1346

The colliery guardian.

June 20, 1913.

The Referee said his own view about this was that
these words were unnecessary. He thought they intro-
duced confusion and served no particular purpose. In
line 5, after the word “ together” the Durham deputies
suggested words “ and one of them is in charge ” to be
struck out.

Mr. James Clark said there were objections to this
as it stood. In the first place, it would be in contraven-
tion of clause 64, subsection (1), of the Coal Mines Act,
1911, which provided that before the commencement of
each shift there should be an examination.

The Referee did not think it either superseded or in
any way did away with the requirements of section 64.
The fireman would have to examine just the same.
This was only meant to throw an obligation also upon
the man in charge of the gang, or shift, who were at
work, to examine. On the proposal after (5' (a) to
insert “ (b) When the work of erecting the supports of
the roof and sides of the working place is done by the
workman employed therein, he shall be responsible
during his shift for the due examination, proper
timbering, packing, and safety of his working place, and
for the safety of every person employed with him in his
working place.” What meaning did they put upon the
word “ responsible ”—responsible in what sense ?

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said by “ responsible ” he
meant that if he did not do it he would be answerable
and liable to be prosecuted or fined, or subject to what-
ever penalty might be imposed. He would point out
that the legal responsibility of managers under the Coal
Mines Act was this—that they were primd facie respon-
sible for the misdoings of every person in the mine
unless they could show that they had done their best to
have these regulations carried out. Any person who
offended against this was guilty of an offence against
this Act. Section 101, subsection (3) said: “Every
person who is guilty of an offence against this Act, for
which a penalty is not expressly provided, shall be
liable to a fine not exceeding, if he is an owner, agent,
or manager, or under mana ger, twenty pounds, and, if
he is any other person, five pounds, for each offence;
and, if an inspector has given written notice of any such
offence, to a further fine not exceeding one pound
for every day after such notice that such offence
continues to be committed.” That was the remedy.
And if it were an offence likely to endanger the safety
of the persons employed, he might be committed to
prison without a fine, and if it was committed wilfully
then he might be sent to prison. They looked upon
this as a very important amendment, because it was
necessary—as had always been the practice in these
rules—that the man’s attention should be called
expressly to what his responsibility was. They applied
it to the cases where the work of erecting supports for
the roof was done by the workmen, and he believed that
was the case throughout the kingdom with the exception
of Northumberland and Durham, where the practice
slightly differed in this way, that the timbering
generally was done by the deputy, but the workman, in
the absence of the deputy, had to keep himself safe.
When the deputy was in the place he was responsible
for the place being safe, but in all the other districts,
from Scotland down to South Wales, the practice
always had been, and was now, that the workman him-
self saw to the timbering of the place, and that regula-
tion was most important. Fifty per cent, of the
fatalities that occurred in coalmines were through
falls of the roof and sides. It was only the man
himself in the place who could do this work; he
must be on the watch, and if he found a prop was
necessary there, he must put it up. The Act made an
alteration. Before the passing of this Act the workman
had not only to put up the timber, but had to fetch

it, possibly from some considerable distance. This Act
provided that it was to be brought for him within a
certain distance of the working place. They said that
it was absolutely necessary that it should be provided
in these rules, as in all other codes of rules, that the
workman was to put up the timber and was to be
answerable.

Mr. Pope said that from the point of view of the
Home Office he would like to refer to section 50.
Speaking now of subsection (c), which was an additional
rule proposed by the Mining Association what they
said was that it was unnecessary in view of section 50,
subsection (1). “Where props or props and bars or
chocks are used to support the roof at the working face,
the roof under which any work of getting coal or
filling tubs is carried on, shall be systematically and
adequately supported, and the props or chocks shall be
set at such regular intervals and in such manner as may
be specified in the notice hereinafter mentioned.” That
was a manager’s notice. It was to be found at the bottom*
of the page in subsection (4): “ The manager shall, by
notice, specify the manner in which the supports are to
be set and advanced, and the maximum intervals to be
observed on roadways between the supports and at the
face (a) between each row of props; (5) between adjacent
props in the same row; (c) between the front row of
props and the face; (d) between the holing props or
sprags; (e) between chocks: Provided that the interval
between holing props or sprags shall in no case
exceed six feet.” The point was this, that section
50 threw the responsibility in connection with this
matter upon the man whose contract it was to do
the timbering, but the statute did not specify who, in
fact, was to do it, because the practice varied
throughout the country. In some cases it was done
by an official, and in some cases by the men, but
whoever did it the statute placed upon them the
responsibility, and whosoever’s duty it was to do the
timbering, his was the responsibility, and that was what
the section said. They said that it was unnecessary to
specify the duties and responsibility of each of the
workmen where the Act itself really adequately provided
for the matter, and they said it was adequately dealt
with by section 50, and if there was any doubt left over

working place to go into another working place within
5 or 10 yards of him, that would not be an emergency;
it would not be held that that was an emergency.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said he would prefer
not to have those words in. It was very objectionable
for the men to be rambling about the pit outside their
places. Who was to decide whether it was a justifiable
cause or not ?

Mr. Pope said that, so far as water was concerned,
the men carried an ample supply of that, and if a man
ran short it was not necessary that he should leave his
work ; he might get some from one of his other work-
men in the place with him. As regards his leaving his
work in connection with the requirement of a sanitary
convenience, men who were working at the face did not
need to go to a sanitary convenience; they attended
to those matters in the goaf where the coal had
been won, and which was afterwards going to be
closed up. If they were working upon the roadway
sanitary conveniences were provided in the roadway.
The view taken by the Home Office was that the road-
way, under those circumstances, was the man’s working
place, and he would be committing no breach of the
rule in going along the roadway in order to go to a
sanitary convenience, but the danger was that men
came out of their working places and got involved in
the haulage. Miners might get involved in the haulage,
or they might find themselves in places the condition
of which they were ignorant, and the desire was that the
men should proceed to the appointed place for their
work by the way appointed: that they should do their
work there, and that they should return again to the
pit bottom by the proper and authorised road, that
was to say, that they should not be in a position
to wander about in the pit from one working
place to the other because it was attended with danger.
Their view was that if they had those words in, there
would be no uniformity of practice amongst the different
managers in the regulation of their pits, and there would
be no uniformity of interpretation by the Courts, and it
would go some way to weaken the force of the rule. As
Sir Thomas said, the word “emergency” was more
easily defined. It included all proper cases, and he
suggested that the word “ emergency ” would cover
everything that the Miners’ Federation could properly
ask for. It was directed to the safety of the men.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said that in Northum-
berland and Durham they had a special rule about this :,
“No workman or boy shall, unless and until authorised,
go beyond the appointed meeting station, or any
fence, danger-board, or other recognised signal, nor,
except in case of necessity,1 into any other part
of the mine than that in which he is placed
by the overman, deputy, or other official.”
There was another form of it in Yorkshire, in these
terms: “ No person shall go into any other part of the
mine than that in which he may be appointed to work,
except by order of the manager, under-mana ger, or a
deputy, or unless necessary, in order to obey a special
or general rule or unless to seek for lost tools in the
working places next adjoining his own working place.”

Mr. Smillie thought the suggestion would be satisfac-
tory if the Home Office would accept it—“inconnection
with his labour to enable him to carry on his work,” and
this was accepted. With regard to Rule 5, page 6:
“ Every workman engaged at the face, or in stonework,
or in timbering shall carefully examine his working
place before commencing work after the firing of a
shot, and after any interruption of work during the
shift. Where several persons are working together and
one of them is in charge, the examinations required by
this regulation shall be made by the man in charge.”
It was suggested in “ Line 4—after * work ’ insert4 and
at intervals.’ ”

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said the object was,
that the conditions were constantly changing. The rule
as it stood required the workman to examine before
commencing work and before recommencing work after
the firing of a shot and after any interruption of work,
but they said that during the whole course of his work
he must examine for gas, even if there had been no
interruption in his work and no shot fired. Gas might
be oozing out from a crack in the roof, and he must be
constantly on the alert. He would call Mr. Blackett
upon this point.

Mr. Blackett said that in the case of a man who
was driving a head of coal, and as he drove there came
out a fresh rule, if he did not take notice as he
was working under the conditions of that rule
“ at intervals during the shift,” he was not taking
so much care of himself as he might. He would
give another similar illustration. If a man were
timbering, the condition of his timbering altered
from time to time, and he must from time to time take
notice of his safety lamp to see that the atmosphere in
which he was working was not changing. An examina-
tion consisted of various things. If it were the roof
he would examine the roof, and occasionally test it with
tools. If it were the atmosphere he would take notice
of what was going on outside the safety lamp. If it
were in connection with timbering he would take special
observations of the position of his timber, and whether
more was required. There were so many examinations
depending upon the condition of the working place.

Mr. Smillie said the Home Office was perfectly
right in this, that if a workman’s place was empty,
before he went into it in the morning something might
have taken place. A miner knew more the state of his
roof by sound—he could not tell it by sight; and if he
were out of his place for shot-firing, or any other
emergency, something might take place; the roof might
be working while he was away, and he would not hear it.
When he went in he was to make an examination, but
while he was in this place the whole time was a period
of examination. He was observing the roof; he was
observing the sides; and he was observing his lamp
from time to time to see what the state of ventilation was.

the manager had power under section 74 to give the
directions which were set out in this section “ B ” by
the owner. The point he was trying to make clear was
that the Act itself by section 50 made the workman
who was responsible in regard to the particular matter
—in this case the timbering—responsible in regard to it.
The view the Home Office took was that it was perfectly
open to the manager to gpve such directions in writing
under this notice which was specified here, and under
the powers of section 74, but it was not desirable that
these statutory regulations should be encumbered by
all these individual directions.

The Referee said the rule as it stood, as settled by
the Home Office, declared what should be done, that
was to say, every workman should carefully examine
his working place, but it did not go on to say what was
to happen if he found that the place was not safe. It
was suggested that Regulation 6 provided for it: “If
any person shall cause, or become aware of, any obstruc-
tion in or interference with the ventilation, or stagnation
or impurity in the air, of any part of the mine, or any
dangerous defect in any part of the roof or sides, or any
other source of danger, he shall, if it falls within the
scope of his duties to remedy such obstruction, inter-
ference, stagnation, impurity, defect, or other source of
danger, immediately proceed to take the steps necessary
for the purpose, and if not he shall immediately inform
the manager, under-manager, fireman, examiner, or
deputy, or other official, and shall, if he is working in
the place where the danger exists, cease all work in the
place.” That only seemed to him to show that he was
to get other people to do something.

Mr. Thomas Wright said that, as representing the
deputies of Northumberland, he wanted to confirm the
statement of Mr. Smillie as to the differences between
the counties in their system of working. He under-
stood it was part of the contract of the man in the
Midlands who took the coal that he did his own
timbering. In Northumberland and Durham the
timbering had been done by the specially appointed
deputy by Act of Parliament. He was responsible for
the man who produced the coal in Northumberland and
Durham. That was the position so far as the two
northern counties were concerned. It was quite clear
that timbering had to be provided by the deputy
and when he was there, it was his duty to set it.
The mineowner provided the timber and the ^deputy
made provision for it in lengths, some 2 ft., some 3 ft.,
and some 4 ft.; it was incumbent upon the deputy in
Northumberland and Durham to provide lengths of
timber suitable for the 'man’s place, and that made a
distinction. Mr. Smillie said that should anything
unusual occur in his place, the man in the place was
responsible for his own safety, and in the absence of the
deputy he should come out of the place and send for
the deputy to come and do the timbering. That was
the system in Northumberland.

Mr. Blackett said although the great part of that
statement was correct, it went further. In section 50,
subsection (4), it was provided that at certain distances
and intervals there had to be provided props. In the
absence of the deputy, as had been said, the workman
had to carry on his timbering, but not only in the case
of emergency. The deputy was absent for far longer
than he was present, and on his visit he saw that a place
was correctly timbered, and if at the time of his visit it
was not correctly timbered, or sufficiently timbered, or
if it required additional timber, he put that in and saw
that it was all right, but the man was driving his coal
ahead all the time he was out and he provided space for
further timber under subsection (4), not only in emer-
gency, but the systematic timbering had to be continued
to be done. It came as much under the rule of
Durham as any of these words : “ When the work or
erecting the support of the roof and sides of the working
place is done by the workman ”—it was done by a work-
man in the absence of a deputy. Their own special rule
made it quite clear that it was not only in an emer-
gency, but it was the systematic timbering. The special
rule read : “ Should the working place of any man or
boy become unsafe from any cause he shall discontinue
working in it and immediately send or go for the
deputy ; but if unsafe for want of timbering being set,
then in the absence of the deputy, there being sufficient
timber and proper lengths in or near the place, he shall
set it in order to keep himself safe, or shall cease to
work and retire therefrom and report the same to the
deputy or other official, and in all cases when necessary
he shall sprag his jud.”

Mr. Clark said he was the secretary of the Durham
Miners’ Organisation, and he wanted to say that the
special rule that Mr. Blackett had read out only
made it incumbent upon the miner to set timber
when his own safety depended upon it. It was
not in the contract. The special rule, as read out,
was specially for safety. A man undertook to get
coal for a certain price per ton, and the setting
of the timber from the beginning to the end
was involved in that price. With them it was not.
It was not part of their contract except with regard to
the question of safety. He happened to know of the
special rule that Mr. Blackett had read out. He was
one of the framers of it. The position of Durham was
peculiar, and was different from the others. It was
not incumbent upon a miner in Durham to set timber
except from the point of view of safety.

Mr. Tryon said that this point affected the South
Staffordshire district as much as any other. The view
that they took of the rule was this :—It had been
stated on the part of the Home Office that the sections
of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, so imposed a duty on the
part of the men that any regulation was unnecessary.
He had been unable to find any single section in that
Act which did so. The Coal Mines Act of 1911,
section 50, merely said that the work was to be done.
Subsection (4) said that the manager should by notice
specify the manner in which the supports were to