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.

1881-82

Deputies' Wage again—Third Sliding Scale—Death of Mr Macdonald—Change in the Treasurership

In February this question was again in evidence. By reference to the award as given above it will be seen that the umpire decided clearly in the workmen's favour, but there arose a complication in the mode of application adopted by the owners. The mode of calculation was skilful and peculiar. The dispute arose in 1876 when, as an inducement for the deputies to form an organisation of their own, they were to be exempt from the six per cent. reduction; therefore, said the employers, we will give those deputies who are in the Miners' Union the six per cent. given in 1876, and then deduct all the reductions since, by this process bringing them to 4s. 1½d. per day. They seemed to forget that the deputies' arbitration was for the difference between the actual wages at that time—the difference being 6d. or 8d. per day. The anomaly was that two men might be doing the same work with equal responsibilities (in some cases the lower paid the best workman) and yet one have a much higher wage than the other.