DENNISTON DISPUTE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXII, Issue 2037, 28 December 1907, Page 3

DENNISTON DISPUTE.

HISTORY OF THE CASE. In an interview ivith a Times’ reporter Mr Pryor, secretary of the Employers’ Association, thus described the state of affairs with regard to the dispute at Denniston Colfiery:_“lu 1903 the bank-to-bank clause was inserted in the Coal Mines Act, and it was repeated m the consolidating measure of 1905. The effect of this was that any coal mine award coming into force subsequent to the 33rd November, 1903, had to provide for the bank-to-bank conditions. In February, 1900 the Arbitration Court, Mr Justice Chapman presiding, after hearing the dispute, decided for various reasons, set out in vol. 6, page 86, Book of Awards, that it could not make an award. * i This, ’ ’ continued Mr Pryor, “left the old award in operation, and prevented, so far as the Westport Coal Company’s mines were concerned, the application of the bank-to-bank clause. In March of this year the Oonrt visited Westport -and heard the new dispute which had been filed. I was in "Westport at the time, on behalf ox the employers, in conjunction with Mr Willi am Scott, of Dunedin. Upon the case being called the President of the Court asked Mr Scott if there was any great difference between the parties, and Mr Scott intimated there was considerable difference as to the bank-to-bank clause which would have to be arranged for. The President then asked if the trouble could be got over by the parties agreeing to a nominal rate of overtime, to cover the difference in the time worked between the bank-to-bank conditions and the present custom. ‘ * The parties agreed to go into conference. We sat for four days, from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. each day, with the result that the company’s representatives and the union's delegates came to a unanimous agreement as to the terms upon which the award should be made. This agreement was ratified by workers in the Denniston mine, though not accepted by the men in the Grauity mine. The Court ;then made an award with regard to the Denniston mine, embodying without alteration the agreement come to at the conference. The crux of the whole position was, of course, the bank-to-bank danse. The employers wanted eight hours’ work at the face. The workers wanted eight hours to count from the time of leaving the surface until returning to the surface. This difference upon the average was 50 minutes per day per man. The agreement come to, as I have said, was embodied in the award, clause 1G of which provides : The hours of work underground to bo in acordance with the Coal Mines Act, 1905. The hoars of workers employed above ground shall be eight-hour shifts, exclusive of mealtime. All workers employed underground shall work eight hours, inclusive of half an hour for mealtime. In conformity with section At of the Coal Mines Act, 1905, the following nominal overtime rates shall be paid as an equivalent for the extra time worked as above: —For workers in receipt of 9s and over per shift, 4d per shift; for workers in receipt oi 6s and over and under os, 3d per shift, for working in receipt of less than 6s, 2d per shift. ‘ 1 This means that the workers received this allowance to meet the position, and they ratified the agreement. There is, therefore, no question of the award being in conflict with the statute, because the award was made to expressly meet the position as brought about by this year’s Amending Act. Both parties to the dispute knew that the legislation in the matter was coming. In assuming their present attitude, the men are distinctly flying in the face of their own agreement, confirmed at a mutual conference of miners’ and employsrs ! representatives. ; The Grauity miners, who did not ratify the agreement, have made terms with the company more favourable to tine workers than those under the Denniston agreement received, anu this agreement at a recent sitting of the Court was made an award.