Denaby and Cadeby Strike

Action Against the Miners’ Association

Heavy Claim for Damages

Mr Chambers Gives Evidence

In the King’s Bench Division of the High Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Lawrence and a special jury commenced the hearing of an action brought by the Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries (Limited) against the Yorkshire Miners’ Association and others.

Mr. J. Eldon Bankes, K.C., Mr. Montagu Lush, K.C., and Mr. Cantley, M.P., represented the plaintiffs, and Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., Mr. Danckwerts, K.C., and Mr. H. W. L.ochins appeared for the Yorkshire Miners’ Association, and Mr. Atherley Jones, K.C., M.P., Mr. S. T. Evans, K.C., M.P., and Mr. Compston for Mr. Pickard, M.P., and other defendants.

The plaintiffs claimed damages against all the defendants for conspiracy and for unlawful combination, and, secondly, for inducing plaintiffs’ workmen not to enter into contracts with them; and also for inducing them to break their contracts with the plaintiffs. The Yorkshire Miners’ Association denied that any unlawful acts were committed and said that if any unlawful acts were committed the association was not liable, and could not in law be made liable.

The defendants, George Cragg, Joseph Smith, and Enoch Kaye, said they were trustees for the Yorkshire Miners’ Association, and they submitted to any order that the Court thought ought to be made against them. The defendants, Mr. Pickard, M.P., Mr. Cowey, M.P., Mr. J. Wadsworth, Mr. Wm. Parrott, and Mr. John Firth, admitted they were officers of the association, but they denied that any unlawful acts were committed by them, or that the plaintiffs had suffered any damage from such acts. The other defendants, Jas. Nolan and Henry Humphreys, put in no defence.

The Case for the Company

The case for the plaintiffs was opened by Mr. Bankes, K.C. He said he was afraid the case would occupy some time, because it was an important one, not only because of the large amount of money involved, but also because the questions between the parties were related to the responsibility of a trades union, and the officers of a trades union, for very disastrous consequences of a strike which occurred at the plaintiffs’ collieries in 1902. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were liable in damages for the loss occasioned to them by the strike.

Plaintiffs were colliery proprietors, and owned two large pits in South Yorkshire, near Doncaster, and called them Denaby and Cadeby Collieries, about a mile from each other. That they were large and important pits would be gathered from the fact that the output from these pits amounted to about £1,200,000 of coal a year, and the number of men employed was between 4,000 and 5,000. Two names would be mentioned very frequently in the case, one, Mr. Chambers, who had been many years the manager of the collieries, and the other, Mr. Buckingham Pope, the chairman of the plaintiff company for many years.

The men employed by the plaintiffs were required to enter into a contract with the plaintiffs, and a good deal would turn on the terms of that engagement. It was printed in a contract book, and said:—“We, the undersigned, having each received a copy of the extract of the Mines Regulations Acts generally, and the special rules, regulations, and by-laws now established, and in force at these collieries, hereby undertake to fulfil, obey, and agree to them. The owners of the collieries also agree to perform the same, on their part.” Two of these terms became of importance in this case, namely, the first and second by-laws of the colliery.

The first said:—“Every person employed in and about this colliery shall be engaged subject to the rules, by-laws, and conditions, and shall give fourteen days’ notice in writing to the company before leaving its employment; and shall receive the same notice from the manager before being discharged (except in certain cases of misconduct).” The second by-law said:—“Every person employed by the company shall upon his engagement sign his name or mark in a book to be called the ‘Workmen’s Contract Book,’ and proof of signature shall be evidence that such person agrees to conform to the by-laws.”

The wages at these collieries were fixed by a Joint Conciliation Board, which consisted of an equal number of representatives of masters and men. There was also an impartial president, who was elected by both sides, to give a casting vote in case of difference. In 1902 Lord James of Hereford was the president, and he had shortly before the strike made an award fixing the wages.

Counsel proceeded to call attention to the individual defendants, because the plaintiffs’ case was that they were all collectively and individually responsible for the damage which they caused the plaintiffs. But many of the men, though liable in damages, were not able to pay damages, whereas the Union were not only liable, but in a position to pay damages. The Yorkshire Miners’ Association had their headquarters at Barnsley, and was a trades union, registered under the Trades Union Act. It was not only for the acts of its central officers that the Union was responsible, but also the acts of its local officers, and it was largely with the acts of its local officers that the jury would be concerned in this case.

Counsel dealt next with the rules of the association, and emphasised the fact that the branches of the association were not distinct from the association, and that the funds of the Union were not to be appropriated to any other use than was provided for in the rules. The supreme government of the association was vested in a council, to which there should be elected a person representing each branch, who was called a delegate. A branch was established at each of these two collieries, and two of the defendants, Nolan and Humphreys, were delegates for Denaby and Cadeby respectively. Each of those men was responsible for what he did, because they were local officers of the union, and members of the Central Council.

An extremely important rule said that if any branch, member, or members had a grievance affecting their wages, mode or manner of working, or hours of labour, and if the employers refused to remedy those grievances, and after all proper and peaceful means have been tried to effect a settlement by deputation from the members, with the advice and assistance of counsel, and such member or members should be permitted to cease work, with the sanction of this association, such member should receive what counsel called strike pay. Strike pay was the lifeblood of a strike.

The rules of the union were framed, so far as possible, to avoid needless strikes, and to take care that a strike was only to occur in a case of absolute necessity, and this was one illustration of the many illustrations which have occurred when the rules had been departed from. If the rules had been followed, a useless, senseless strike, such as this had been, would have been avoided.

It was laid down in the rules that any branch, member, or members, who objected or disagreed with any matter affecting wages, that they should try every possible means to effect a settlement, and if the Council permitted the men to cease work, strike pay should be paid. Therefore the rule provided that, first of all, the men must approach the masters if they have any disagreement, and they must exhaust all means of arriving at a peaceful settlement before they strike, and ultimately that they do not strike unless they are permitted to do so by the association.

Rule 74 was the most salutary rule, for it was the rule which provided that no strike should take place until there had been an appeal to the men as to whether they would strike or not, and it provided, of course, that the poll should be by ballot, viz., that the men should have an opportunity of recording their votes either for or against the strike. The men were provided with black and white balls, and a black ball was dropped in the box in favour of the motion, and the white one was used to vote against it. Before a strike could be decided on three-fourths of the men would have to record their votes, and two-thirds must be in favour of it.

If that had only been done in this case the jury would have been abundantly satisfied that there would never have been a strike at all. Now it only remained for him to call attention to who the rest of these defendants were. There was the Yorkshire Miners’ Association, and there were Mr. George Cragg, Mr. Joseph Smith, and Mr. Enoch Kaye. He need not refer to them, and they need not consider them, because they were only trustees of the society, and were only put in the case in case any verdict was recorded. The other members included Mr. Benjamin Pickard, who was a Member of Parliament, and who was the general secretary of the association. There was Mr. Cowey, who was, in June, 1902, the president, but that gentleman had since died. There was Mr. Wadsworth, who was vice-president of the association, and is now president, and his name was one to which attention would be directed more than once in this case, because he took a very active part in coming down from Barnsley to address these men during the strike. Then there was Mr. Parrott, who was one of the Central Council; Mr. Firth, the financial secretary; and Mr. Hall, treasurer of the association; and Mr. John Nolan and Mr. Harry Humphreys, who were delegates upon the central association.

This strike began in the early morning on the night of Sunday, 29th June, 1902, and it lasted without intermission well into the following year, terminating at some date in March, 1903. He would have at this stage to point out the consequences—the general consequences, of that strike, because he thought it was important that they should know in order that they could realise the enormous injury which was done by such a strike as this, and the extreme importance of making those persons responsible for bringing about and maintaining such a disaster as this.

Now, it was a fact beyond all dispute that during the course of this strike it cost the union £230,000 in strike pay. So far as the union was concerned that was the effect upon them. So far as the men themselves were concerned they lost over £200,000 in wages, and so far as the colliery owners were concerned, he was in a position to prove to them it cost them £150,000 in damages. If they added those figures together they would realise what the direct consequences of such an action as this were, and, in addition to that, they had got to add, if they wished to get at the real result of such a strike as that, the indirect loss which had been caused to small tradesmen and others who had been depending for their livelihoods upon the earnings of these men. They had, in addition, to consider the pain and suffering of all those people who for weeks and months were deprived of their living.

He now came to what the men had termed their grievances. This was a word which was used in the rules, and it was alleged in this case that the men had grievances which were innumerable. Now he wished to make it quite plain at the outset what their position was in regard to these alleged grievances. He believed, speaking for himself, that whether those grievances were real grievances or not was a matter quite unimportant in this action. He believed himself that if it could be established that those grievances were real grievances or not, it offered absolutely no answer to that action. As far as he could, he would limit the inquiry to matters which seemed to be really relevant. He was willing to conduct the case, leaving the question entirely open as to whether they were real grievances or not, and not even saying whether the colliery company thought they were real grievances.

Of course, he would submit in this to his lordship’s direction, and if he desired, and his learned friend desired, that he should go into those matters, he would be quite willing to go into them, and he would not fear the result. But he would have to explain what they were, because without them it would be impossible for the jury to know what happened when the strike occurred.

The trouble occurred over the “bag dirt” question and the “timbering” question. In the mines they had a gallery, where the total height of coal was about 10ft., and it was divided into different seams, numbering, he thought, six altogether. These were divided into what are called stalls. The stall was a particular portion which was worked by a particular gang of men, and there were nine men to a gang. Some of the stalls were 45 yards long and some 35 yards. The men not only had to get the coal away, but they had to timber up the roof, and keep the way to the stall clear; that way was called the gate. In the large stalls the rate of pay was 1s. 4d.; in the small stalls it was 1s. 2d. In the small stalls there was a much larger proportion of unremunerative work to be done, and in the smaller stalls they got 11d. extra for other work. These were the figures in the agreed prices.

The question arose with reference to getting the “bag dirt” away. As the miners worked it fell away, and then they timbered up to a certain point. This “bag dirt” had to be taken to and from the roadway, and it was with reference to getting the “bag dirt” away that this dispute or difference of opinion arose. The masters said that in the agreed price list that operation was included in the 1s. 4d. The men, on the other hand, had, at different times, said different things, but what they wanted was to be paid for removing it. The masters said no; it was included in the work; but if the men did not want to do the work for the money they would do the work themselves, and take half the money, and introduce a new system into the pit as a whole.

In 1901 a ballot was taken as to whether the men should go on strike over this question, and on that occasion the ballot was properly taken, and the result was that the men were against going on strike. That poll took place in September, 1901. He did not go into this matter at greater length, because it seemed to him immaterial as to who was right and who was wrong.

Now, they came to the strike itself, which took place on the 29th June, and, after Lord James on the previous 14th June had directed a special reduction of wages by 10 per cent., and which was to come into operation on the 2nd July. Now, what he suggested was that at this time the men were not prepared to strike on this question of the “bag dirt,” and that the union officials knew that quite well, but they wanted a strike really upon the question of the 10 per cent. reduction, and the union officials, realising that there was no chance of getting the men out after they had ballotted against a strike, they determined to bring about a strike in this way. That they would not give the men the opportunity of voting by ballot, but would influence their minds by a reference to this 10 per cent. at a meeting, and take their opinions.

The officials of the local branches thought that if they got the men out they would obtain two things: firstly, if they got the men out they were quite certain to get strike pay, and, secondly, that it would be followed by a general strike of the whole district, in which case they would, of course, be certain of getting their strike pay. In the first instance they were right, but it was not followed by a general strike.

On the morning of Sunday, 29th June, a bellman was sent round, and a meeting was held in the village of Denaby at which inflammatory speeches were delivered. It was perfectly plain that these men were induced to break their contracts by the action of the local officials of the union, and for that action not only the local officials, but the union itself were liable and responsible, and it was no answer to say either that the grievances were real, or that they thought they were real, because it had been decided that any excuse like that was an idle excuse.

So the plaintiffs claimed that this strike was brought about by the illegal action of the union acting through its officers. Violence, intimidation, and picketing were carried on during this strike, and the violence and intimidation were not necessary because the plaintiffs did not endeavour to import outside men, hoping that the men on strike would come back to their work. There was sufficient intimidation to prevent the men going to work, and that constituted a course of action on which the plaintiffs were entitled to rely.

On the 17th of July the men and local officials went through the show of going back to work, in order to put themselves in order. On that day, however, it was resolved to appoint a deputation to wait on Mr. Chambers, asking him to allow the men to work their notices out on the old contract. In one breath they said that every man was to go to the works and ask for his lamp, on the assumption that he wanted in order to go to work, and in the next breath they said they adhered to the resolution of June 29th, in which they declared that the pits should be stopped.

Counsel proceeded to argue that whatever the responsibility of the union was for procuring the men to come out, they became responsible when they adopted the illegal means of carrying on the strike by giving pay to men who were not entitled to it. In order to bring the strike to what they called a successful termination, and put pressure on the company, they deliberately set to work to get out a certain body of men who, during the early part of the strike, were engaged in useful work below, keeping clear the air-ways and roadways.

From June to November the men had lived in their houses without paying any rent, and the colliery company, hoping and desiring and believing that the men would come to their senses and come back to work, did not want to turn the men out. When, however, November came, Mr. Pope issued a pamphlet directed to each individual man, appealing to him to act on his own responsibility, and pointing out that the state of things could not be allowed to continue, and that unless the men did come in and work steps would be taken to turn them out of their houses.

The local officials again proceeded to intimidation. After a decision by the Court of Appeal that it was illegal to pay the strike pay, there was a disagreement between the central and the local officials as to whether the strike should come to an end. After the refusal to pay strike money, the men were existing upon local and voluntary contributions, and they fought their hardest to continue the disastrous strike.

Men were intimidated and convictions were obtained, and at last so exasperated did the local officials become that two of their number were convicted. The man Croft was himself convicted of watching and besetting men to prevent them from going to work and to Nolan himself the same thing happened.

Inconclusion, counsel saif the damage consisted of monies which the owners were actually out of pocket in consequence of the strike, and it was represented under several heads. There were the charges which they had been put to for work which was absolutely unremunerative; and they had to pay wages to men to keep the roadways open to preserve the pit. Then, of course, there was the cost of repairing the pit, which came to a very large sum indeed, and which was rendered necessary for all owing to the fact that the pits were idle for those months. Then there was the upkeep of the establishment, wages, travelling expenses, and loss of profit. They contended that the defendants were one and all responsible, because they persuaded their men to break their contracts.

Mr Chambers’ Evidence

Mr. W. H. Chambers, managing director of the Denaby and Cadeby Main Colliery Company, gave evidence in support of plaintiffs’ case. He said he had been managing director of the company for nine years. In their two pits they employed between 4,000 and 5,000 men. He did not anticipate the men were going to strike, and when he first heard of it he was away on his holidays. Witness, continuing, said that a fortnight after the strike occurred ten men were employed at Denaby, and 60 or 70 at Cadeby keeping the airways and roadways clear, in order to prevent the accumulation of gas, and thus preserve the safety of the mines. Subsequently these dwindled off in consequence of disturbances, and then the pits were closed down.

The further hearing was adjourned.