MINERS’ ULTIMATUM

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 152, 23 March 1921, Page 5

MINERS’ ULTIMATUM

DEMAND FOR A CONFERENCE

WITHIN SEVEN DAYS

REPLY TO COAL OWNERS

"Seeing that your association have rejectee! every proposal for a- conference, other than a withdrawal of the demands, I have to inform you that my federation now demand that a conference be arranged within seven days, otherwise they will take what steps they deem necessary to force a conference.” This ultimatum is contained in a letter forwarded by Mr, <T. Arbuckle (secretary of the Miners’ Federation) to Mr. T. 0. Bishop (acting-secretary of the Coal Mine Own. ers’ Association), in reply to a letter from Mr’. Bishop, the text of which was published in The Dominion on Monday. On present appearances it would seem that unless a conference is held within a few days for the purpose of considering the miners’ claims for a new agreement, a crisis may arise in the coal mining industry. The owners have stated that they are not prepared to meet the representatives of the federation unless the latter’s demands for abolition of the contract system, six-hour day bank to bank, five-day week, (abolition of afternoon shift, payment for holidays, and payment for time lost are withdrawn. The latest communication from the Miners’ Federation to the Coal Mine Owners’ Association is as follows: “Wellington, March 22. "Mr. T. 0. Bishop, "Acting-secretary Coal Mine Owners Association. > "Dear Sir,—l have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 19, in which you express regret that my executive should feel resentment at the coal owners’ reply to our request for a conference, also that I should characterise the statements made in Mr. Pryor s letter as untrue. , ’ “In reply thereto I have to reiterate the statements made in my last letter, which yon have been unable to confute, but try to evade the matter by stating that the differences between Mr. wor s statements and my own in regard to the February, 1920, conference were so sllgnt as to be almost negligible. How you can arrive at that decision is a niyrteiy to me because Mr. Pryor stated that the demands were withdrawn, and I, on the other hand, stated that they were all to Broken Hill, Mr. Pryor stated that the findings of the board were against the men. I stated t y ceive seven hours per day arid five days a week. Either Mr. Pryor’s statement or mine is untruthful, and, to set this matter right, I am prepared to donate ten pounds (£10) io the Wellington Hospital if my statements are incorrect, you to do the same if Mr. Pryor « mends are otherwise than truthful; and, seeing that you endorse Mr. Pryor s statement in regard to Broken Hill, 1 will make the same offer to yourself, so if you are prepared to back up your statement, the Wellington Hospital will at least benefit to the extent of ten pounds and the public will know the real facts. . "In regard to your statement in connection with Broken Hill, you state that 'except on minor points, the d«ision of the special tribunal was against the men. Moreover, tho effect of certain concessions granted to the men by the tribunal has been that owing to the fall in the price of metals, the mined have been put out of action, as it has been found impossible to make them pay on the new. basis.’ Now, I may be a little more dense than most people, but I have asked myself this question a great number or times, and cannot gnswer it to make it coincide with your statement that the decision went against the men except on minor points, and, at the same time, the concessions granted make it impossible for the company to make the mines pay expenses. lam afraid that this is like most statements made by the coal owners for the purpose of misleading the public. . . "Another statement you make which is in keeping with the above policy is the one that there was a delay of twenty days Wore our reply reached your office. I think the reason was well known to you, if not to you, then to Mr. Pryor, also the public. I told Mr. Pryor that the matter would have to he dealt with by the executive, and that, they could not meet until Mr. O’Rourke returned from Australia. The statement also appeared in the Press that the matter was to come before the executive, which was meeting in Wellington. You may as well have told the public that it took you eight days to reply to- our request for a conference, and that you did not require an executive meeting to arrive at. a decision. , . , , "Now in regard to the real point at issue: The granting of .a conference. Seeing that the coal owners have always expressed the wish for a better spirit to prevail between themselves and the workmen, I would point out that the refusing of a conference to discuss the miners’ proposals is certainly one way of bringing about a. better unders.and--ID"Seeing that your association have rei ectcd every proposal for a conference ortier than a withdrawal of Hie demands. I have now to inform you that IUV federation now demand that a conference bo arranged within seven days, otherwise they will take what steps they deem necessarv to force a conference. Yours faithfuly, (Sgd.) J. Arbuckle, secretary.”