1390

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

June 27, 1913

out, but under this rule if he saw gas burning, that
included any small cap. If he saw gas burning in his
lamp he had. to put his lamp out and leave himself in
the dark, and get himself into danger. That was not
practicable.

Mr. Pope said this did not apply to a cap. It was
intended to cover conditions more serious than when
simply testing for gas and finding a small cap. The
phrase “ gas burning in his safety lamp ” meant that
there was a considerable volume which might affect his
lamp, and it had to be dealt with promptly. The
conditions under section 67 subsection (4) which required
a workman to withdraw from a place were in view. He
suggested that if they met together they could agree
upon a form of words.

Eventually the addition quoted by Sir Thomas
Ratcliffe - Ellis was agreed to, as well as the
provision: “ If the gas fires in the lamp where he cannot
take it into fresh air he shall smother out the light, or
extinguish it in water.”

Several other amendments were agreed to. The
Referee decided to omit the paragraph: “It shall be
the duty of every person employed in or about the mine
to make proper use, when necessary, of all contrivances,
appliances, and provisions for safety, applicable to the
work to be performed by him,” as being unnecessary.

With regard to the provision, “ Where by the Act or
the regulations of the mine any duty is imposed upon
or authority given to any fireman, examiner, or deputy,
that duty, in cases of emergency, may be fulfilled, or
that authority exercised by and at the discretion of any
official, his superior at the mine, and duly qualified to
perform such duties,” Mr. Pope said they would like to
have a definition of the words “ in cases of emergency.”
There might be cases of emergency not connected with
the question of safety, and there might be cases of
emergency which might be regarded as cases of emer-
gency on the question of safety, and they thought that
that must be made clear, and that it should be an
emergency affecting safety. The duties of the fireman
were defined under section 14 of the Act, and if this
proposal was that some other person should be deputed
to perform the fireman’s duties, oi’ to perform part of
the fireman’s duties, that would not be in accordance
with the scheme contemplated by the Act. The scheme
contemplated by the Act was that the fireman should
have a district under his control, and the phrase “ any
duty ” rather raised the suggestion that there was a
division of the fireman’s duties. It was not necessary
to have a special rule authorising the manager in case
of an emergency to do something.

Mr. Walters, on behalf of the deputies, said they
distinctly and emphatically supported the Home Office
in their view.

Mr. Smillie said they did not see' any good reason
why provision should not be made as to this in the
event of the fireman being called away, provided that
the man who took up the duty was a duly qualified
person. An emergency might arise through an outburst
of gas, and this would give the manager the right to
depute the duty to some other person his superior who
would have at least the qualification to perform some of
his duties, and he might have to leave undone some of
his own duties, because he was attending to the other
man’s duties.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said the fireman,
before the men were allowed to go to work, had to
examine the various places in which they had to work.
Supposing the fireman was taken ill, and he could not
make the examination, the men could not go to work ;
but if his superior officer could make it, the men would
go to work.

Mr. Pope suggested that there might be a commercial
emergency which would possibly put the owner in such
a position that he wanted to employ somebody to do a
fireman’s duty.

The Referee refused to define the word “emergency,”
which, he said, must depend upon circumstances as they
arose. The clause, he thought, was clear as it stood.
The proposal that “ Every person who shall observe or
know of any breach of the Act or regulations or orders
made thereunder, shall immediately report such breach
to the manager, under-manager, overman, master
shifter, fireman, examiner or deputy,” was agreed.

Rule 25.

Rule 25 was agreed.

Rule 26.

On Rule 26 it was proposed in line 1 to omit
“immediate,” and in line 2, after “investigated,” to
insert “ as soon as reasonably practicable.”

The Referee said he would strike out the word
“ immediate,” but he did not insert the words “ as soon
as is reasonably practicable.”

Rules 27-32.

Rules 27 and 28 were agreed, as was Rule 29, with the
addition: “ Where men are being raised from the pit
bottom, if more than one deck is used the top deck shall
be loaded with men first, but this shall not apply when
the decks are simultaneously loaded, or where a balanced
platform is used for loading the cages.”

Rule 31 was passed, as was Rule 32, with the omission
of the word “ immediate.”

Rule 33

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said that in regard to
Rule 33 there was an agreement as to part of it—to
alter the word “consult” to “confer,” making it: “He
shall, unless an official between himself and the firemen,
examiners, or deputies has been appointed, consult
daily with the latter on all matters connected with their
duties, and he shall also consult daily with the other
underground officials of the mine on all matters
connected with their duties and as to the state of the
mine.” After “ daily ” it was proposed to insert “ as far
as is reasonably practicable.” Sir Thomas asked

accidents due to gases in South Staffordshire; but Mr.
Hughes pointed out that several of the collieries were
not thick coal pits, and the Referee said that there
did not appear to have been a very startling number of
accidents.

Continuing, Mr. Hughes said gas did not accumulate
regularly. What they wished to bring out was the fact
that the cutting consisted not of one continuous passage
but of a series of pieces along the edge with spurns—
projecting pieces. In 1,000 cases there was no gas
there, but the dread of gas was always present, and the
men were continually testing for gas. When a man did
any digging and found gas he had no means of getting
it out except to waft it out. Mr. Redmayne suggested
that they should put air pipes in. The point was that
under certain conditions the whole of the pipes would
be destroyed by the falling coal. It was quite imprac-
ticable to put air pipes into the place, for the very best
of all reasons—that the cutting itself was at the top
only a few inches wide, and the air pipe itself was never
less than 10 in. in diameter, and might be 18 in. The
system of working in the 15 ft. coalseams was different,
as they never cut the coal up through the roof. In one
case the current of air blew and was naturally directed
into the place; in the other case it was absolutely pre-
vented from going in, because the roof prevented it from
going up above, and that was the very place where the
gas collected.

At this point the Referee said he was not at present
in a position to decide this case, because he had no
notion what the cost would be to introduce these pipes
in South Staffordshire; but Mr. Hughes said his point
was that it was not practicable to do it at all, as they
had coal at so many varying levels.

Mr. Albert Stanley said he supported Mr. Red-
mayne upon the evidence of the workmen themselves,
and he had two representatives from the district who
had worked the coal; but Mr. Hughes said these
gentlemen had neither of them worked in these par-
ticular collieries that he was referring to, which repre-
sented two-thirds of the thick coal in South Stafford-
shire. They had worked in thick coal, probably in a
degraded form, because the thick coal seam was not the
same over every portion of South Staffordshire. He
requested leave to ask Mr. Whitehouse, now the miners’
agent for the Somersetshire district, a question as to
the practicability of carrying pipes under the conditions
described. Mr. Whitehouse, he mentioned, bad many
years ago worked by the particular method referred to.

Mr. Whitehouse said he thought it was practicable
to carry the air by some means without any prohibitive
cost. The practice of flapping ought to be done away
with.

The Referee said, in his opinion, this rule must
stand and apply generally as suggested by the Home
Office.

Rule 20.

Mr. Hughes also addressed the Referee in regard to
Rule 20. He explained that, although the normal
inclination of the seam was slight, they gauged a purely
artificial gradient from the entrance to the back, the
idea being to get the workman as near to the roof as he
possibly could get, that being the point from which he
was getting the coal. At that particular point, with a
fallen roof, there was no prop at the back, and conse-
quently, for that short distance, which was, say, 40 or
50 yards, they asked that the men should be allowed to
steady the tubs down the incline by going in front. He
added that, as the rails had to be pulled up and laid
down after each fall of coal, they were by no means
permanent, and it was an extremely difficult matter to
provide any mechanical means which would control the
tubs by hand. The man was on the end of the tub, not
in the centre of it. He added that at Birmingham
Railway Station there was a distinct notice that no
porter was allowed to take his wagon down the incline
except he went in front of it.

Mr. Redmayne said it was a most fruitful source of
accidents, and they were very desirous to put an end to
it. There were many serious accidents from this habit
of going in front of tubs, and what was applicable to
the rest of the world was applicable to South Stafford-
shire.

Mr. Smillie said they were strongly in favour of this
rule, and strongly opposed to South Staffordshire being
exempted from it. The difficulties to meet this would be
greater elsewhere than in Staffordshire, and they felt
sure the workmen of Staffordshire would be absolutely
unanimous in favour of the regulation.

The Referee said he did not think that any excep-
tion could be made.

Rule 24.

Rule 24 is : “ The manager shall appoint a competent
person to keep a correct record of the number of persons
going below ground and returning from below ground
daily, and, if required, every person shall, immediately
before going below ground and after returning from
below ground, record his presence in accordance with a
system approved by the inspector of the division.”

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said there was an
amendment to put in “ or persons,” and another to put
in “by the manager” after “required,” both of which
wereragreed. There was a third, which was not agreed.
Further, in this rule it had also been agreed that
should any person get into firedamp he should not
throw away his lamp, nor attempt to blow it out, but
should shelter it, hold the lamp near the floor, avoid
jerking it, and take it steadily into the fresh air if the
gas fired in the lamp, but to exclude firemen who
might be examining for gas. it was suggested that
instead of “ person ” they should put in “ workman.”
Mr. Blackett said he understood now that if an
ordinary workman in the place in which he was working
examining frequently saw a small cap on his lamp, all
he would have to do for his own safety would be to
remove his lamp, carefully remove his light, and go on

Mr. Blackett to read a short statement of the duties the
manager had to perform under the Act and under the
regulations.

Mr. Blackett said he had been trying to find out
how many inspections the manager of a mine had to
carry out as a rule, and most of them devolved upon the
under-manager, and he had ascertained that there were
about 1,300, 1,400, or 1,500 already. He had got a total of
1,141 without these regulations. In addition to that
there were duties under the Compensation Act, the
Employers’ Liability Act, the Minimum Wage Act, the
Insurance Act, the Factory Act, the Weighing of
Minerals Act, the Railway Sidings Act, and the Truck
Act, and he had not the slightest doubt he had forgotten
many more. These inspections devolved upon the
under-manager, and he could not undertake to carry
out all these inspections, and also undertake absolutely
to confer daily with all the officials. Mr. Blackett also
produced a chart representing a 24-hour clock, and
showing for every hour of the day the operations that
were going on in a coalmine. There were officials going
through the whole 24 hours, and yet the manager was
expected to confer daily with all these officials.

Mr. Redmayne said this was not an innovation. It
was the best practice in Northumberland and Durham.
When he was an under-manager in Durham he conferred
daily with all his officials, and with the deputies. Those
he had not conferred with in the mine on his daily
inspection he met in the office after they had come out
from work. At the Hulton Colliery there was a disaster
to 344 men, and it was proved that the manager was not
daily consulting with the officials. Taking the three-
shift system, he quite acknowledged there would be
difficulties in that respect; but the three-shift system
was limited to a very small portion of Great Britain,
and they were quite prepared to agree to a form of
words to meet the difficulties of the three-shift system.
It might be worded in this way: “ Or if more than two
shifts of coal-getters are worked at the mine, at such
intervals as may be reasonably practicable.”

Mr. Chambers said that to comply with this rule
would necessitate the under-manager being there the
whole 24 hours. A shift of firemen went on at five
o’clock in the morning, and if the manager wanted to
see them he would have to see them at five o’clock till
about two o’clock. Another set of men who had been
at work at night came off between six and half-past six.
Other firemen and examiners came on at one o’clock.
Other men came on at half-past two o’clock. Another
set went in shortly before ten o’clock at night, and
another set came out about half-past ten. So that it
meant really that the under-manager would only have
something like about six hours’ rest between his presence
at the pit all the week and all the year through. There
was another man who took the duty of under-manager.
He could not be officially appointed, but he acted as
under-manager because the under-manager could not be
there all the time. He agreed that the under-manager
of the mine should every day be supposed to know the
state of the mine.

Mr. Wallwork, mining agent to the Earl of Elles-
mere’s Bridgewater collieries, said they worked with a
single shift and a repairing shift. They had one under-
manager and no official between the men and the firemen
with the exception of the coal-winding shift; and it would
be impossible for him to confer daily with the whole of
the deputies in the mine. He could see from the report
book the state of the mine.

The Referee said he thought the rule might stand
as it was. It was also proposed to omit “ daily ” and
insert “ frequently.”

Mr. Chambers said there were about 60 deputies in
the Denaby Main Colliery. About 40 would be inter-
viewed by the under-manager and 20 by the other.

The Referee pointed out that the manager was to
consult daily with the deputies, not on matters that he
thought were material, but on all matters connected
with their duties, whether they were material or not.
It seemed to him to put an intolerable burden upon him.

Mr. Redmayne suggested that a wise manager would
appoint officials to carry out that duty.

The Referee thought the rule was too wide.

Mr. Pope said he quite appreciated that, and
suggested the words, “ Confer with the latter with
regard to their duties.”

Mr. Blackett said he did not know whether his lord-
ship understood that the managerat the present moment
had to receive daily reports in writing from all these
officials. He asked one of his own managers if he would
give some idea of the amount of work he was trying to
do at the present time, and he handed the speaker that
enormous list of instructions that he had to observe.
In addition to that, he was daily signing 120 odd reports
of this kind from men, and they were also asked to
confer daily in this way. It was not physically or
humanly possible.

Mr. Tryon said he was very apprehensive about this
rule, from the fact that it was not a daily consultation,
but a consultation once, twice or three times over every
day necessarily under the rule, because there was an
Eight Hours Act which said that no man should work
in a mine more than eight hours. The result was that if
they had three shifts they had three sets of deputies.

The Referee said he was quite sure if anyone tried
to carry out the rule literally in accordance with the
wording they would find it absolutely impossible to do
it. He was sure no such thing was intended. The oppor-
tunity ought to be afforded to the deputies of drawing
the attention of the manager to anything that required
attention. That was the meaning of it. It must be
quite possible to find a form of words which would
necessitate the deputy and the manager meeting daily
to discuss any matter of importance which the deputy
might draw his attention to, and that was what was
wanted. He would leave them to draft something of
of that kind.

Rule 34 was agreed.