MINERS’ DEMANDS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 150, 21 March 1921, Page 6

MINERS’ DEMANDS

WITHDRAWAL OF EXTREME CLAIMS

INSISTED UPON BY OWNERS RIGHT OF CONFERENCE NOT REFUSED “My association, having given careful consideration to your demands, is convinced that if the abolition, of the contract system, six-hour day bank to bank, five-day week, abolition of afternoon shift, payment for holidays, payment for time lost were agreed to, the effect would bo a substantial decrease of output and a very considerable increase in cost of coal generally throughout the Dominion. For these reasons tho association cannot concede these demands.”— In these words the New Zealand Coal Mine Owners’ Association reiterates that it will be impossible for its representatives to meet the New Zealand Miners' Federation representatives in conference to discuss the terms of a new agreement unless,tho federation agrees to the withdrawal of the six out of its twenty-three claims, which are deemed to be so extreme and unreasonable as to preclude anything in the way of consideration. The reply of the New Zealand Coal Mine Owners’ Association to the letter of the secretary of the New Zealand Miners’ Federation (Mr. J. Arbuckle), which appeared in Thursday’s Dominion, is as follows: — “J. Arbuckle. Esq.. - “Secretary N.Z. Miners’ Federation, “P.O. Box 1113, Wellington. “Dear Sir, —I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th inst. in further reference to the request of the Miners’ Federation for a conference with the Coal Mine Owners’ Association to discuss the demands made on behalf of the federation, in your letter of the 17th ult. lam sorry that your executive should feel resentment at tho coal owners’ reply to your request, and also that you should characterise the statements made in Mr. Pryor’s letter as untrue, because the coal owners certainly do not desire to act in any way that should cause you to feel resentful, and the difference between Mr. Pryor’s statement and your own of what happened regarding tho ‘six demands’ at the conferences held in 1919 and 1920 is so slight as to be almost negligible. _ The fact remains that none of these demands were agreed to by-the coal owners, or insisted upon by the federation representatives at either conference, and an agreement was arranged in which they were not mentioned.

“As regards the Broken Hill trouble, I can only reiterate it is correct, ns stated in Mr. Pryor’s letter under reference, that except on minor points, the decision of the special tribunal was against the mon. Moreover, the effect of ceriain concessions granted to the men by tho tribunal has been that, owing to the fall in the price of metals, the mines have Been put out of action, as it has been found impossible to make them pay expenses on the new basis. “My association, having given careful consideration to your demands, is convinced that if the Abolition of the contract system,

six-hour day bank to bank, five-day week, abolition of afternoon shift,

payment for holidays, payment for

•time lost, were agreed to, the effect would be a substantial decrease of output, and a very considerable increase in cost of coal generally throughout the Dominion. For these reasons the association cannot concede these demands. You raise the point, however, that your federation would have the right to discuss the proposals before the Arbitration Court if they were filed by you under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act; if your federation will take steps to bring the matter before the Court, I am instructed by my association to say that they are quite agreeable to this course. "I desire to emphasise that out of 23 demands made by you, the coal owners ask you to withdraw 6: and that if you agree to do so, a conference will be arranged ns early as possible. "You were advised of this on the 25111 ultimo, and your reply was not received until the 17th instant, a delay of 26 days. The coal owners are not, therefore, gvilty of "delaying the bringing about ,of a new agreement bv refusing a < onference, as stated in your letter under reply; on the contrary, they are willing to nleet von in conference as early as possible, provided the matters objected to are withdrawn. "Yours faithfully, j "T. O. BISHOP, “’Acting-Secretary?* In the course of the federation’s letter to the coal owners, Mr. Arbuckle stated that, if the owners insisted cn the -withdrawal of the miners’ proposals, "then there must certainly bo a fight for the rmht of a conference, and to discuss the proposals adopted by the whole of the miners’ unions, seeing that your organisation is delaying the bringing about of a new agreement by refusing a conference. Tn their reply, the owners make it ciear that they are not opposed to a eenference, but are quite willing to meet the federation’s representatives provided the objectionable demands are withdrawn.