The Recent Strike of Fillers at Denaby Main

A number of cases were next heard arising out of the recent dispute at Denaby Main colliery, the proceedings being instituted by the manager of the colliery, Mr. W. H. Chambers, under the employers and work men’s liability acts, against the fillers who work in the pit.

Mr. H. H. Hickmott, solicitor, prosecuted on behalf of the colliery Company, altogether there were about 70 cases, the first third been against Martin Coyne. – Mr. Hickmott said he appeared on behalf of the Denaby Main Colliery Company, who claimed from the defendant 5s. damages for breach of contract by reason of the defendant absenting himself from their service on July 29^th last. The facts of the case were in a nutshell, and he did not apprehend they will be disputed, and he could not possibly conceive any defence the men summoned could have to the claim. The terms of the contract were in writing, and he went on to call the rules of the colliery as framed under the mines regulations acts, showing that each of the defendants ought to give and were entitled to receive 14 days’ notice, and that the men were bound to obey a lawful order of the manager of other officials. The men could be discharged at any moment for misconduct.

The defendant Coyne was a filler, paid by the piece of the colliers. The fillers were employed and discharged by the company, and were subject to the rules and regulations. On July 28th colliers went down the pit, and it was observed by the official that the fillers were not going down. They were seen by the management, Mr. Chambers, and said that they wanted an advance of wages from the colliers. Mr. Chambers told them that that was a matter between themselves (the fillers) and the colliers, and advise them to go down and see the colliers. On the following day the same thing occurred after the colliers had gone down, and the fillers had a meeting again. They were advised by the officials to see the colliers and to try to come to some terms with them, but the fillers made up their mind not to go down to their work, and refused to do so, this set the pit idle, and the colliers had to come out again. Afterwards, the same day, a deputation of the fillers saw the colliers, and had also an interview with Mr. Chambers, who told them as to the question between themselves and the colliers that if they were not satisfied they had their remedy, and could give fortnights notice, and the matter could then be enquired into. Since then the fillers had actually given in their notices to the company. He was prepared to prove that these notices were running and would shortly expire, the fillers had been working since, and were working up to the present time. All he now asked on behalf of the colliery Company was at the company my recover from the fillers, the damage sustained by reason of the defendant absenting themselves on the afternoon of 29^th. The amount claimed, 5s. was merely nominal, for, as a matter of fact the damages amounted to 16s. to 17s. for each of the defendants. Their object was simply to let these men know that when they entered into a contract they were bound to perform it, and had no right to act as they have done.

Jonathan Rogers, deputy, said the defendant was a filler employed at the pit. Defendant was in his district of the pit, and worked on afternoon shift for the week commencing July 24^th, but he did not on the afternoon shift of July 29th. He had since worked on the afternoon shift.

John Soar, under viewer, said he engaged the defendant, who signed the contract produced. Witness produce a copy of the bylaws of the company, and said all the fillers were engaged either by himself or one of his deputies. No one discharged the fillers except the manager, Mr. Chambers. Defendant commence work on November 9th last. He handed the defendant a copy of special rules and bylaws.

The case was adjourned, because the deputy, Scofield, who saw the defendant sign the contract, was not present to prove the signature to it of the defendant, who disputed that he had signed the contract.

The case against James Bailey was next proceeded with. Bailey disputed the claim. John Soar provided the signature of contract by Bailey, dated January 21st first last, in the defendant’s handwriting, and said he handed a copy of the special rules and bylaws to the defendant at the time.

Defendant questioned witnesses as to whether the copy of rules was handed to him at the time.

Jonathan Rogers, deputy, said that the defendant worked in his district and was working on the afternoon shift on the week commencing July 24th, but did not work on the afternoon of July 29th. He had worked since that date.

Geo. Wilkie, secretary of the Denaby Main Colliery Company, said he had made out on account showing the loss sustained in consequence of the pit being idle on July 29th last. In that estimate he had not taken into consideration rents or wear and tear, simply the actual amount of wages paid, which was £100 15s. 5d.; and stores, £43 19s. 9d.; and fixed charges, £17 7s. 5d.; Total, £162 2s. 3d. The wages were paid to datallers for packing and putting their road in repair, and did not include the loss sustained by the colliery’s. The loss was £69 14s. 3d. Amounting to over 15s. For each defendant, and the company only claimed 5s. In that shift 150 tons of coal were raised, but under ordinary circumstances that ought to have been 680 tons more.

Defendant had nothing to say.

The chairman remarked that the magistrates had no wish to be hard on the men, as they had probably done it through ignorance, stupidity, or obstinacy they all know perfectly well that they were bound to give notice, and perhaps they thought that the Masters would not proceed against them. It was a serious loss to the Masters to have the pit standing in this way.

The defendant was fined 5s. damages and 5s. Costs.

Contrary to the expectation the preceding case was not taken as a test case, but each defendant was tried separately. The names of those defendants who were subsequently fined 5s. and 5s. costs will be found at the conclusion, it been unnecessary to recapitulate the evidence, which was to a great extent the same in all cases.

William Hadley said he had no money where with he could pay his fine. – Arthur Maguire disputed that he signed the contract, and the case was adjourned until next Monday, to give the company an opportunity to produce the deputy who had seen the defendant sign the book, on the understanding that if the charge was not proved then the defendant expenses to be paid.

John Hicks said he attended a funeral the same afternoon and he was charged with wilfully absenting himself from work. The deceased man’s name was Battison, and he was killed at “Bob’s hole.” The defendant brought a witness, he said, would tell the bench that he (defendant) attended the funeral in question, but the witness got muddled as to the day, and the defendant was eventually fined 5s. And 5s. costs. He said he could not get a living; that he had 2s. to draw last week. Mr. Chambers told them when they saw him on the deputation that he would do something for them, and he had done something for them. (laughter) He shouldn’t pay the money.