Mexborough and Swinton Times May 1, 1936

Cadeby Miners in Court
Summoned For Breach of Contract
Trouble over Conveyor Stoppages

For almost 5 hours the West Riding magistrates were concerned at Doncaster on Tuesday with a case in which 55 miners, employed by the Denaby and Cadeby Main colliery company, were summoned for breach of contract.

Mr A. S. Furniss appeared for the company, and Mr G. W. Wrangham for the men.

Simple Claim

Mr Furniss said that the application was a simple claim under the Employers and Workmen’s Act. The case divided itself into two sets of summonses, 1 to 29, being in respect of men who were employed on the conveyors at the Cadeby pit and in respect of an incident on March 24. All those men were in the same category.

The next batch was from 29 to 44, and they were men employed in number 71 stall. These were also in respect of an incident on March 24 but entirely separate, and the remaining cases, 45 to 54, were men employed in number 71 stall who should have attended work on March 24 and failed to do so. Their cases would be dealt with in the section 29 to 44.

Speaking about the conveyor cases, Mr Furniss said that in respect of each of them the claim by the company was for the sums of 6s, being the figure which had been suggested as a loss. Actually that figure was far less than the loss. In consequence of an arrangement come to buy the company with the local branch of the Y. M. A. And the Barnsley officials in February of this year regard to the conveyors, various minutes were prepared by their company and were considered by the men and agreed to. The point at issue was with regard to a question which invariably occurred where conveyors were used and there were breakages of the belt which caused a stoppage, so that the men were unable to load the coal. There had been some troubles with the man with regard to this, and because of it an arrangement was come to on February 25. It was agreed that the men be advised to stay on the face until ordered out by the management, and reasonableness was to be shown on both sides. Another clause was that in the event of a belt stoppage the man were to remain on the belt at the discretion of the management and for a reasonable period in all cases.

Seven Stoppages.

From the beginning of the year until the agreement was come to, there were no less than seven like stoppages where the men took matters into their own hands and simply walked out. Previous summonses were issued but the company said they had no desire to show a vindictive spirit, and these summonses were withdrawn. The arrangement which was made was thought by the management, and apparently by the Barnsley and the local branch, to have ended all troubles. The last letter concerning it was on March 19. Within a week there had occurred the position they had thought had been remedied. Without any notice, and for some trivial reason, the men in cases 1 to 29 just downed tools, put on their clothes, and went out of the pit.

The men arrived at the face at about 3.30. The belt started and there were two minor stoppages of 2 or 3 minutes. These were owing to difficulties on the road. Between 3.30 and 3.40 the belt proceeded again. After the men had filled 20 tubs the belt broke, which was quite a common thing.

The breakages occurred just after 3.50. The Bench would hear that one of the men at told a deputy If there is any trouble in the belt breaks we are going out.” When the belt broke repairs were put in hand in the belt was completely repaired and working again at 4.15. The men’s spokesman advised them to go out. He was remonstrated with by the district deputy in charge until that there was plenty of work to do in the stall pending repair. Before the men actually started to leave the stall the belt was running and the men rode out on it. People in the adjoining stalls were spoken to by the deputy came with their work. The men went out to the pit bottom and there were met by the under manager, Mr Storrs. The spokesman told Mr Storrs that the men were determined to come out, and when asked about the agreement’s reply was “We did not agree at all with the agreement.” When Mr Storrs asked them why break the agreement at an informal meeting of this kind, the reply was that half of them were not at the meeting and they were not going to have it at any costs.

Mr Furniss said that the actual amount of work done by those men who remained in the pit that afternoon was to 95 tubs, which was an average of 9 tubs per man per shift included stoppages. The general average indicated was 6.02 tons per man per shift and in each of these cases the company were claiming nominally a shilling per ton making a total cost of six shilling. The claim was made and ignored by the men, and when the summonses, returnable last Tuesday, were issued on the previous Saturday, an application was made for the adjournment.

A counterclaim was then served on the company on Monday. “Strictly in law,” said Mr Furniss, “that claim is out of order. A counterclaim must be served to clear days before the returnable day.”

The Chairman (Mr G.E.Cooke-Yarborough): I don’t think it is right. We should have been told about it. We adjourn the case for your convenience, and I don’t like it.

Wanted Counter Claim

Mr Wrangham said that Mr Dunn (who applied for the adjournment last Tuesday) took instructions from the men and then discovered they wanted to raise a counterclaim. It was then file. Acknowledge that he will entirely at the mercy of the court, Mr Wrangham said that the miners had a grievance they decided put forward, and it would be very unfortunate if they were debarred.

The Chairman: We don’t want to debar them, but these things must be done in a proper way. The bench would not have granted the adjournment is they knew anything of this sort was to be landed upon them. The counterclaim is entirely out of order and the prosecution cannot deal with it..

Mr Wrangham: If they cannot deal with it I suggest that you adjourn the whole matter.

The Chairman: This is not a court for men ventilating their grievances. This is only a question of breach of contract

Mr Furniss: I can’t see the men losing another day. I think the only course we can agree to it to let the counterclaim stand.

Continuing, Mr Furniss said that the defendants claimed damages against the plaintiff for wrongfully and in breach of contract preventing them from earning wages by failing to provide that the conveyors were efficiently. There are been no question negotiations subsequently taking place, and, added Mr Furniss, it struck him were simply intended to bolster up an alleged defence.

John Henry Dunk, secretary to the Denaby and Cadeby Colliery Company, said that the loss caused by the 28 men concerned was based on the tonnage of the average man on the conveyor per day. It was 6.02 tons per man per shift. The actual loss to the company was considered in excess of 6s.

William Parkinson, deputy, Cadeby colliery, said that on the afternoon in question he was in charge of the men in stall 17 to 25. They were on number two conveyor belt. He went to the face where the men were working. He got to the belt at 3.30 and the belt had then started to run. Shortly afterwards there were two small stoppages which lasted from 3 to 5 minutes. The breakages occurred at 3.50, and a fitter began to repair the belt at 3.55. When witness got to the gate the men were coming home. They were riding out on the belt. Witness told them the belt was ready now, and asked them why they were going out. He got no answer. The other stalls continued working throughout the whole of the shift.

No Need to Leave.

In reply to Mr Furniss, witness said that there was no need for the men to leave their work.

Mr. Wrangham: in your view it was an almost insane exhibition of bad temper to throwaway work like that? – I don’t follow you.

Is it a fact that there belt ran for time enough for the men to put on six shovelfuls of coal when, they arrived at the face and then didn’t run again for something like an hour? – That is not so.

There was no prospect of getting coal? – There was plenty of coal to get while the belt started.

On the day after the stoppages did the conveyor break stop on more than one occasion? – No.

Did it stop on more than one occasion during the next four days? – It would be a very good belt that didn’t stop.

It did stop several times? – Yes.

You are having and was trouble with that belt, aren’t you? – Yes.

I suggest that one of the troubles was that no one came to inform the men whether there was any chance of the conveyor starting again? – I came to inform the men.

Suggesting causes for the stoppages. Mr Wrangham said: the stones fall from the roof where there are inadequate supports and fall on the conveyor? – That would not have broken the belt

Isn’t the conveyor belt far too close against the face with the result that when the men are getting coal they are astride are very close to the belt?? – It is tight in different places.

When the men are getting coal large pieces fall on the belt and break it or damage it? – I have never had this occur shit.

In reply to Mr Furniss, witness said that he came back and said that the belt would be running shortly, and immediately afterwards, at 4.15, the belt was running.

Is the main reason the conveyor breaks because the men load too big pieces of coal on it? – Yes.

That is against the instructions? – Yes.

This belt is 4 ft. 6 inches from the face and need not be further than two foot? – Yes.

Getting Off Belt

Herbert Fennell said that the men were getting off the belt lower down and walking as they passed him. The belt was going then, and it was 4.20. It was obvious that the men were determined to go out.

In reply to Mr Wrangham, witness said that the belt went the whole shift without breaking.

Mr Wrangham: if the men paid by time stayed in and the men paid by piece went out it looks as though they went out because there was no work to do? – I don’t see it.

Mr Furniss: Stalls 14, 15, and 16, are paid by piece work, and they stayed in? – Yes.

Thomas Venables, fitter, said that at 3:50 he went to number two belt and found that the men had got the slack back, and were ready for him to do the repair. It was a simple break, and the belt was running in 15 to 20 minutes. He saw lights first riding on the belt and then walking. The main cause of breakages were overloading.

Mr Wrangham: do you agree with Mr Parkinson, who said that there was endless trouble with the belt? – No.

The Chairman: how can you justify the men going out without making enquiries when repairs were to be affected, and even leaving the pit with the belt running?

Mr Wrangham: I deny it. I can’t justify it.

You deny all the material evidence in the box? – Yes.

The men say they walked out at a time when the belt was not running. I admit there was an agreement with the union, but the main matter was the allowances for the belt stoppages, and the men say that the agreement was not adhered to by the management.

The Chairman: it is for the men to complain to the union, and the union to take it up with the management.

Asked for Explanation

Oswald Storrs, under manager, Cadeby Colliery, said that he went to the pit bottom and asked the men for an explanation. It appeared that they were not at heart with the agreement made by their representatives. He told them they were deliberately breaking the agreement and asked why they were breaking it at an informal meeting. The reply from one of them was that they were not all at the meeting, and there were not going to have it in any case.

James Madin, secretary of the local branch of the YMA, said he was present when the agreement was made between the management and the men. The two clauses were only one of the matters discussed. There was an extensive system of allowances.

Tom Hill , check weighman, and committeeman of the local branch of the Y.M.A., said that most of the stoppages were caused by moving the belt over and not allowing sufficient room to the coalface for the men to work. Breakages were caused by friction and by being short of spill plates which the colliers had removed.

Edwin Longbottom, one of the men who left the pit, said that the conveyor worked in snatches for a few minutes. He was about in the middle of the men who came out, and the belt had not started when he left. If it had been started or if there had been any chance of work you would not have come out. One to one and a half was a ever waited before coming out. Witness added that not a single man was riding on the belt.

James Rose, Alfred Jones, and Frank Watson give similar evidence.

Simple Point

Mr Wrangham said that the case came down to a very simple point. Did the bench think the conduct of these men have been reasonable or not? Their case was that they stayed in the pit for a time, they did not know exactly, but one of them looked at his watch and the others thought was about an hour. No one’s sent them a message to say the belt was coming on, and they might have been there up to the present. The part of the agreement about staying in the pit was not the only material part. It also demanded upon allowances, which the men said not been made by the company. The men said that if the management did not carry out their agreement, the men would not carry out theirs.

The Chairman: If one side breaks agreement it is for the other side to tell. It is not for the individuals to act. There was nothing abnormal about this stoppage. A witness said that similar stoppages occurred again and again. If it was for an hour it was only what both sides contemplated.

Mr Wrangham: We cannot expect men to remain down there doing nothing without about any information as to when the belt is likely to be started again. There had already remained in for a reasonable period. Afterwards the management made an arrangement for information to resubmit that they would know when there was a chance of the belt started again. There was an obligation on the part of the company to make sure that these men could have an opportunity of earning their wages, and by the conveyor breaking down so often they did not comply with it.

Without retiring, the Chairman announced that the Bench found that the men are abruptly agreement which had been made by the Union and the management, with regard to what should happen if the conveyor brought down. The counterclaim was now practically abandon, and with it when the defence. The men came out when they were not justified. The cost were heavy and there would be 10 shillings against each man.

Mr Furniss, speaking of the other cases, said that they were divided into three parts. The cases 29 to 44 were men were working in stall 7 and came out shortly after they had begun work. The other cases 45 to 54, were men who should have attended work on the following shift, but refused to do so out of support of the morning men’s action.

There had been a fall of dirt in the pass by, and it was usual for them to put it into tubs and send it up to be gobbed. It was in their contract deal with that, and they were paid extra. The complaint of the men was that there was not room in the stall because of the empty and full tubs that had to be sent in. When the deputy went round there was a complaint but there were too many tubs of dirt. It was pointed out that the dirt had to be gobbed, and that they would have helped. The men down to, went out, and at a protest meeting. The next day they went down and did their work.

Mr Wrangham asked for an opportunity of consulting his clients, and there was an adjournment.

When they returned, Mr Furniss said that a suggestion been adopted in respect of the colliers and market men summoned – that was, 30 of them – consented to a judgement in the sum of 1s and 4s costs, and the summonses were withdrawn in the case of the fillers.

“But I want the men to appreciate,” said Mr Furniss, “that this is an unconstitutional act, and a breach of contract.” The actual damages were far in excess of 4s.

The Chairman said he hoped the men would appreciate that what they did was wrong. The settlement offered by the condos very favourable, and the other men would appreciate it. It was impossible for any colliery be carried on when unconstitutional acts of this kind were being committed.