POWER OF MINERS’ LAMPS

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 61, 6 December 1926, Page 8

POWER OF MINERS’ LAMPS

“OLDHAM’ LANTERN QUESTIONED WORKERS’ SUIT FAILS by Telegraph.—Press Association Auckland, December 4. A case of wide application, concerning coal miners’ wages as affected by the candle power of their electric safety lamps, heard in the Supreme Court, as the result of a test claim against a mining company for arrears of additional wages was dismissed. John and Joseph Redfern, miners, of Huntly, sued the Taupiri Coal Mines, Ltd., for £9O 3s. 9d., representing 3d. a ton on coal hewn by them jointly in the Rotowaro Mine. The case was heard by Mr. Justice Adams. Mr. P. J. O’Regaii appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. West for the company. The claim was made under clause 33 of the award. This clause provides" that, there shall be addition to the hewing rate if, in the event of changes in the working conditions in a mine, the men are required to work with lamps of less than one candle power. Mr. O’Regan stated that when the award came into force the “Oldham” safety lamp had been in use for twelve months. It was an electric lamp with a self-contained storage battery, and was still used in the mine. Both the company and the men had assumed that it was of one candle power, and accordingly from its introduction the lower hewing rate was paid. The lamp had been approved by the Home Office in England and the Mines Department in New Zealand, and was stated by its makers to be of one candle power. It was now alleged that tests made by Professor P. H. Powell, Director of the School of Engineering at Canterbury College, upon an “Oldham” lamp from Westport showed that the lamp was of less than one candle power. Plaintiffs, who according to the usual procedure worked as a pair, were claiming arrears at 3d. a ton from the introduction of the lamps. Thomas Hall, secretary of the Rotowaro Miners’ Union, said that he had been present as a delegate when the terms of the award had been agreed to.. He had then considered that a one candle power lamp meant a lamp giving the same amount of light as a tallow candle.

John Lock, secretary of the Millerton Miners’ Union, aiid agent for the Rotowaro Union at the conference with the company, said there had been no agreement about any method of testing the power of the lamps. Professor Powell stated that he had tested an Oldham lamp in the condition in which he received it. He had no instructions regarding the method of testing, and, having regard to the purpose for which the lamp was used, he had ascertained the mean horizontal candle power by what was known as the revolving test. This gave .6 of a candle power for eight hours. Under a stationary test, however, the lamp maintained one candle power for the ■same period. There were at least four methods for the calculation of the candle power of a lamp, but the dustom was to use that which was reasonable considering the purpose for which the lamp was used. Mr. West moved for a tion-suit on grounds: (a) That plaintiffs to establish anv claim fpr a higher rate must show that they had hewn a definite quantitv of coal using lamps of less than one candle power; (b) that tne evidence did not show that the lamps used in the Rotowaro Mine were of less than one candle power; (c) that the clause in the award, on which the claim was based, had no effect on this instance, seeing that the conditions in the mine had not changed since the award, the same lamp being in use as in 1923. Counsel said that Professor Powell’s test had been made upon a lamp from another mrne. There was no evidence about its. condition when tested, though the age and condition of the storage battery and bulb were essential factors. , , . ...„ Mr. O'Regan remarked that the union had been refused a test by the companv. ■ His Honour interrupted the argument, stating that the plaintiffs must be non-suited. Thev had failed to pr - ffuce evidence that the lamps used in the mine were of less than one cande power within the meaning of the award The award did not specify anv method of determining the candle power and the plaintiffs were, not entitled to select a method which gave the result in their favour.