A History of the Durham Miner's Association 1870-1904

by John Wilson

1880

Violations of Scale—Restriction of Labour—Working Hours Arbitration—Deputies' Wage Arbitration—Employers' Liability

By the end of 1879 the consequence of the strike, as seen in disarranged collective machinery, had been reconstructed. One beneficial effect of the stoppage was the great number of men who joined the Union. When the notices terminated there were collieries where the numbers were few; but these men, as if moved by the instinct of self-preservation, ceased work, and to a very large extent became members, remaining until this day. It was the greatest piece of missionary effort ever seen. Instead of disunion and isolated action there were manifest loyal adhesion and solidity.

There were sure to be exceptions to this as to all rules, and early in the year the Federation Board was called upon to meet a class of trouble which was entirely illegal, and which arises occasionally now. Without specifying places (but dealing generally) it will suffice to say that in a few instances notices were given for advances beyond what the sliding scale gave. The employers requested the Board to meet them. This they did, and two resolutions, one dealing with the cokemen and the other with the miners at one colliery, were unanimously carried. The workmen were told that they had violated the rules of the Federation Board and sliding scale agreement. They were told (by a circular sent out by the Federation Board) that they were parties to the arrangement, and yet had given in their notices for an advance in direct contravention of its provisions. Having been parties to the scale they ought not to violate it with impunity. If this individual or lodge action were allowed it would end in disruption, and therefore it must be checked. The wisdom of that advice is obvious, and not only in that day, but for the present time. If agreements are made for men they should be adhered to. To violate them is lawlessness, which in the end is hurtful beyond the immediate act. If conditions are forced upon people it is right to repudiate, but for the last thirty-four years in this county there has been freedom and equality.

RESTRICTION OF LABOUR

At the Council meeting held on January 17th it was decided that there should be a restriction, and that no coal hewer should make more than 4s. 5d. or 4s. 2d. per shift, but this was never carried out in any general manner. On March 13th the Council again dealt with it, and declared all lodges unfinancial where it was not put in force. In furtherance of that resolution the Seaham Lodge put a notice on the pit heap to inform the members "that the restriction had commenced, and that a list be drawn up stating the number of tubs each man had to fill in his respective district or flat, no man to make more than the county average in any one day." To that notice the Owners' Association took objection. A letter was sent to Mr Crawford asking him whether the workmen had determined to enforce restriction, and if so, were they then acting on it. These questions Mr Crawford did not answer, but brought them before the Committee. As a result a circular was issued reviewing the whole case. They pointed out that when the Council carried it very few of the lodges put it in force, and the few who did soon left off, and that at the Council to enforce it the voting was 145 for, 126 against. They reminded the majority that "surely a minority so strong ought to have led to a reconsideration of a matter not only so vitally important, but which has at all times been found so very difficult to carry out in practice." Lodges were sending in resolutions refusing to carry out the Council resolution. That resolution said those lodges should be expelled. The position would be that whole collieries of men would be cut off from the Association because they were determined to abide by the scale agreement. In view of these facts, they resolved to call a special Council. They pointed out that one or two lodges had sent in motions of censure because advice had been given, and they met the censures by saying:

One or two lodges have sent motions seeking to pass a vote of censure on us for issuing the last circular. It would seem that these lodges would like to see us sit and do nothing, even though we were certain that an impending evil was threatening our very existence. We cannot regard this as our province. What we did was for the preservation of the Association. The moment we see that our efforts have not ended more satisfactorily we have called a special Council meeting to further consider the matter. Take our advice, and inasmuch as we have only done our duty, spare your censures. We have quite enough to do at present without wasting our energies in useless and pernicious quarrelling amongst ourselves.

The result of the special meeting proved the Committee right. A tabulated vote was taken—the voting being against restriction 130, for 117; majority against, 13. Thus ended the only county attempt to carry out a uniformity in piecework. It ended as all such will end. Human nature is too strong for such arrangements.

WORKING HOURS ARBITRATION

This case arose out of the hewers' hours at some of the collieries. Amongst them were Gurney Pit, Leasingthorne, Letch, and Wingate. These were eleven-hour pits, but during the depression of 1877-79 the hewers had been induced or coerced to go in at three A.M. instead of four A.M. The Executive Committee in their negotiations contended that this was a violation of Mr Meynell's award, and therefore ought not to exist. On the employers' side it was held that the award named only dealt with the coal drawing. After attempts to settle it was finally agreed to refer it to arbitration, with Lord Rowton as umpire. The arbitrators on the owners' side were Mr R. F. Mathews and Mr W. T. Hall, and for the workmen Mr L. Jones and Mr W. Crawford. There were two days' sitting in the Westminster Palace Hotel, London. On the 20th of August the umpire decided that the hours complained of should remain as they were.

THE DEPUTIES' ARBITRATION

This question of the deputies being paid a higher wage if they were not in the Miners' Association came up in a renewed application for uniformity of wage. This was sent to the owners amongst a number of other requests. The reply was that they were strongly of the opinion that the deputies should not be members of the Miners' Association. The Executive could not accept that reply. They had never asked about the Associations, but a just wage, and they considered the reply was an insult. They recommended to their members that it should be sent to the Federation Board. This was done, and on the 19th of March the Board offered to submit the matter to arbitration. The offer was refused by the following resolution:—

MINERS' REQUEST AND REPLY FORWARDED TO MR CRAWFORD

June 17th, 1880.

Deputies.—That deputies who are not members of the Deputies' Association be paid the same wages as those who are.

Considering the position in which the deputies stand to the hewers and other workmen, any change in the present arrangement is undesirable.

On the receipt of this the Board notified the county, and resolved to call a joint meeting of the four Associations. Their advice was that the whole of the notices be given in, and work to cease until the claim was conceded or arbitration granted. The meeting was held on August 26th. Negotiations proceeded, and in November the employers agreed to accept arbitration. The case was not heard until February 1881. The umpire on that occasion was Mr I. Hinde Palmer, M.P.; the advocates were Mr L. Wood, Mr W. Armstrong, Mr L. Jones, and Mr W. Crawford. The hearing lasted two days, and was held in the Westminster Hotel, London. The umpire decided upon two points:

(1) That it is competent under the sliding scale agreement of October 1879 for the deputies who are members of the Miners' Association to require that their wages be advanced.

(2) That the advance shall be such a sum as will make the amount of their wages respectively the same as the wages paid to those deputies who are not members of the Miners' Association.

THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT

It is not intended to review the introduction and passing of Acts of Parliament, but mention may be made of the Employers' Liability of 1880, not with a view to explain its provisions, but to indicate steps which were taken towards contraction out of it. In Lancashire contracting out was made one of the conditions of hiring, and a strike took place in an attempt to resist it. With us in the north (for the two counties worked together) the same end was sought, but by different means. The aim of the employers here was to avoid litigation if possible, and, with that end in view, would have increased their contributions to the Permanent Relief Fund. The officials of that fund were desirous of bringing an arrangement about, believing it would strengthen their position. There were a few men outside the ranks of those officials who advised the miners to enter into a contract. At a meeting of the Permanent Fund Committee it was just on the point of being carried when a suggestion was made to the effect "that it was not a matter pertaining to the fund, but belonged to the Workmen's Associations, and that a joint meeting should be held." Such did take place, with the result that the proposal was defeated. The leaders of the Associations were very strong against it. Among the strongest was Mr Crawford, whose monthly circular for December contained some very clear and explicit reasons in opposition to the idea. There were threats from some employers as to smart money and subscriptions to the Permanent Relief Fund, but still the workmen refused to give way.