1008 THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN. November 24, 1916. THE APPOINTMENT AND CONTROL OF COLLIERY DEPUTIES. The question whether colliery deputies should be paid by the State and controlled by the miners’ associations, formed the subject of a paper read by Mr. F. Keen- Smith, general secretary of the Yorkshire Deputies Association, before a meeting of that body at the Royal Hotel, Barnsley, on November 11. The speaker prefaced his remarks by observing that, although as an association they had not yet declared in favour of State payment of deputies, they were part of the Federation of Deputies of Great Britain, which was already sup- porting the movement that deputies be State paid. The Miners’ Federation of Great Britain and Trade Union Congress had also decided in favour of the movement. The reason why these powerful oiganisationsof labour should be unanimous in their efforts for mining reform was that mining, particularly coalmining, was dangerous, and it was believed that all other means adopted with a view to reducing this danger to a reasonable degree had failed. It was evident, from statistics and the decisions of the important organisations already named, that these expectations raised by the Act of 1911 had not been realised; and it would be remembered that the Right Hon. W. Brace, Esq., M.P., in an amendment to the Address at the opening of Parliament in February 1914, made a speech on the dangers of mining, and that, as a result, further legislation was promised. That speech included a plea for the payment of deputies by the State, and many believed that, had we not been engaged in war, such payment would have been an established fact to-day. Mining was, and would always be, a comparatively dangerous industry, and although the Act of 1911 was passed in order to reduce the risks of mining, there was still much danger revealed as the result of its provisions being ignored and misapplied. In order to ensure its successful administration, increased facilities were offered to miners to examine mines and the staff of inspectors was increased. The miners asked for workmen inspectors, but their request was met only in so far that these men must possess a first*class colliery manager’s certificate as a qualification for appointment, and the miners’ organisations were not allowed to appoint them. With regard to the actual position of the deputy, the Act and Regulations of 1911 permitted him to fire shots, look after safety, and take up miners’ measure. However, he must not do anything that prevented him from carrying out his statutory duties, but if any v\ ork, duty, or responsibility were unduly placed upon him he could complain to the divisional inspector. Although, in law, this position looked to be simple, clear and easy, it was not so in practice. At a lew collieries in Yorkshire a deputy had the position intended for him by law, and he was encouraged to take no risks. There were, however, others where deputies’ duties were so ingeniously set out by those who engaged and paid or supervised them, that the Act was contravened and risks were run, owing to the competition of deputies to minimise costs, to obtain the largest output of coal, and to regulate the employment of the largest number of workmen within a limited area for this purpose. Hence the congestion of labour, rapidity of the operations, and economy became factors of danger. Taking up of miners’ measure was made *to mean that the deputy could, as foreman, regulate a large amount of labour for winning a large amount of coal— (he knew a deputy who had over 200 men and boys under his charge); maintain harmony and discipline; set out all the workings according to a plan furnished by the surveyor; watch every phase of work done by his men as to quality, time and value; estimate the require- ments of his district as to timber, brattice, rails, etc., to order and check the supply and distribution of the same; and in addition, in some mines, he had to carry an electric battery, cable, can of explosives, a pouch of detonators and other shot-firing requisites. In some mines the deputy had to do manual labour as well, and his merit was sometimes judged in ratio to his physical capacity in this respect. The duties enumerated prevailed in some of our gaseous coal mines, not only of Yorkshire but other mining counties, and these duties had to be performed whilst the deputy was perpetually engaged in the eye- straining occupation of testing for percentages of fire- damp in every part of his district. It was, therefore, little wonder that a promising and studious young deputy might find his eyesight ruined before he could escape up th s ladder and become a manager. Another danger was the confusion of authority, duty, and responsibility among supervisors in mine manage- ment. He knew cases where under-managers and overmen had exceeded their powers, accidents had happened, and the responsibility had fallen on the deputy. A safety order issued by a deputy sometimes involved expense, and the ’workman might claim the right to barter with his labour in contract work. Danger was also due to contract labour, unskilled abour, and to the lack of discipline. In some collieries one contractor could draw wages for from 10 to 20 workmen. Sometimes these contractors were more powerful and more important with the management than the deputies were, and the deputy often had to humble himself and be discreet enough to keep in some sort of harmony with the economic machine. Still another danger arose from the absence of a uniform rate of work among the miners owing to the varying rates in the supply of corves and to competition among the men when the supply was not systematically divided. The greatest danger, however, was that of deputies being afraid to make truthful reports, where the district was too large and the duties excessive. If a deputy found a firedamp cap of 3 per cent, there were more influences at work upon him to call it a 2 per cent, cap than to report it as it actually was, since on his report might d-pend whether labour was to be withdrawn and output restricted, with consequent discredit to himself in some mines. If State payment of deputies were introduced as the miners’ organisations recommend, viz., that deputies should be paid by the State, but be under the control of the miners’ associations, that would mean a duplication of deputies, since for each State deputy there would be an economic deputy, a plan resulting in endless friction as to the practical wisdom of giving safety orders that might cause expense, whilst the economic deputy would refuse to pay contract workmen for work done that he, himself, had not ordered to be done. The State deputy, however modest he might be, would be considered over-officious. He (the speaker) was not sure that those who were most enthusiastic for the payment of all deputies by the State had considered all that was involved in the detailed working of the scheme. If the same uniformity at.a given colliery during one day’s operation could remain constant for ever, such a scheme might be practical, but those in authority who had to balance all the forces in the operations of a collierv in order to meet the changing needs, could not think of it. A duplication of deputies would increase discontent and diminish discipline, be an economic absurdity. For the State deputy to be controlled by the miners’ associa- tions w.-is foliy indeed. The speaker believed that, if the Act of 1887 had been administered, the Act of 1911 would not have been necessary, and that if the Act of 1911 were administered it would be adequate. If any law were needed it would be one to facilitate or enforce the existing law. In conclusion he ventured to make the following suggestions:— Workmen.—(a) That miners and owners apply the principle of the simple division of labour and responsi- bility on the lines of “ one man to engage and pay and be responsible for only one besides himself.” (6) That in each inspector’s division there should be two work- men inspectors paid by the State, but chosen and controlled by the miners’ association, each workman inspector to have had five years’ experience in a coal mine, (c) They should have power to go together to any mine after a 24-hours notice to the manager of such mine, and the manager should provide a guide for them, (d) They should make and sign a report of each mine visited, and forward a copy of the same to the manager, to the divisional inspector, and to the general secretary of their own association. Table II.—General Summary. Total number of associated collieries — 308. Total number included in this summary = 275. Week. Wee k ending Number of collieries from which the returns were jointly signed * Maximum possible number of attendances for the week for all collieries f Number of absentees. Owing to work men failing to attend though abb lo do so. Per cent, to maximum possible number of attend- ances. Through causes over which the workmen have no control. • Per cent, to maximum possible number of attend- ances. Total number of absentees. Per cent, to maximum possible number of attend- ances. 14 Sept 23,1916... 97 819,655 71,606 8’74 25,209 3 07 96,815 11’81 15 30, „ .. 92 817,629 76.442 9’35 25,343 3’09 101,785 1244 16 Oct. 7, „ .. 94 811,607 67 871 8’36 24,602 3’03 92,473 11’39 ! 17 14, „ ... 93 817,710 58.824 7’20 24,119 2’94 82,943 10’14 18 J J 21, „ .. 91 813,735 58 6 3 7’20 23,265 2’85 81,908 10’06 1 1 * i.e., by both company’s and workmen’s representatives. The scheme was issued to all associated collieiies, July 4, 116. f Calculated upon number of men on company’s books. Note.— The Sunday night shift is not included in any summary. Table III.—Number of Pits under Different Percentages of Absenteeism. (Men failing to attend though able to do so.) Week. Week ending 15% and over. 11%. 13%. 12%. 11%. 10% 9%. 8%. 7%. 6%. 5%. 4%. 3 % and under. 14 September 23,1916 14 9 6 10 14 18 29 30 26 28 29 27 35 15 „ 30, „ ... 17 8 9 10 24 23 28 34 22 29 22 18 31 16 October 7, ,, ... 9 10 8 18 12 18 18 27 28 24 36 31 36 17 „ 14, , 7 2 4 8 10 12 14 35 30 33 33 35 52 18 „ 21, „ ... 4 3 4 6 7 20 19 28 27 33 32 29 63 Number of collieries included in this summary = 275. Mr. Gibson has also carried the general absenteeism figures up to October 21, and they give the results shown in the above tables. Table IV.—Total Daily Number of Absentees (men failing to attend though able to do so). Week. Week ending Monday. Tuesday. Wednesday. Thursday. Friday. Saturday. Weekly total. 14 Sept. 23, 1916 16,610 13,736 11,303 10,428 9,401 10,128 71,606 15 „ 30, „ 17,951 14,371 13,964 Id,396 9,715 10,045 76,442 16 Oct. 7, „ 16,267 12,364 12,571 9.117 8,577 8,975 67,871 17 „ 14, „ 13,509 11,541 10,666 8,338 7,368 7,999 58,824 18 „ 21, „ 13,142 11,817 9,673 8,317 7,289 8,405 c 8,643 Number of collieries included in this summary=275. Deputies.—That in each inspector’s division there should be two deputies who should be inspectors, paid by the State, but chosen and controlled by the Deputies Association. Each must have bad five years’ mining ex- perience and two years’ experience as a colliery deputy. They should have power to visit any m^ie together after giving 24-hours’ notice to the manager of such colliery, and should have power to enquire into anything pertaining to the deputies’ position. They should make and sign a report of each mine visited and forward a copy to the manager, the inspector, and to the general secretary of their association. Safety Boards.—There should be a district mining safety board in each inspector's division, composed of equal representatives of owners’ or managers’ associa- tions, miners’ associations and deputies’ associations, the divisional inspector presiding. The board should consider the reports of all the inspectors, and make recommendations for increasing safety in mines. ABSENTEEISM IN THE SOUTH WALES COAL FIELD, At the recent Government coal mining delegate con- ference held at Westminster, and addressed by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, Mr. Robert Smillie, the president of the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain, impugned the accuracy of the figures in regard to absenteeism which had been prepared and issued by the coal owners. He contended that the period covered by the returns was abnormal, in that it included the August holiday month, and that the returns were based only partly on reports sent in jointly by representatives of employers and workmen on the colliery joint committees. In consequence of this criticism the returns in the case of the South Wales coal field have been re analysed in order to distinguish the returns jointly signed from those sent by the colliery companies, and Mr. Finlay Gibson, the secretary of the Monmouth- shire and South Wales Coal Owners’ Association, now issues the following statement:— Table I—Maximum posible Number of Attendances A'd the Total Number of Absentees for Alternate Weeks from June 24, 1916, to September 16, 1916.* O O g £ £ § o a £ cl a ® Absentees from all causes. O -P CQ . a? a x-S O 4-* <» O • 00 Q -p id a a 5