Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 14 February 1902

Doncaster County Court.

The Denaby Main Collieries Limited, and the Men.

The “Bag Dirt” Question

At Doncaster County Court yesterday, before his honour Judge Masterman, G.C.L., the Denaby Main Colliery Company were sued by John Grainger, a miner, of Denaby, for £1.19s, deductions that had been made by the Colliery Company from his wages.

This was an important case aroused much interest amongst miners working in the Denaby mine.

Mr Bairstow, barrister of Leeds, instructed by Mr J really of Barnsley, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr F Parker Rhodes, of Rotherham, appeared for the company.

Amongst those present in court were:

Mr F Hall (treasurer of the Yorkshire miners Association), Mr Parrott (agent), Mr Wadsworth (vice president), Mr C Holmes, and Mr G H Hirst (representative of the Cadeby and District Miners Union), Mr Fred Croft (president of the Denaby Man’s branch,), Mr J George Smith (secretary of the Denaby Branch), Mr William Birkett (treasurer of the Denaby Branch), Messrs, Raybould, Fellows, Mannion, J Dixon, John Nolan, Mr Chambers (managing director) and Mr H.S. Witty (manager of the colliery), and others.

Mr Bairstow said the case was one in which the defendant had illegally deducted certain wages. It had been agreed that one case should be taken, though they were for claims, namely those of Grainger, O’Brien, Banghan and Lefley, all miners employed at the Denaby Colliery.

They would take the case of Grainger, who was a miner employed at the defendants colliery, of the 31^st July last, and it appeared that he and the other men mentioned were entitled to £14 5s 2d, for wages, from which amount they deducted £1 6s, plaintiffs share of this amount being 6/6.

In the week ended August 7, the amount due to him and his men was £32 12s 3d, and from that sum the colliery company had made a deduction of 13s and plenty share of that was 3/3.

The Denaby Main Colliery Company at the price list, which they paid to the men work for them. It was made in 1890, and the contention of the colliery company was that the deduction was justified by that price list.

The Denaby Main Colliery Company was working the Barnsley seam, and the Barnsley seam varied in thickness, and there were parts of the Barnsley seam where there was practically no “bag dirt” at all, bag dirt been a stratum above the bags, which fell until all the coal had been got, by the weight of the earth, or which could be removed by minimum of labour.

Some years ago “bag dirt” was described Mr Chambers as dirt which might be removed almost by picking with a stick, and practically, as between master and man, bag dirt had been so regarded. For that reason, in a litigation which took place some time ago between other parties, His Honour determined that there was no special price allowed for the removal of this bag dirt, and it was stuff that dropped of its own weight, and required no labour; no one would suggest that the conclusion was an unreasonable one to come to. The issue raised was not of that character. In most cases there was bag dirt above.

In one district of the Denaby Main bed for some time past there had been a considerable and progressive alteration in the strata immediately above the coal. The strata immediately above the coal – the coal which was got – was called “bag.” It was not actually got in the working place, because after the coals had been got, the strata and bag dirt fell together come with their own weight, and it was taken away, but the strata above the bags had been altered in character, and the result was that the strata immediately above the bags, instead of being dirt, and described as “bag dirt,” it was stuff and again above that stratum was another stratum which was hard bind, which was not bag dirt at all and which no reasonable person would imagine a miner would undertake to remove dirt without being paid for and never was included in the price list at all.

The contention between the company and the miner was that, there being a stratum which was strong enough and suitable enough to provide a sufficient roof without any danger to the persons working there, and which, when it was got, strong enough to be used for making pack walls, then in that case the colliery company said the men undertake to remove this material, and accept payment for it in the price they had got for getting the coal. The men said they had never done anything of the kind, and unless they got paid for it they decline to remove it.

With regard to the stratum below, the men had for some time been willing without grumbling to remove this material, but, again, the lower stratum was of a character which took it out of the character of bag dirt, and made it unreasonable and unjust to remove it without being paid for it.

The proper method for determining the question, said Mr. Bairstow, would be for the masters to have sued the miners for  breach of contract by alleging against them a refusal to do certain work, and in that case they would have had the masters there as plaintiffs, instead of the men.

The Judge said the point to be determined was whether that was bag dirt within the meaning of the rule.

John Grainger, the plaintiff, was then called, and he stated that he had been employed by the colliery company for 11 years, in the drift district. He had worked there in 1890, in stall number 20.

The first section, near the roof, was called the daybeds, and that next below the “white bind,” and then the portion known as the “bags”, below which were the top “softs” and then the bottom “softs.” During the process of coal getting, the bags were propped; then they got down to the bottom softs and hard nuts. The roof was supported by packs for the time being in certain parts. There were two packs on either side of the “gate,” the width of them being 7’6”. The system had been in force during the 11 years he had worked there. They did not get more of the material for building the packs than they need, some quantity sometimes be sent to them by the datallers.

In one stall 40 feet, they had one “gob” pack, which was built of the substance got in working. Witness said in 1890, when he worked in number 20 stall, there was not the similar kind of material between the daybeds and the “bags” as in his present working place. In addition to the fall that occurred in removing a pack wall, they also got a certain amount of material for filling their bags. When he was working there in 1890 in number 20 stall, there was not present between the day beds and the packs similar material to that which existed now. A certain amount of material above fell in the operations, and a certain quantity of that material was used for filling the bags. It depended how long the stuff between the bags and daybeds had been exposed, whether it softened, but it did not soften much early on, in his time. It used to fall before 1901. Formerly they could get the stuff down easily, but it had got harder. It was much harder to get down now, as it got harder by exposure. He was not so thick formerly as it was now. They used to prop it up, and then drop it. They had done that from 1890 to 1901. In his opinion “bind” was different from back dirt.

Mr Rhodes: Is not back dirt always bind, and with streaks of coal?

Witness: Yes, a lot of it.

Mr Rhodes: Back dirt is sometimes bind, always hard and sometimes marked with streaks of coal?

Witness: Yes.

Mr Rhodes produced a sample of what was the black dust in the “Old Twenties” working, taking from there the previous night, and asked if it was like the material he had to deal with?

Witness: Yes, but he used to be more tender.

Mr Rhodes: We both agree about that.

Mr Bairstow: If you agree I should say there is something wrong. (Laughter.) You are not a geologist but you are a coal miner?

Witness: Yes, sir.

John Nolan said he was working in the pit in 1900, in number 67, and was next stall to 20 at that time. He was not working in the pit at present; he was in the weigh box, and had not been working in the pit since Christmas, but at the end of this month he was going to work in the pit. He was what they called a market man. He had heard greatest description of the stuff got out by miners. It got harder since 10 years ago.

Cross-examined by Mr Parker Rhodes, witness stated that he had been concerned with the earlier phases of that dispute. He accompanied the arbitrators at the inspection of the Denaby Main mine on January 3, 1901. At that time the men are some more money by dropping the bag dirt, and to dispense with it altogether.

Mr Rose proposed putting in the Joint Committee minutes of the arbitration for the purpose of proving what witness said at the inspection.

Mr Bairstow objected.

Mr Rhodes said it was an important matter.

The Judge overruled the objection.

Witness, further examine, stated that the stuff gradually got harder. Bind was sister-in-law to rock. (Laughter).

Henry Green said he had been connected with collieries for over 20 years, and he had been employed underground at various collieries. He had worked at three different pits, all in the Barnsley seam. He gave up, the 1896, and was at present manager of the Rawmarsh Sewage Works. He held several certificates and had undergone several examinations. One of the certificates were the University cup, Sheffield. He had been down Denaby Main Colliery. He went down the colliery last Saturday, and went in gate 30, when Grainger worked at present. He saw in the gate the nature of the strata above the coal. There was no bag at present. The bottom layer referred to was about 18 inches in thickness, the top layer was eight or 10 inches in thickness. Bag dirt was a layer of stiff clay or clod which sometimes intervened between bags and strata above. Daybeds were thin seams of coal, which were found above the Barnsley seam. The bag dirt came next to the bags, that was its position hence its name. Bag dirt was never found in two layers; he had never come across it during his experience, and he had never heard of it. The sample which he saw was very hard.

Witness was subject to a long cross examination by Mr Rhodes, during which he stated that he had worked at Roundwood, Thrybergh Hall and Warren Vale Collieries, and those colours were practically in the line with Denaby Colliery.

The Judge intimated that he thought that such a case ought never to have been brought before him, and ought to have gone before the proper tribunal.

Mr Rhodes at this point intimated that he started with an actual contract.

The Judge again intimated that he thought that proper experts ought to have been seen to decide the case, and not have brought the matter there.

Mr Rhodes said seen the arbitration come to a unanimous conclusion both sides that he was entitled to put that strong evidence.

The Judge stated that that might be taken as evidence, but it could not be taken as binding. He thought the case ought to have been taken before an expert man.

For the respondents company, Mr Parker Rhodes said that the question was an important one both of the men and to the company. The price this was dated June 18, 1890, and this point was that the plaintiff been at work at that time cutting down this bag dirt, or material other similar characters now, must have believed it was bag dirt, and must have been satisfied.

The Judge: Yes; but been getting harder.

Mr Parker Rhodes said that, assuming it was of the same character, then the men considered the price list and inserted in a three or four items, which did not exist before. The items of the prices were five, for been an important, but one was important and read as follows:

“When packing cross gates the men to have the option of having the packing paid for by the yard; coals, including top cutting, large 1s 2 ½ d per ton and small 6d per ton.”

The value of that items that it showed that the two parties had their attention directed to two ideas, and with regard to the expense of cross gates they thought it necessary to modify them. Dirt was a substance in the mine, and divided in component parts in the seams. Bag dirt as such did not exist throughout the whole of the district – it varies from 11 feet in some parts to 5 feet in thickness, and simply meant a substance which lay between bags and daybeds, and varied in character according to local circumstances. It was always binding, but it was not constant in character. In some cases it was softer, in and in other cases harder, and was interspersed by laminations of coal. Geologically there had been no change in the state, and up to the time of that dispute there had been no difference about it. The practice was to get one side of the gates and leave the props up. Afterwards the props were withdrawn, and there was no difficulty in getting the material down, but when it was down it was dealt with by workmen and paid for under the scale. The duty of the men was to go on getting the material.

Jonathan Longbottom said he was a mining and civil engineer in practice at Sheffield, was a member of the Institute of civil Engineers. He was also appointed by the Government to examine colliery managers. He was also consulting engineer to many important collieries in the district. He was well acquainted with Denaby colliery and made more than one inspection of the drift District. He was appointed one of the arbitrators by the joint committee.

This concluded the case for the defence.

His Honour said that the concert was based upon the price list made between Mr Chambers, on behalf of their employers, and Mr Pickard, on behalf of the men, on 18 June 1890, and their price was 1s 4 ½ d per ton. At the time the contract was made it was within the knowledge of the men and of the employees of the situation was practically the same in point of material as it was now. Gradually, since that time he believed that what was known as the strata of bag dirt had been getting broader and tougher until at last the upper part had become so tough that the men practically declined to get it. This was pre-eminently a case that ought to be referred to a practical man to say what was fair between the parties. He was not there to say what was fair between the parties, but to administer what was just in law. He had to say what he thought was a contact between the men and the company, and he thought top cutting included the removal of bag dirt. It was very hard that the labour should be increased without increase of payment, but it was a question for an arbitration, and it was for the consideration of the parties whether the time had not arrived when another person should be put upon the work.

He was inclined to think that the work was harder and that the material would not come down nearly so readily as it came down 12 years ago; but the undertaking had been that it should be removed, and taken that view of the meaning of the contract he was bound to give judgement for the defendant company with costs.

Mr Parker Rhodes said he would not trouble with the costs.