THE COAL MINERS' AWARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 2690, 4 October 1905, Page 33

THE COAL MINERS' AWARD.

A DETAIL DISPUTE. *

Mr A. Bathgate, chairman of the Conciliation Board, who was recently called upon to adjudicate in a detail dispute between tlhe Otago Coal Miners' Union and Messrs Loudon and Howorth, of the Jubilee Colliery, has given the following decision on the point in dispute • —

The point in dispute herein is the rate which should be paid for mining head coal, whioh the union claim should be paid for at the same rate as if paid for coal mined frqm bbrds. The employers, on ,the otiher hand, contend that it should be paid for at Id' per box, or 4d per ton less — tliat is. at- the rate paid for pillars. The only mention of head coal in the award is in clause 3, which provides that head ooal is to be worked along with pillar coal where practicable, and as the parties have been unable to agree, the matter has bee-^. referred to me for decision under clause 22 of .the award. On behalf of the iinion it was asserted that full rates were paid in some of the mines subject to the award, but this was not established to my satisfaction as being the universal practice in these mines, nor were the circumstances under which the solid rates were paid for head coal disclosed. The union proved that men working head coal for a day or two had been paid full rates. The employers explain this by saying that they seldom work the head coal, and when they have occasionally to find room for a man for a day or two they have put him on to work head coal, and have where the " carry " was insufficient paid him full rates, to which they consider he was entitled, and even where the " carry " was over 4ft they have paid at the same, instead of the pillar rate, to which only they claim he would have been entitled, rather than trouble to make the small deduction they consider they might have done. This seems to me probable, especially coupled with the other circumstances to which I shall refer later. I find that shortly before the existing award came into force there was an agreement entered into between the then Mine Committee and the employers to the effect that when head coal was worked, having a " carry " of 4ft or over it was to be paid for at the pillar Tates, and it seems strange that this or some similar provision was not included in the award. Some IS mouths or two years ago some head coal was mined which would have come under this provision, and was paid for at pillar rates. The union raised the question now raised, that it should have been paid for as solid coal, but for some vindisclosed reason the local committee did not follow the matter up, and 'informed the secretary of the union that the matter was settled. Eecently the union have filed 011 application for the hearing of an industrial dispute relating to the same mines as are subject, to the existing award, and in their proposals there is the following passage relating to the rates to be paid for head coal : " When head coal is being worked separately, and having a carry of 4ft and over, with a width of not less than 10ft, 4d per ton less than solid rates to be paid. When the carry is under 4ffc in thickness, and less than 10ft wide, bord rates to be paid." Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I am of opinion that had the question been raised at the making of the existing award both parties would have consented to the insertion of such a clause. Indeed, the reason why nothing was said about it was probably because the parties so perfectly understood one another on the point

that it was not thought neceseaiy to dea-I with it, and I therefore decide that the prer sent award must be construed as though the clause quoted above were inserted therein. Evidence was tendered as to different niode3 for payment for head coal under other awards, but I do not think it necessary to follow that line of evidence, which, to be of any value, would involve consideration of the circumstances which led to the fixing of the rate under the differing awards as the conduct I of the miners with reference to the question ' "referred to above renders any such course supererogatory. Nor have- I dealt with the question' as to whether or not ihe employers I are justified in paying the men engaged on i such work " shift wages, as that question I has not been considered by the local committee (the secretary of the union and tJie employers), which is a necessary preliminary to my acquiring jurisdiction.