Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Friday 29 January 1904

The Claim Against The Miners’ Association

Mr Chambers Cross-Examined

The trial of the action brought by the Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries (Ltd.) against the Yorkshire Miners’ Association and others, including officers of the association, to recover damages for conspiracy and unlawful combination, and for inducing the plaintiffs’ workmen not to enter into contracts with the plaintiffs, was continued in the High Court yesterday. The Yorkshire Miners’ Association denied that any unlawful acts were committed, and pleaded that the association could not be made liable in law. Defences were also put in by most of the other defendants.

Mr. Chambers, manager of the collieries, recalled, said, in reply to his Lordship (Mr. Justice Lawrance), that the strike out of which the incidents arose which led to this action occurred on Sunday, 29th June, 1902.

Replying to Mr. Bankes, K.C., for the plaintiffs, witness said that between the 13th and the 19th of August he watched from a hillside on more than one occasion, and saw a crowd of men and women carrying flags and sticks, and sheep’s heads on poles. The crowd was very much agitated, and he heard a great deal of booing and shouting. The term “blacksheep” was used by the men towards those other men who were remaining at work.

Asked as to whether the sheep’s heads were black or white, witness replied that they had been “sooted.” (Laughter.) There was a very great decrease of men at work in consequence of these occurrences. On the 17th of November a fire broke out underground, and the company persuaded men to come and put it out. Some of those who came stayed at work till it was put out, which was not till January. There was a fire at Cadeby, and also at Denaby, due to spontaneous combustion.

In a speech made by Nolan, one of the defendants, he said they would see blazes out of the shaft before any man would go to work. At that time the fire was in existence, and seriously threatened the colliery. Processions took place up and down the road at the time the men were leaving work. During all this time the company employed police to protect the men who were going to their work, and the company had had to pay a large proportion of police thus employed. Summonses were taken out against the men for ejectment from their houses, and application was made to the company not to proceed with the summonses so that the men might not be ejected during Christmas time.

On the 16th of January a decision was given in Howden’s case that the Union could not properly pay strike pay to the men. The company advertised for men from the outside, and the advertisement was responded to by a number of men. The effect upon the pit itself of allowing it to remain unworked was that the roof fell down, the sides were squeezed by pressure, and generally the roads got closed up, and it was absolutely necessary before work could be resumed that the roads and airways should be cleared. There were scores of miles of roadways and airways. The estimated cost, which he had checked, of putting the roads and airways in order was £13,988 18s. 7d., and they had not been able to complete the work up to the present.

Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., in proceeding to cross-examine for the Yorkshire Miners’ Association, asked his Lordship not to allow the case to be encumbered with enormous details as to the damage. That would necessarily be a complicated inquiry, and he was ready to agree to any reasonable suggestion in order to deal with the damage.

Mr. Bankes said they were very anxious once and for all to put an end to this litigation in one trial. The damages were grouped under various headings. It was for his Lordship to say whether these were proper matters for damages, but, with regard to the figures themselves, they were, with one or two exceptions, actual figures extracted from the company’s books. He thought he was right in saying that there was no difference of opinion between the plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ accountants that these moneys had been expended.

Mr. Isaacs said there was certainly a dispute between the parties as to whether the moneys had been expended in connection with the matters against which they were charged.

His Lordship undertook to consider the question of the figures.

It is clear that for a considerable time the bag-dirt question had been one which agitated the minds of the men—well, not in its recent phase so long.

Witness said that in 1893 the price-list was drawn up. As he understood it, the contention at one time of the men was that they were entitled to charge 1s. 4½d. per ton, and they were entitled to 11d. per yard for cutting tops in gates, including packing—that was their contention.

“They worked piece-work?”—Yes.
“And when they did extra work they wanted to be paid for it?”—Yes.

In November, 1900, the bag-dirt question, which had occurred off and on, came up again, and a letter was written with respect to an interview which had taken place between the witness and the colliers. Witness: “There is a statement in that letter that I called the men liars. I never called the men liars ever since I had anything to do with them.”

Mr. Isaacs: No; probably not. You said you did not agree with them, and they put it in a more emphatic way.

Witness thought there was a danger of the men striking at that time, though he did not think they would do so until they had given notice, as there was a contract between them. When there was a contract he thought the proper way to terminate it was to give due notice on either side.

“You thought they should give notice, and not seek to arrive at something while the contract was still pending?”—Yes.

Mr. Isaacs said that in February, 1902, the matter came before a Judge at Doncaster County Court. His Honour then said that the contract between masters and men was based upon a price list made between Mr. Chambers, on behalf of the employers, and Mr. Pickard on behalf of the men. Their price was 1s. 4½d. per ton. At the time the contract was made, the situation was practically the same as it was now. His Honour said he believed that what was known as the strata of bag dirt was getting harder and thicker, and it now became so heavy that the men declined to get it. It was a case which should be referred to practical men. He had to say that he thought the contract included the top-getting and removal of the bag dirt, but he thought the time had arrived when another price list should be issued, as the bag dirt would not come down so readily as it would have several years ago. But he was bound to give judgment for the defendant company.

Witness said the question of the contracts had thus been settled by a joint arbitration committee and a Judge.

“You mean that the door for further conciliation and arrangement was closed?”—The men could have still taken my offer.

Witness said there were further reductions from the men’s wages for bag dirt not removed up to June, and he admitted that the question became more acute until the time of the strike on June 29th.

Mr. Isaacs: Am I not right in stating that at the time of the strike the question between you and the men which brought the matter to an acute stage was the bag dirt question?—I did not think so, or I should not have gone away on a holiday.

“The question had, in fact, caused the strike?”—No; I never had that idea, and I have not got it now.

“You are quite sure about that?”—Yes.
“You never thought that?”—No.

“Did you ever think it was anything else until you heard my learned friend’s opening in the case yesterday?”—I had said so many times before.

“So far no other question had been raised between you and the men?”—No.

Witness added that on the 5th June, 1902, he wrote a letter to a paper regarding this very matter. He also addressed a letter to the County Court Judge, and put it in the papers. He sent his Honour a cutting from the “Sheffield Daily Telegraph,” in which the judge’s remarks in the County Court were reported.

Mr. Isaacs, who read the letter, said it mentioned that, though the judge’s decision was in favour of the company, it concluded with advice to the colliers. “These observations,” said the letter, “were founded upon ex parte statements made by the men, which the company had no opportunity of rebutting.” The letter also pointed out that the judge’s words had been used as an excuse by the men for coming out on strike.

Mr. Chambers said it was true that they made it an excuse.

Mr. Isaacs: Very likely. I have no doubt that it did probably weigh with them, and they thought it would have some weight with you.

The proposal he made on behalf of the company to the men to deduct ½d. per ton was to apply throughout the colliery, and not to any special part. If that agreement were accepted, the ½d. per ton would come off all the coal that was got from the pit, and on an output of 1,200,000 tons that amounted to £2,500 a year. In some portions of the pit there was only a trace of bag dirt, and in respect of other parts it was very much harder and thicker.

The men who had been in the company’s employment, and had signed on before August, 1901, in the ordinary course would not sign on again until their employment terminated, and they were re-employed; so that the men who did sign on before August, 1901, did not sign any contract which incorporated the timbering rules of August, 1901. But if they came back and signed on in July, 1902, the timbering rules did form part of the written contract.

Actions were brought against a number of men in the police court, claiming damages for breaking their contracts without 14 days’ notice, and the company recovered £6 and costs from each defendant.

Counsel referred to the notice of the 19th August, which said that the work having now been completed, the men will be withdrawn, and asked whether by the 19th of August they had not completed all the work necessary for the purpose of closing the pits. Witness said he did not think that was quite right; there was a good deal of bluff in that. (Laughter.)

Mr. Rufus Isaacs: You don’t mean to say that you play bluff down in the colliery? (Laughter.)

Mr. Chambers explained that owing to the suddenness of the strike, and the want of notice, there had been no preparation to keep the ventilation of the pits open, and the men who had gone to work had been utilised to preserve the airways. When that notice was issued, that work had been completed as far as possible, and the pits were safe. But as time went on, and if they had not got attention, they would have become rapidly worse.

But what was in the mind of the company at the time was that as the men were being assaulted as they went to and from their work, the company wanted to stop the men coming to work, and running the risk of being further assaulted. The policy pursued by the company was approved by the South Yorkshire Coal Owners’ Association, who had made a contribution to help the plaintiffs against the loss caused by the strike. The company were subscribers to the association.

The action brought by Howden, which decided that the payment by the union of strike pay was ultra vires, was brought at his own instance, but the company found the cost.

Re-examined by Mr. Montagu Lush, K.C.: After the injunction was obtained which stopped the strike pay, the strike collapsed, and the men rapidly returned to work. The bag-dirt question was not a grievance now, and the fact was that where the bag dirt was thickest the coal was easier to get, and consequently in those parts of the pit the men made a shilling a day more than the men in other parts of the pit. It would have been an advantage to the company to have removed the bag dirt, but the men knew better than give it up. He was present at the County Court proceedings, prepared to give evidence if he had been asked to. The question of the bag-dirt was not gone into at the Court.

Mr. Lush: The learned Judge did what other learned Judges do sometimes—

Mr. Chambers (interrupting): He based his remarks on an ex parte statement. (Laughter, in which his Lordship and counsel heartily joined.)

Mr. Lush said he only wanted to bring out that the question of bag-dirt was not gone into, but the witness had put it higher. (Laughter.)

The witness, continuing, said he had never shown any unwillingness to meet the men, or to discuss their grievances.

The hearing was at this stage adjourned.