Sheffield Independent – Saturday 14 June 1884
Meeting of Denaby Main Miners
A Series of Grievances
On Thursday, in the lodge room of the Denaby Main colliers, at the Miners’ Arms, Mexbro’, a meeting was held, and resolutions were passed expressive of disapproval with certain sentences which had been passed by the West Riding justices, at Rotherham, and regretting the conduct of some officials at the colliery, which was said to be likely to cause strained relations between masters and men. The first motion submitted to the meeting was the following:—
“That this meeting, whilst anxious to comply with the requirements of the existing law, are of opinion that the decision of the Rotherham Bench on the 9th inst., in the case of James Astbury, was against the weight of evidence, also against all previous custom and practice of the district and of that particular colliery, and treat the opinion held by the solicitor and Mr. Chappell, for the defence, as the true one, and in keeping with the actual application of the law ever since it came into force.”
Mr. W. Chappell said he believed that the cause of the blow being struck was that the prosecution might be avenged on account of the action of the men in leaving the colliery before they were desired. Eight hours “from bank to bank” was the rule, and he advised the men not to remain another minute, even if summonses were taken out until every man in the pit had been before the magistrates.
The resolution was carried unanimously.
The following resolution was also unanimously passed:—“That this meeting is of opinion, viewing all matters from a practical standpoint, that legal proceedings ought not to have been instituted against James Astbury in the recent case of alleged breach of Rule 29, and that a fine of 2s. 6d. and a caution in the case of R. Dunning would have been ample punishment for the offence alleged against him.”
Mr. W. Chappell then read the appended resolution:—“That this meeting strongly disapproves of the system of fines or the stoppage of men’s wages at the colliery, for what this meeting regards as unavoidable loss of props; that the men’s opinion on an official in such allegation is not sufficient to either warrant or justify the manager in stopping the wages of the workmen under such circumstances, and therefore this meeting gives instructions for the expression of belief from practical men to be forwarded to Mr. Chambers, the certificated manager of the colliery, asking him not to rely on one-sided and interested evidence, nor to inflict any more fines, as such action is only tending to strained relations between the officials and the men, a matter which the men deeply deplore and are extremely anxious to avoid.”
Mr. Chappell condemned the practice of men being expected to get out timber when they were likely to be seriously injured in the attempt, and enumerated instances of life being lost when this was being done, although the official had been told by the miner that it was unsafe (“Shame”). But he did not for a moment think that the manager of Denaby Colliery would wish to risk the lives of any of the men under him.
A miner complained that from 5s. to 7s. had been stopped from men working in the Montagu “jinney,” because they had not recovered props when it was dangerous to do so. They knew it was neither right nor proper for such fines to be inflicted. Even if a man had come down the pit at five o’clock in the morning, and had left at half-past one, as much as 2s. 6d. was stopped from his wages on a Saturday (“Shame”). If such things were allowed to continue, the men would have anything taken from them that was thought proper.
Several other of the miners also strongly complained of what was considered a great injustice.
The last resolution was as follows:—“That, as gate-road packing, cross-gate packing, and all intermediate packings belong to the miners and are one part of their contract, this meeting regards the action of those officials as being far from just who have, as in some cases reported, sent the bye-workmen of the company to build certain packs which were likely to be less costly to the firm, whilst at the same time they insisted upon the stallmen building those packs which were not remunerative; and this meeting hereby records its protest against such interference, and inform the manager that we insist on that part of our contract being left to perform.”
A very lively and long discussion took place upon this resolution, and it was incidentally mentioned that if the “packing” were taken away from the miners there would mean a reduction of about 27 per cent. in their wages.
This resolution was also carried unanimously, and a deputation was appointed to wait upon the manager.