THE COAL MINERS

Hokitika Guardian, 23 March 1921, Page 3

THE COAL MINERS

OAVNERS’ REPLY TO FEDERATION WELLINGTON, Alarch 21. i The following reply has fur- . warded 'by the Coal-mine Owners’ Association to the acting secretary of the Neiv Zealand Miners’ Federation (Mr G. Arbuckle): “T have to acknowledge receipt of ! your letter of 16th. inst. in further ■ reference to the request of the Afiners Federation for a conference with the ' Coal-mine Owners’ Association to c iscuss the demands made on behalf of the Federation in your letter of (he 17th. ult. I am sorry that your executive should feel resentment at Hie coal ow.n.ers’ reply to your request, and also that you should characterise the statements made in Mr Pryor s letter as untrue, because the coal )wneirs certainly do not desire to act 'n any way that should cause you to feel resentful and the difference between Mr Pryor’s statement a.nd vour own of what happened regarding the ‘six demands' at the conferences held in 1919 nrul 1920 is so slight as to be almost negligble. 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 are not mentioned. “As regards the Broken Hill trouble, I can only reiterate it is correct as stated in Air Pryor’s letter under reference, that except on minor points die decision of th ( , special tribunal against the men. Moreover the effect of certain concessions granted to vhe men bv the tribunal has neon that ing to* the fall in the price of metals th,, mines have been put out of action, , ; ns it has been found impossible to m ike them pay expenses on the nyw basis. “My association, having given careful consideration to your demands, is I convinced that if the I Abolition of the contract system, j Six-hour day bank to bank j Five-dav week. j Abolition of afternoon shift. Payment for holidays. Payment for time lost j were agreed to. the effect would "> 1 a | substantial decrease of output and a very considerable increase in cost of j coal generally throughout the Don .in- ( ion. For these, reasons, the associa- i tiun cannot concede these demands. J You raise the point, however, that your I federation would have the right <o c'is-, cuss the proposals before tho Arbitra- j tion Court if they were- filed by you | under the Industrial Conciliation and j Arbitration Act; if your Fedora'ion; will take steps to bring the matter to-j fore the Court, I am instructed bv my association to say that they am qU'te agreeable to this course. ; “1 desire to emphasic that out < I twenty-three demands made by you, the ~nal owners ask you to withdraw six . and that it' you agree to do so a coni'*'enoo will be arranged as early as ims- , sible. ! “You were advised of this on 'ho : 25th. ult., and your reply Mas not r•ceived until tho 17th inst., a delay of twenty days. The coal owners are not therefore, guilty of ‘delaying the bringing about of a new agreement bv refusing a conference - as stated in' your letter under reply : on the contrary they are Milling to meet you in cor-1 feremv as early as possible, provided , the matters objected to are m itlidrrvii.