Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 07 November 1902
Denaby and Cadeby Strike
Colliery Companies Determined Attitude
We are now nearing the end of the 19th week of the stoppage at the Denaby and Cadeby collieries, and the prospect of a settlement is apparently as remote as ever.
At a general meeting of the men last week, the joint secretaries were instructed to write to Mr W H Chambers, the managing director of the company, asking if he would receive a deputation. That action was taken by the men on the advice of their leaders, who assured them it would do good with the public, as it would show that they were willing to approach the Management once again, in the hope of obtaining a settlement.
The resolution was passed on Wednesday morning in last week, but it was not until a week afterwards’s request was made to the management, as will be seen from the company correspondence which had been asked to publish.
Miners Offices, Barnsley, 5th November 1902
WH Chambers Esquire
Denaby and Cadeby Main collieries.
Dear Sir
I am requested by the members of our Council meeting, and also by your late workmen, to ask if you will arrange to meet a deputation, along with a district official, if in order if possible to arrange a proper settlement of the dispute at your two collieries.
An early answer will oblige
Yours Truly
W.M.Parrott
Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries
Denaby Main, Rotherham, November 6, 1902
Dear Sir
In reply to your request that I should meet a deputation of our late workmen, I am unable to comprehend that any good result will be attained by it. I have previously endeavoured to make perfectly clear it is quite impossible for the company to give any advance on the standard rate of wages, or to interfere with the price list which have existed for many years, and on which the men entered the company’s employment, and the company desired they should be no misapprehension on this point.
If the men are disposed to return to work they are at liberty to do so. If afterwards any matters arising caused dissatisfaction, I will try to remove them; failing that, the men can appeal to the Joint Committee appointed by the South Yorkshire Coal Owners Association, and the Yorkshire Miners Association for the purpose of settling disputes which cannot be settled between the managers and men at the various collieries.
Yours faithfully
W H Chambers
The contents of Mr Chambers letter are quite in keeping with the attitude adopted by the management since the commencement of the strike. A few weeks ago, when one of our representatives sought to gain some information as to the position of the colliery company, he was definitely informed that there was no chase as far as the manager was concerned, and that the men could go back to work and they chose to do so, but no advance be conceded, nor would there be any alteration in the price list.
Mr Chambers letter is practically a refusal to meet a deputation. Before he will consider any grievances that may exist, and that caused dissatisfaction, he insists that the men shall return to work. The question that will occur to the minds of most people will be – is this a reasonable and just attitude to adopt?
It should not be forgotten that the men have defined their position quite as clearly as Mr Chambers defines the position of the colliery company. There can be no doubt that apart from the “bag dirt” question there are many matters upon which the men designed more equitable treatment. The price list of 1890 is a most preposterous document, badly drafted, and capable of being interpreted in various ways. So long as that price list remains in its present condition – Mr Chambers says distinctly that it is impossible for the company to interfere with it – then there will always be a danger of disputes. One would think, for their own sake, the colliery company would consent to a rewording of the price list, so that all the items could be made more clear and distinct, and so that “every man could understand it,” but the company, not without some provocation, it must be admitted, and adopted an attitude of stubborn resistance.
That there were grievances existing under the working of the 1890 price list cannot be denied. The men had an opportunity in July 5 of expressing their feelings in regard to those grievances, and, as we stated before, they made their position quite as clear as that of the colliery company. The question that was submitted to the men in the ballot vote was taken July 5 was:
“Are you in favour of giving 14 days notice, until such time as your grievances remedied,” and the stance of the men is shown by the following figures giving the result of the ballot:
In favour of giving notice 1967
Against 59
Majority 1908
It must be assumed that when 1908 men out of 1967 and in favour of getting settled two pits, there must be something more than “imaginary” grievances to account for the decision.
Article continues