ■lames Kyle said he had been working on tho level on shift wages. Ho had been previously working in tho dip on piece-work, and was there making more than he could oil shift. Ho did not think it peculiar to be put on shift wages on the level.

Mr MacGregor called as his first witness A. S. Gillanders, manager of No. 1 mine, who said that in the dip itself the union had refused permission to the men to work on piece-work. He had, therefore, put them on piece-work and offered them a bonus, as he wanted the work carried through speedily. The nlace where they started ccmid not be called a level, but was known as an airway all along. It was agreed by both parties that this was a special place.

W. D. Carson, mine manager, also gave similar evidence.

The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said that as far as tho first case was concerned, that of employing men without tho required ballot, tho matter was somewhat vague, and he thought considerable difficulty arose by reason of the term "place" not being accurately defined. He thought that "place" under the award was intended to mean a place of tho description particularly set out —namely, a heading, main level, dip, and so on. A place was to bo work of a distinctive nature. The complete effect of the work that had to be done would be to give an airway, ,but to his mind an airwav was not a place within tho meaning of tho schedule, lfowever, tho charge was that of employing these men without a ballot. The evidenco was that a scrutineer representing the union went round with tho underviewer. and that the whole place to bo worked was pointed out. That was somewhat questioned by the union, but so far as the evidenco before tho court was concerned ho must take it that tho scrutineer acquiesced in the position as pointed out by tho underviewer. It was the scrutineer's duty to take any exception or make anv objection at the time the work was bring marked out This was not done, nncl the place was therefore balloted for in good faith. Therefore he could not hold that this particular offence had been committed. In the other charges he first' had to consider the question whether it was permissible to pay shift wages on all work or only where thero was no provision made for piece-rate payment. At first lie was disposed to think it was ontional with tho company to pay cither, but on further consideration he was of opinion that that was not so. Specific provision was made for paying special work at piece-work rates, and therefore ho must take it that piecework nayment must bo mado for such work That was tho only construction that would give a sensible and intelligible readin sr. Sub-section J of section 1. allowing either piece-work or shift-work at the discretion _ of the manager, was the only case in which discretion was given. He had further to consider the nature of the worktile men were doing. The work as a. whole was an airwav. but an airwav was not recognised under tho award. It was made up of separate kinds of work, each of which was provided for under the award. It had been suggested that this was not a level jwxwiuse the completed work was an airwav. but', for the reasons ho had jriven. he was of opinion that that was not "so. He must hold that a breach had been committed in the eases nf Tvyle and Hanson, but ho did not think it had boon a deliberate breach It was rather a test case, and not one for a heavy penalty, part ; eularlv as the un-on seemed to have raised rio objection. The company, bnd been cettinsr the -work rlnne at more instead of less co*t. Tho position was by no means clear, and a lavman min-ht very well make a misfak". A 'fine of "lOs was inflicted in each of the. two cases, nr ,d the company was ordered to pav 30s witnesses expenses.