Sheffield Evening Telegraph – Wednesday 29 March 1939
Dismissal on Pit Absence Claim Challenged
A decision of magistrates the Lower Strafforth and Tickhill Division, sitting at Doncaster, was challenged in a King’s Bench Divisional Court, to-day, by Amalgamated Denaby Collieries, Limited.
The magistrates had dismissed a claim by the company for 15s. from a miner, Jesse Christen, on the allegation that he absented himself from work for two days last July.
Magistrates’ View
They held that as the Parkgate shaft to the Denaby seam was not available to men in the Barnsley seam because of a breakdown of the winding gear, the company had failed in their statutory duty to provide alternative exit from the mine, with the result that Christen was justified in refusing to work.
The company, however, urged that a secondary and efficient exit was provided by a return airway between the Denaby and Cadeby mines, and that the manager and sub-manager had traversed it without difficulty.
Suggestion Denied
Mr. Cyril Radcliffe, K.C., said there was a suggestion that some of the men declined to work because the manager would not play the mine for two days so that they could qualify for unemployment benefit that week. That, however, they denied.
Christen put forward the plea that he was not aware of the airway, and if he had been, it would have been useless in an emergency, and was a mile away from his work. He might have been suffocated in an explosion.
But, argued counsel, that might apply to any part of a mine during an explosion.
Appeal Dismissed
Sir Stafford Cripps, K.C., supported the decision of the magistrates, contending that it was impossible to say that an alternative egress was available to a person when he was not aware of it. The court dismissed the company’s appeal, with costs. Lord Hewart said the magistrates had found that Christen absented himself from work because he considered there was only one egress from the mine at the material time. They also found that the company took no steps to inform the man of the airway, which, however, they decided, on the evidence, was inadequate as a secondary exit. There was clear evidence to support that finding.
Concurring, Mr. Justice Singleton said he considered that man could not plead that there was no secondary exit merely because he had not troubled to look to see if one was available