Mr Bunning (on behalf of the owners) sent a copy of the instructions to the managers to Mr Crawford, asking him if they met with his approval. The answer was sharp. Instead of agreeing with them he considered them a clear violation of Mr Palmer's award. It was not based upon Shaw Lefevre's award, but upon the existing difference in the wages. And he informed the owners, that they would demand the higher wages. The negotiations continued until May, when the umpire by joint letter was asked to meet Mr L. Wood and Mr Crawford. He informed them he would write each of them an explanation, and save the journey. This he did, and said the award was clear and intelligible, and that he meant those who were in the Miners' Association to be paid the highest wages. On the strength of that interpretation the owners paid the wage, with everything kept off since the award.
THIRD SLIDING SCALE
As the two years for which the sliding scale was definitely fixed drew near completion it was obvious that there was a strong feeling against it. The circumstances were against it. Introduced at the conclusion of a very disastrous strike the whole of its operation was in the worst times—trade bad, wages low. There was no wonder that the men had little love for it. Recognising the opposition the Committee placed a motion on the Council programme suggesting that notice be given to terminate it at the end of the two years. This was adopted, and notice given at the proper time. In the meantime the miners generally were turning their attention to the question. A sliding scale conference was held on April 20th, 1881, in the Midland Hotel, Birmingham. The conference affirmed "that the principle of sliding scales is an equitable mode of settling wages questions, if rightly worked out in detail: That the best mode of taking out the selling price will generally be to take the price of coal sold, but that no coals should be taken which were sold on contract; only those sold at the current market price." In the matter of leaving firms out each district was left to its own option. It was considered desirous that the accountants should have more freedom in regard to the matters they were permitted to divulge. A second conference on the same question was called for October 19th in Birmingham, with a programme on very similar lines.
A Council meeting was held, and two delegates selected to represent Durham. Certain instructions were given them: sliding scales were the best arrangements for regulating wages; the open markets were preferable to the existing mode of ascertainment, with others of a kindred nature. On January 18th the Federation Board had under discussion a proposal from the employers. It was not accepted, but they were told the Board was ready to meet them at any time. At a special Council held on 25th February 1882 the situation was complicated by the miners deciding to ask for an advance of twenty per cent. if the owners refused the sliding scale drawn up by the Federation Board, and that body was instructed to meet the employers. The meeting took place on March 13th on the two questions, when the owners gave the Board the following:—
OWNERS' OFFER
March 13th, 1882.
The Durham Coal Owners' Association is unable to accept either of the propositions suggested in the Federation Board Minutes of February 25th, that is to say,—
1. The Association cannot regard "the sliding scale drawn up by the Federation Board as just and equitable," and consequently cannot adopt it.
2. The Association cannot grant "an immediate advance of 20 per cent. in the wages of all men and boys," nor admit "that trade warrants such an application," or any advance at all.
Having regard to the difference of view between the Owners' Association and the Federation Board, the Association can only suggest that the question whether wages shall be varied, and if so, to what extent, and in what direction, shall be left to open arbitration.
The Miners' Council then decided to take a ballot on the twenty per cent. If the question were not carried by a two-thirds majority, to arbitrate on the advance. When this was sent to the owners they replied that the advance could not be granted, but they were quite ready to leave it to open arbitration. The Federation Board as a whole considered itself in an anomalous position if any section were allowed to act as the miners were doing. If this were allowed to proceed, then on wage questions there was an end to all usefulness. Either the power must be taken away altogether, or they must unreservedly trust them. As the position was, they were in a crippled condition. "This renders our work on general questions nil, and the Federation instead of being a tower of strength is a source of weakness, inasmuch as it exposes to the owners our want of agreement and diversity of thought and action." They had, therefore, come to the conclusion to take a vote, with the view to have the matter settled. The response of the county was in favour of the Board by a large majority. Immediately they decided to ask for a scale with a minimum wage, and that the variations should be two and one and a half per cent.
A meeting between the Board and the owners was held on April 17th, when the workmen asked for an advance of seven and a half per cent. To this the employers objected, but said they would pay a wage as if the coals had reached 4s. 8d., which was equal to an advance of three and three quarters per cent., and would be an advantage of two and a half per cent., during the continuance of the scale. The Board strongly urged the acceptance of the offer, which in their opinion was preferable to arbitration. The workmen accepted their advice, and the following scale was signed on April 29th:—
THIRD SLIDING SCALE
| When the Net Average Selling Price of Coal | There shall be made the following percentage additionsto, or deductions from, the now prevailing tonnage rates and wages,being those prevailing at November 1879 | ||
| Reaches | But does not reach | Additions | Deductions |
| s. d. | s. d. | ||
| 3 10 | 4 0 | None | None |
| 4 0 | 4 2 | 1¼ | " |
| 4 2 | 4 4 | 2½ | " |
| 4 4 | 4 6 | 3¾ | " |
| 4 6 | 4 8 | 5 | " |
| 4 8 | 4 10 | 6¼ | " |
| 4 10 | 5 0 | 7½ | " |
| 5 0 | 5 2 | 8¾ | " |
| 5 2 | 5 4 | 10 | " |
| 5 4 | 5 6 | 11¼ | " |
| 5 6 | 5 8 | 12½ | " |
| 5 8 | 5 10 | 13¾ | " |
| 5 10 | 6 0 | 16¼ | " |
| 6 0 | 6 2 | 18¾ | " |
| 6 2 | 6 4 | 20 | " |
| 6 4 | 6 6 | 21¼ | " |
| 6 6 | 6 8 | 22½ | " |
| And so on upwards, 1¼ per cent. for each 2d., the2½ per cent. variations for the two ranges of 2d.each in price between 5s. 10d. and 6s. 2d. beinglimited to those special ranges. | |||
| 3 8 | 3 10 | — | 1¼ |
| 3 6 | 3 8 | — | 2½ |