MINERS’ DEFENCE CORPS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 857, 28 December 1929, Page 9

MINERS’ DEFENCE CORPS

MILITANT MEETING AT NEWCASTLE SCULLIN’S PLAN SCORNED United P.A.—By Telegraph Copyright Reed. 10.50 a.m. SYDNEY, Today. At a combined meeting of the miners’ lodge representatives at Newcastle, it was decided to institute a labour defence corps iu tire north. It was also decided to give the executive certain powers to deal with the Rothbury position. Other decisions at the meeting indicated a strong trend toward militanev. The proposal of the Prime Minister, Mr. J. H. Scullin, to subsidise production while the new award is being formulated met with scornful and unanimous rejection. Continuous picketing of all closed mines was agreed to. A motion for a general strike, however, was defeated. MEN’S NEW DEMANDS Unexpected demands, designed, the owners say, to create an inter-state dispute, have been .served by the Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation upon all the western and northern mineowners, and sent to the mineowners throughout the Commonwealth. The demands are for an increase of 9d a tdn in hewing rates, with proportionate increases for c"- ’-act work, wheelers to be paid lljd a ton extra, with a further 2d for each 40 yards over 100. The minimum wage demanded is to be not less than 25s Id a shift. A contract worker who fails to earn £5 10s a week through no fault of his own is to have his wages made up to that amount. The hours are to be 40 a** week, bank to bank, and payment is to be made weekly instead of fortnio-btly. These conditions, the demand says, are to operate from January 1 next. One o— commented that no mine in the Commonwealth could pay the wage® -’emanded. The claims were made as ah—rd as posr'ble in order to create an inter-State dispute before the High Court hears the coal case on January 6. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Adrian Knox, was engaged all day in the preliminary hearing of the evidence and argument on the owners’ applications to test the validity of Mr. Justice Beeby’s coalmines’ award. He is appealing to the parties to avoid technicalities, which should be left for the High Court to deal with.