ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2811, 26 August 1908, Page 11

ARBITRATION COURT.

TAI?,ATtr COAL DISPUTE. Trie Arbitration Court Bat on t£4 18th test.' to hear the industrial dispute beftween the Taratu Coal Company and the miners. " A conference was held some few [weeks ago, and most of the-' clauses in dispute were settled. Those not disposed of were -argued before the court on the 18th. Mr W. Scott appeared for the employers, mho brought 'the case before the court, and £Mr A. Forbes represented trie miners. Mr Scott gave details of the hard struggle Hhat had been experienced by the company that worked the "colliery before it was taken over by the present "management .two years ago. The comp*any had •never returned any dividends to shareholders, and it. was unlikely that any profit /would be obtained for_ some time, even though , the '"present management " had a 'certain amount' of good fortune. After explaining the condition of the seam, and nnforming/the court that, owing to a heavy overburden} the' coal in the' lower workings i(a new seam) was becoming- easier to work, Mr Scott mentioned that the company had - ■Offered an fill-round increase of 3d per toja, .■which was refused by the men, who asked an increase of 100 per cent. Their dennands -were ridiculous, and, if conceded, would force the company to close the mine. The directors would have no otiher alternative. The , company had, lost its . trade in steam coal, and had to depend on the demand for household fuel. 1 George Robinson- - Cheeseman (secretary io /the Taratu Coal Company), said ,that the men were paid. 10s 6d shift wages, and the average daily output of coal per man .was eight boxes. The coal- was very | easily worked, although 'statements to the contrary were frequently made. The introduction of; a weighbridge would so disorganise their present system of work- j ing the mine' that it would cost them £500, in addition to the initial cost of the machine iteelf. The old company lost i JBW,OOO in trying to work this colliery. Their available capital was Daniel Black Waters (the, company's con- j •suiting engineer and a shareholder), Thos. Shaw (manager of the Taratu Company's ] mine), and John Shaw (deputy manager) also gave evidence. j 'Mr F/orbes, ,in -opening, said that the j reason so much money had been lost in^the Taratu colliery was bad management. aside the cost of new machinery, •they would find that the mine was a. pa/rang concern. The coal was exceptionally hard, and. he- would bring miners of worldwide experience to prove that. It would | be' shown that the output of 12 boxes per j 'day per man * suggested by the company .was impossible. Under, present conditions, at- the ' conditions offered by the manage- | ment, a man could not make a living wage at Taratu.* He went on to discuss the men's / and tflie employers' demands clause by clause, „ Evidence was given by Gus Nauman, '.Tames ' Brown, Daniel Humm, Bobert •Brown, Albert* Rodgers, John Dick, Alex. Gray, John Cuthbertson, James Ramsay, and James March (miners) and C. March and W-. Campbell (truckers). % The court promised to consider its tttsioa,--The Arbitration, Court on the 19fch inst. j (continued ite D"unedin sitting. j In accordance with perrA'Sion gifren, Mr j Forbes called some further evidence in support of the miners' demands in the j 'Taratu' case, and he then proceeded to addresss the court. Reviewing the evidence, Mr Forbes contended tha* the fact that the company had offered r an increase of 3d per ton on the output of coal showed that the coal was •harder to obtain than in the top seam. The court should have no difficulty in arriving at a proper and fair, tonnage rate. ■i . "Mr ' Scott said the crux of the dispute •was undoubtedly the tonnage rates to be /paid, and, in this connection, lig asked the court* to, mark i'M' &reat similarity of tho evidence ,'eriven ~m the coal miners. Thp miners, lrrespeciflre of the condition of their places and the amount of powder given to them, always produced the same output,' That .was the reason why the company came to the court and asked to have the men placed on piece rates. The company could not afford to pay 10s and lie a day for eight boxes of coal. The «ompa.ny Was satisfied that the men would ■be able to make good wages on the rates offered, and was prepared to lose its men If wages could not be made. jThfi t ooi}rt , promised that its decision .would ,be delivered in due course. KAITANGATA AGREEMENT. .Mr Scott,^bn behalf of the employers, Handed in /an agreement arrived at between the New Zealand Goal and Oil Company and the Coal Minei-s' Union. H& asked; that it be made the basis of an award. Mr Forbes, who anneared for the union, objected. The- agreement was not intended to be filed as the- terrmi of the award, but was meant to stand as an industrial agreement between the parties. If the employers' representative insisted on the agreement going before the court there • would be serious trouble. His Honor suggested that Mr Forbes should have the matter considered, fo that a. decision might be arrived at ac to whether the agreement might be made to serve as an' industrial agreement, or to be embodied an an award of the court. Mr Forbes said he would consider tho matter, * : AXLANDALE DISPUTE. Evidence and argument in tihe Allandale dispute was then heard, Mr Scott appearing for the employers, and Mr Forbes on behalf of the miners. Tho conference held on the 17th between the parties settled a number of minor clauses, leaving the following pointe to be Jrigued out' before the court: In some olass-es ©f work the men demand an increase of the .width oi working places — a demand which jthe company .contends is equal to an indirect; increase of rates. The present shift fjjvtage £U10s; the company stipulates that livage, and the' worker* demand 10s 6d if miners ar© provided with working tool*, but 11« -when they pupply tools. As to ■truckers' wages, the company proposes that 39 1 6d -pea? shift be paid to truckei-3 14 yearg old; J5 years,. 4s 6d; 16 years, ss; it /earl, 6sf 19 veers, 7e; 19 years, Be. -The men's' demands state 5s per day from 14 to 15 years of age j 16 to 18, 7s; 18 to 19, 6e j 1$ years %.• The company asked *lj& right to let the truckinar by contract an tpxyt parf of the mine, all truckers in suojj tg be partners in oontract. .The men g§m&nd" ihii the company truck . S^FS^PP eHO^QpSSE. fpj* many Sr'eare $pQe?£ and f t^Pl&Jreae had worked together pa toe AlLinaeJf tnj&e in th<£ utmost harfnofif. • Of lit*, hol&ve?> discontent had

of low. places, or not sufficient thickness of seam, which the miners regarded as deficient places. The company would submit its balance sheet to the court, and show that no -profits to epeak of had been made during the past three years, notwithstanding the fact that many thousands of pounds had been invested in up-to-date machinery and costly plant. The cost of running the mine was very heavy, competition was keen, and the company could I .not possibly further increase the pTice of household coal. It was, indeed, very probable that before long it would be* necessary to decrease the price of coal. The company had to compete with sea-borne coal. The AllandaJe miners to-day were probably doingr better" than they had ever j done in the history of the *mine. The j average daily wage made .by men and boys in AllandaJe mine during 1905, 1906, and 1907 was 10s s|d. During the last three months the average had increased to 11s < 4£d. These facts Ted the company to seek '■ a reduction of the tonnage rates. He failed to understand how the workers could come > to the court and ask an increase. The crux of the dispute was the question of deficient places. - The miners' demands in that respecij -were unreasonable-. He called. Evidence in support of his cont«oxticin. l Mr -Forbes called four witnesses on beihalf of the union. Thomas Brooke, miner, said he had worked -in a deficient place .sin the Allan-da-le mine, and received only 9s per .day. This was not made up do shift wage*;. The deficierit-pjaqe- clause and the definition of a -deficient place was the principal bone of contention, in the present -dispute. Mr Forbes 6tated -.that he ."did not propose to call any further evidence. . So far as the Allandale case "was concerned, they could see it was. 1 "before . the • edurt because o£ one word in ~-the, employers' demands — extremely. HatfHhat word (which qualified "hard"' in the definition of a deficient place) been struck out, the case would not have been before the court. There was great dissatisfaction among 1 the Allandale men, due to their treatment regarding deficient places, and three conferences had failed to effect a settlement. He had himself visited the Allandale minej and had seen places that wer4 -very hard to work ; but the management refused to acknowledge that those places were "extremely" hard, and therefore the miner had to be content with no more money for his day's work than was represented by the coal produced. Probably the court might get over the difficulty by inserting a clause whereby incompetent men might be specially provided for by ( the management: this would certainly help to do away with the deadlock that had ensued Between masters and men. The union had no desire to burden the company with men wjio could not earn a wage . because they were incompetent. They only asked that the wage of fair average miners should not fall below shift rates. It was a matter for regret that the court had had to hear so small a matt^ yet it must see the question of deficient places was one of considerable moment to the men. Mr Forbes 1 went on to deal with tho men's demands in other respects, and stated that there had been no decrease in the total output of the AUandale mine owing 1 to the bank-to-bank clause. The men wished that these coal-mining -awards should not be for a greater term than one year. Mr Scott :#: # What! And have all this over again in 12 months' time? Mr Forbes 'with a determined air) : One year -: Mr Scott said he would leave his case as it was — he would not address the court. With regard to Mr Forbes's proposal, however, he would ask the court to make the term of the awards two years at the very least, if not three years. It would be a of time and money to have the whole of the disputes argued again in 12 months' time. His Honor : What about the other disputes, Mr Forbes? Mr Forbes said that so far as Bruce was concerned the miners there were satisfied to w<yk under the new agreement for 12 months. That would give the company an opportunity of having its plant shifted. His Honor : What is the objection to an award being made for Bruce? Mr Forbes: Absolutely no objection, your Honor, provided it is not for a longer term than ono year. It was on that condition that the men made tho agreement. Mr Scott remarked that the employers were very anxious that al! the awards be so made that they would all expire together. If Bruce award were to be for only one year. then all the others must be for a similar term. His Honor said ho really did not see the necessity for going back over all the coalminers' evidence and argument again insido of two years. Mr Forbes : I can assure you. your Honor, that, I hope -T" will never come before thp court again in these matters. — (Laughter.) His Honor: Wo will consider the matter. What about Kaitangata? Mr Forbes: Before di«ous?ing Kaitanjrata, any further, I would like very much to communicate with Mr Robert Lee. Mr Lee will meet the Kaitangata miners in conference on Friday, when a number of minor matters ai-e to he settled. It was agreed that if the court dir! not hear from Mr Forbes inside of a fortnight with reference to any agreement that might be arrived at during this conference, it. would proceed to make an award. The court was arliourned sine die. JUDGMENTS. Pvmxsoir v. Alumdile Coal Compant. The Court delivered judgment in the case of John Partinson and the Allandale Coal Company (Ltd.). a claim for compensation in respect to injuries sustained. In this case Mr W. C. MacGresror appeared for claimant, and Mr Hoiking, K.C., and Mr W. Allen for the respondent company. The judgment states that "claimant in this case was a eoalminer who was employed for five or six Years in the respondent's mine at Shatr Point. On the 9th June, 1906. while claimant was at work getting coal, a ma«s of coal fell from the face and crushed and bruised his left foot and an^le. He h-is not done any work as a coal-miner since the date of the accident, and alleges that he is still unfit, by reason of his injuries, to return to work." Tho judgment went on tp review the avidence. and laid emphasis on the fact that, while the doctors' evidence made it cleai that PattJnson could not use hi£ foot without suffering great pain, neither 1 depied the statement that were h£ to use his foot tegularly the pain ;

wpuld gradually disappear. The Court came to the conclusion that " the ola-im-ant was sufficiently recovered from the effects of liis injuries to be able to return to work, without any risk to himself, early in the year 1907. The principal reason why he did not make any attempt to return to work, then, was that he was unwilling, apparently, to suffer the pain and discomfort which attended his attempts to resume the active and regular use of his foot. Another circumstance that probably operated to make him unwilling to persevere in the attempts to obtain again the full use of his foot was the fact that, if his incapacity continued, his income as a disabled worker would be for one year j certainly, and perhaps longer, more than , his income as a working miner had been ' ■during the previous year." _ The Court awarded claimant compensation on the , basis of what was proved to be the average of his weekly earnings during the 12 months previous to the accident — viz., £2 8s Id. Claimant was awarded £48, being compensation for 40 weeks up to the end of ' September, 1907, at £1 4s per week, in full satisfaction of his claim. The _Court ako allowed him his costs (£7 7s), with

disbursements and witnesses' expenses, to be fixed by the clerk of awards. Inspector of Awabds v. Nightcaps Coal Company. Judgment was filed with the clerk of awards in the case Inspector of Awards v. the Nightcaps Coal Company (Ltd.), heard last week in Invercargill. The Inspector contended that the company had been guilty of a breach of clause 8 of an industrial agreement made between respondent and the Otago Coalrniners' Union, such clause stipulating that shift wages shall be 10s. It wa6 stated that five shiftmen had, in February of 1908, been paid less than 10s per day. One man had been employed in cutting a drain, and the others in ordinary labouring work preparatory to the resumption of mining operations after the fire in respondent's mine. The Inspector contended that thi6~ was shift work, while respondents argued that clause 8 referred only to miners employed to get coal on shift wages. The Court helcl that all workers who were not working on piece rates were shift workers, but the question was whether it was the intention of the parties to the

agreement to fix the wafies of all sucli ( workers at 10s per shift, or only thoss miners employed in pcetting coal. I After going very exhaustively mfco the' I matter, the Court decided that in the- in^ etaa'ce before it, clause 8 'applied only ttt miners employed on shift wages -to getcoal, or when, as provided in clause *21, ■ they were taken from the faoe to do othe* work. There had, therefore, been no breach of the agreement, and the application of the" inspector was dismissed. Upon a question as to the use of prior convictions against "an accused person, Mr \ Justice Hood (Sydney) 6aid he - had just . recently received a painful letter.. from a man. who sam he had been sentenced by the learned judge 11 years ago, and had 6inoe lived in another State and made an honourable position for himself, and stoodfor " Parlia-menf ; and, when addressing a meeting, some brute got up and blazoned j forth the old. fault, and. ruined, him. Th© learned judge added the opiruon that somemen are paying the penalty all their lives, ' while others serve their sentence and snap, their fingers.