South Yorkshire Times, February 23rd, 1934
Cadeby Dispute
Court Sequel To Lightning Strike
257 Workmen Prosecuted
Mutual Allegations Of Breach Of Contract
Wages For Conveyor Work
Reduced Damages Awarded
Two hundred and fifty-seven underground employees of the Cadeby Main Colliery were summoned at Doncaster West Riding Court on Wednesday by the colliery company for alleged breach of contract. This was a sequel to a “lightning strike” on Feb 2nd, the company claiming 8s 6d from each defendant. For the defence it was pleaded that the Company had nullified the contract between themselves and the men by previous breaches. The Company held that the stoppage was unconstitutional.
The men marched in a body to the court house and filled the court to overflowing, some having to find accommodation in the dock and the seats reserved for the Press. Mr. A. Furniss, of Rotherham, appeared for the colliery company, and Mr. H. Hylton Foster, barrister of London, instructed by Mr. D. Dunn of Rotherham for the defence.
Three Issues
Mr. Furniss explained that the summonses had been taken out under the Employer’s and Workmen’s Act and charged the men with wrongfully absenting themselves from the service of the Company on Feb. 2nd and/or Feb. 3rd. The magistrates, he suggested, had three things to determine – whether there was a contract of service between the employers and the workmen, whether that contract had been broken, and the amount of damage the Company had sustained. Under the Act the magistrates had such civil jurisdiction.
On the first point, the contract of service was based on the signing of a contract book at the colliery by each workman. Regarding the second point, the position was that of the men before the Bench there were a certain number who went to work on the morning shift of Feb 2nd. After working a short time, without any indication to the management, and at the instigation of some person, they came out of the pit en bloc, disorganising the work of the colliery. No explanation was given to the management. Pickets were posted to prevent men going to work on the afternoon shift, while the same thing applied on the following morning. Work was available in the ordinary way, and that, Mr. Furniss suggested, constituted a breach of contract.
Mr. Furniss then referred to the constitution of the Yorkshire Mineworkers’ Association, of which all the defendants were members, and which was a body which acted on behalf of the men. Under the rules of the Y.M.A., in the case of any dispute pending, or in existence between the men and employers, there was a certain course of action set down for the men and the local branch before anything in the nature of a strike could take place.
Mr. Furniss continued by referring to the “strike section” of the Y.M.A. rules, which stated that no branch, or portion of a branch, should be able to strike or leave off work unless such course was sanctioned by two thirds of the members comprising that branch, the decision to be arrived at by ballot. The decision had then to be forwarded to headquarters for the Association’s Council to determine when notice to cease work should be given. In this case, as far as he knew, no notification had been given to Barnsley, there had been no ballot, and there had been no majority.
THE DISPUTE
Mr. Furniss asked the bench to say on the basis that the men had broken the contract. Under the company’s bye-laws, employees, except casual workers etc., were required to give seven days’ notice to terminate work. In conclusion Mr. Furniss submitted that it was not the Bench’s duty to inquire as to the reasons why the contract had been broken. Whatever dispute there was between the Company and the men, there was a proper course to be taken to secure rectification. The sanctity of a contract should be upheld.
Mr. Pettifer: They have a proper course of redress.
Mr. Foster: We have to go into the dispute to see if the employer himself committed a breach. When an employer is himself guilty of a breach of contract, he cannot hope to avail himself of the benefits. That is my case.
Mr. Pettifer: The Bench may finally rule that that is so. We do not want to exclude anything the men want to say in justification of what they did.
THE DAMAGES
Mr. Furniss: I am taking a point of law. If there was any justification for a breach of contract, the men should take action in the County Court or in this. I ask you again to think solely of breach of contract and to uphold the Company. There is the question of the amount of loss sustained by the Company.
Mr. Foster: We shall not fight that.
Mr. Furniss said the damages had been based at 8s 6d per man per shift and had been arrived at by taking the whole overhead charges of the Company for one day, taken over a period, and proportioned, in the ratio of 257 men representing 325 shifts. Actually, the men were gaining a benefit for the costs were higher than claimed.
Mr. Foster: I admit that.
John H. Dunk, secretary to the Colliery Company produced the contract books for the Cadeby Colliery, in which he said the whole of the defendants appeared as to having signed the books on various dates. He also produced copies of the contracts which had a clause stipulating seven days’ notice on either side. No such notice was received by the Company from any of the men prior to Feb 7th. Referring to the Company’s claim against defendants, Mr. Dunk said the stoppage actually cost the firm 10s ½d per man, but they were only claiming 8s 6d. Since the issue of the summonses, none of the men had offered to pay.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foster, Mr. Dunk said all the defendants worked on the conveyor face in the Barnsley seam. Mr. W. Criddle, the under manager, would be in closest touch with the men on the management side.
Mr. Foster: Do you agree that from the beginning to the end of this dispute he was the person first concerned by the employers? I mean the workmen would make complaints to him.
Mr. Dunk: I have no knowledge of that.
Mr. Foster: Do you agree that a contract is broken if either men or employers fail to fulfil any clause of it? There is nothing about non-payment of wages. If the men claim that they should have gone the right way about it. They should not have broken the contract for that.
To Mr. Furniss. Mr. Dunk said the men returned to work on Feb 5th. Prior to that he received a letter from the secretary of the local Y.M.A. stating that at an over-flow meeting the men had unanimously decided to return to work, and that notices would be handed in to operate the following week.
THE BUZZER
Henry Milnes, 149, Tickhill Street, Denaby, timekeeper at Cadeby Colliery said on Feb 2nd the morning shift went down at 6 o’clock and about two hours late some of the workmen came out again. The colliery was open for work on the afternoon shift that day and on Feb 3rd.
Mr. Foster asked witness if those who had produced doctors’ notes had been served with summonses and witness replied that they had not.
Mr. Foster: Then why has a summons been issued to J. Humphries?
Mr. Furniss: It has been withdrawn.
Mr. Foster: I am sorry but there are more than one Humphries.
Questioned by Mr. Foster witness said he believed there was a buzzer at the colliery which, when it sounded three blasts in the evening, was a warning to the men that there would be no work for the night shift and the following morning shift. He added, however, that he had taken little notice of it.
Mr. Foster: Is it right that at 8-15 p.m. on Feb. 2nd the buzzer sounded three blasts? – No (laughter)
If it had done, would the men have rightly understood that there was no work for them? – Not the men on the conveyors.
What is the difference? – They have to work unless told otherwise.
No man is expected to work more than five and a half shifts a week, is he? – If there is work available for him.
Should the employers take any objection to any man taking a rest if he has done that amount of work or more? – I cannot say.
Do you know that the men had a meeting fixed for that Friday night? – No.
Or that the buzzer went while they were discussing the dispute? – No.
In reply to Mr. Furniss, witness said the buzzer did not affect men employed on the conveyors. They worked in accordance with notices posted at the colliery, and there was one posted the previous week stating that they would work throughout the following one.
This concluded the case for the prosecution.
THE PRICE LIST
The first witness for the defence was Tom Hill, 26, Montagu Avenue, Conisboro’, checkweighman and a committee man of the local Y.M.A. branch. He was one of the first persons on behalf of the men who were interested in the dispute. The person most interested for the employers was Mr. Criddle. He was not in court.
Mr. Furniss objected to this on the grounds that it reflected on his presentation of the Company’s case.
Mr. Foster: it reflects nothing, I am perfectly justified. I gave you a hint in cross-examining your witness and you have not thought fit to call Mr. Criddle.
Mr. Hill went on to say that on Dec. 22nd he and other officials agreed on behalf of the workmen to a new price list for conveyor work. The list had clauses regarding the number of men to be engaged on each panel, but included nothing for the fetching of timber, clearing or filling dirt, but those matters were covered under a reference to the 1920 price list. No allowances for this class of work were made by the Company until after the dispute. The new price list came into effect on Jan. 2nd “We did not get through the first week without complaints from the workmen, and officials had to go and see the management.” They were always in the office.
Witness was about the give numbers of men employed on nos. 1 and 2 conveyors when Mr. Furniss interposed. “I shall not cross-examine on any of this dispute. It has nothing to do with the breach of contract.”
Mr. Foster: I am very much obliged, but I shall have to go through with it.
Mr. Hill said that during the week ending Jan. 6th there were 566½ shifts worked, and that showed there was an excess of men in accordance with a clause of the price list. Throughout the period up to the dispute the management had broken that clause. Regarding No. 2 conveyor, the men had agreed to a modification of the clause “for the management’s sake.” Bars had been set “all over” and not paid for. On No.1 conveyor panel there was more than one bar to four props, while conditions on No. 2 panel were “a hundred per cent worse.” “It has to be timbered in sections. There had also been several falls, but no allowance up to the dispute was made for the clearing of dirt by the management.
Men Restless
On Jan. 19th the men were threatening to make the pit idle because allowances had not been made for dead work. However, certain money was then paid. Another grievance with the men was that no check had been kept by the management on dead work which was outside the price list. Six men were elected by the men to do this and take it up with the management. There was a interview on Jan. 29th when the names of six men were submitted. The information was also given by letter, but on Jan. 30th Mr. Criddle replied that he could not recognise the men, as he had appointed two for the work and they were carrying out their duties satisfactorily.
During the interview on Jan. 29th, however, Mr. Criddle promised to make suitable arrangements regarding dead work, but nothing was done They had also seen Mr. Pickering, who promised to meet a further deputation, at which Mr. Hodges would be present. There was no outcome so far.
Three Blasts
On Feb. 1st the men began threatening again, but decided to work as their officials were to see Mr. Criddle that day. At the interview Mr. Criddle was told of the serious unrest among the men and was asked to make allowances for extra work done. Mr. Criddle admitted that the place was abnormal and that the men should be given extra money. A meeting of the men had been called for Friday evening Feb 2nd to receive the report of the interview. That was made prior the stoppage. While the meeting was proceeding the colliery buzzer gave three blasts. The effect on the meeting was that the men felt it was not necessary to decide immediately whether they should go back to work or not, and the matter was adjourned until Sunday. If the buzzer had not gone – and that gave the announcement that there was no work for the next two shifts – they would have decided that night.
Mr. Foster:
If you thought you had been properly paid in accordance with the price list existing between you, would you have come out of the pit? – No.
Have you and your fellow officials done all you could to avoid trouble? – Yes.
To Mr. Furniss, witness said that prior to the price list being signed there were numerous meetings and discussions. It was not correct that both sides put down what they wanted and then left it to some court to fix the price list or settle the rights of each side.
“Premature” Action
Mr. Furniss: What stopped the men ging down the pit? – Because they were not getting the right pay.
Had the matter been referred to Barnsley before the men came out on the Friday morning? – I had been to Barnsley.
Don’t you think your action in shutting down the pit was a little premature? – Not premature.
Do you agree that the strike was unconstitutional? – I realised the men had a grievance.
Mr. Furniss repeated the question and witness agreed that as far as the Y.M.A. rules were concerned the stoppage was unconstitutional.
Mr. Furniss: So, they were holding a pistol at the management’s head? – The men did not want to work without pay. We made the men go back the following Monday morning and told them to leave us and Barnsley to settle the matter.
Is it not a fact that you and the Barnsley people are meeting the management next Friday to settle this dispute? – We are going to try. (Laughter)
Do you refute that you are responsible for shutting down this pit? – I do.
Answering further questions witness denied that pickets were posted to stop men going down on the afternoon shifts.
Volume of Discontent
At this stage there was a conversation between Mr. Foster and Mr. Pettifer regarding “the immensity of evidence” Mr. Foster had to call. Mr. Pettifer suggested that it need not be called as it was only corroboration of last witness’s evidence. Much of that had been hearsay but, said Mr. Pettifer he had allowed it to go on because Mr. Furniss had not objected and because he (Mr. Pettifer) thought it might avoid the calling of more evidence.
Mr. Foster replied that he had to call the evidence, as that court was perhaps not the only one to which the case might go.
Mr. Pettifer: The calling of a large number of witnesses will not help you, except to show the volume of discontent which was felt in the pit.
Mr. Foster said he had to show the breaches of contract by the management.
Mr. Furniss said assuming there was a breach by the management, it would make no difference to the case. The men should have brought a counter-claim for damages.
Mr. Fisher: the essence of a contract for services on the part of an employer is by payment. I need not bring a counter-claim at this juncture.
There was further argument before Mr. Foster proceeded.
The Counter-Attack
Benjamin Roberts, Denaby Avenue, Conisboro’. President of the local Y.M.A. branch gave similar evidence to Hill and added that there was unrest among the men from January onwards. “We tried hard to get their rights, but nothing happened. The management has never played fair with these men.”
David Sheldon, the branch delegate to Barnsley, said the whole trouble at the pit had been caused by the management’s refusal to pay for extra work. He gave evidence that the night sounding of the buzzer signified all men that there was no work for the following two shifts.
Horace Saxton, 12, March Street, Conisboro’ secretary of the local Checkweigh Fund said he had had 25 years’ experience as a miner. He had worked on No. 1 conveyor since the new price list came into operation, but he did not think he had been fairly paid for the work he had done. “Had I thought the colliery was prepared to pay me for the extra work, I should not have absented myself from work. To Mr. Furniss, witness said the disputed facts had been submitted to Barnsley. “But if we have a fair demand, we have a right to ask for satisfaction without bothering about Barnsley.”
Four Lightening Strikes In Six Nonths
Mr. Furniss: There have been four lightning strikes in the last six months at this pit? – Yes, and before that 30 years of peace.
Mr. Foster: And they have resulted in the management restoring payments to the men? – Yes.
John James Stewart, employed on No. 1 conveyor, gave evidence as to having to fetch timbering from a distance of over 200 yards.
Mr. Foster: the place would not be safe without extra “timbering” – It is not safe with it at times.
Witness added he had not seen any checking up of extra work and he had asked the overman about it.
Mr. Furniss: Is it not the trouble that you thought things were easy there and you had only to call a lightning strike to get what you wanted? – No, the real trouble is that things are too hard (Laughter).
Thomas John Gregory, one of the men’s pit inspectors, said the men working on the conveyors in question had difficulty in getting their timber. For some months the road to No. 1 conveyor had been in “a ridiculous state.” The men had to creep it. He had made complaints on this to Mr. Criddle as far back as November, but nothing had been done, speaking of the timbering difficulties at No, 2 he said it was practically a wooden roof. The coal there was abnormal.
Answering Mr. Furniss, witness said the conveyors started last May, and there had been complaints ever since.
Mr. Furniss: Do you approve of the men’s strike that week-end? – If I am not paid for what I do, I am not going to work. That is the opinion of the whole of the workers.
Wait and See
Ernest Jones, working o No 2 conveyor, said that prior to the stoppage he had worked six and a half shifts that week. “I absented myself because my money was not right. Before the new price list, I was getting 15s a day, but now I never know what I am going to have. I have to wait and see, but it is always less.” Since the new price list, he had been losing at least five shillings a shift compared with the old list. The roof in that place was exceedingly bad, though it was getting a little better.
Mr. Foster: Just as they are paying you a little better? – they will never be out of our debt.
Mr. Foster, to the Bench, said that in his address he would show that up to the dispute the Company had made no allowances for extra work, but now they were doing so.
Witness continued that on Feb. 1st they were unable to start coaling until 5 p.m. because there was a danger of a fall burying the pans. This was all extra before they started working for themselves. He had made complaints of this to Mr. Criddle. “He told me one day that he was making allowances of 3s. or 4s. a day for the extra work. It was not on the pay sheet the following week, and I asked him if he had written it in invisible ink.” (Laughter).
Witness added that on one occasion he made Mr. Criddle fetch timber for him. “I told him the Company did not pay me for fetching it, so he did it.” (laughter).
Samuel Rufus, a miner with 26 years’ experience, a mate of last witness, said the reason why he absented himself from work was that he had done 12 ½ shifts without a break.
Men’s “Chargeman”
Walter Bell, chargeman appointed by the men, 61 Braithwell Street, Denaby Main, said that on the morning shift of Feb. 2nd the men in No. 2 conveyor came out, leaving the No.1 conveyor men in the pit. The reason was after receiving any promises following numerous complaints the men learned that nothing had been included in their pay for extra work. “If the men had been properly paid, they would not have left the pit.”
To Mr. Furniss, witness said he was still chargeman in the eyes of the men, but not recognised by the management. He would not agree that the management asked the men to make an appointment and that they were so lax that, at last, the management made appointment of two chargemen. He agreed that the loss in wages was not due to a lower price per ton, but added that it was due to the men losing time doing extra work
Leonard Barker, chargeman on No. 1 conveyor, gave evidence as to men having to go over 200 yards to fetch timber, and of spending a whole shift repairing the roof.
William Page, working on No. 1 conveyor, said he worked until 1 p.m. on Feb. 2nd and on coming out asked the deputy if he had to work on the following morning. The deputy told himself and five others that there was no work. They had been summoned for absenting themselves. The other five were John Humphries John Goddard, John Conlan, Albert Carmody, and Ben Collindridge. If they had been told to go to work, they would have been there.
George Harrison employed on No. 2 conveyor said he had worked 5 ½ shifts that week and stayed away on Feb. 2nd because he was “dead tired.”
Fred Woodward and Stanley Taylor were called. Mr. Foster intimating that they could produce doctors’ notes as reasons for absenting themselves.
Mr. Furniss agreed to their cases being withdrawn.
Alleged Breach By Employers
Addressing the magistrates, Mr. Foster said he had to satisfy them on three things in the majority of the summonses – that the contract was composed on neutrally dependent terms, that there was a breach by the employers before that of the men, and that the injury of the breach was such as to go to the root of the contract. It was only commonsense that if there was no pay there was no service. As to the breach alleged against the employers, there had been no dispute of the facts. No attempt had been made to dispute that every week down to the stoppage there had been a breach on the part of the employers on the price list. Regarding timber, no one had disputed any provision was made in the price list for the fetching of timber for distances more than ten yards. The fetching of timber entitled the men to extra payment as it was dead work. He failed to see the Company’s argument that everything had been paid for. After seeing the pay sheets, it would be interesting to know how the setting of bars or clearing of falls had been paid. “Nothing was paid until after the dispute. Look at the striking change which comes into the pay sheets after that absence from work.”
In the following week there was an allowance for end-cutting left over from the previous week – £7 10s for No. 1 conveyor. “Why must that generous allowance be made when the Company stated they were making full provision.” On No. 2 conveyor, leaving out allowances for end-cutting, there had been special allowance for clearing falls. In the following week there were more generous allowances.
The Last Straw
On the treatment of workers there had been an abundance of evidence regarding the number of complaints and unfulfilled promises by the management, “In my submission it was not until the last straw that the men came out of the pit. They had adopted constitutional methods and nothing came out of them. What the company was asking of them was extra work without payment.” He did not think the men acted unreasonably; they had shown great patience.
Mr. Furniss said he failed to see what was the defence. He hoped the magistrates would not be misled on the question of breaches alleged to have been committed by the management. The men had put themselves into the capacity of arbitrators. He had purposely left out of the prosecution any grievances over the price lists. They had nothing to do with the case. “These lightning strikes have been a way to easy money for the men – (laughter) and they have gone to the well once too often.” The Company said they had paid in accordance with the price list, and disputed evidence to the contrary. The excuse of the buzzer was entirely wrong. It was common knowledge among the men that it did not affect those working on the conveyors. The stoppage had been a sympathetic strike.
Reduced Damages
After nearly three-quarters of an hour’s retirement the Chairman, with whom sat Mr. J. R. Horn (Goldthorpe), and Mr. H. Woodhouse (Bentley), announced that they had given full and careful consideration to the cases and decided to make awards as follows: Men on No. 2 conveyor 2s each, No. 1 conveyor (morning shift) 1s each, whole of the men who should have worked on the afternoon and Saturday morning shifts 1s each. The summons against those who had been warned not to go to work on the Saturday and those producing doctors’ notes, totalling nine, were dismissed.
Mr. Furniss applied for plaintiff costs and immediately Mr. Foster counter-claimed
The Bench awarded court costs to each side.