i STEAM COAL - Clpdigital.org

28
COMMISSIONER BROWN OF THE SOUTH­
WESTERN INTERSTATE COAL OPERA­
TORS' ASSOCIATION DECIDES THREE
DISPUTES REGARDING INTERPRETA­
TIONS OF SCALE CONTRACT PROVISIONS.
Two decisions of considerable general importance
and interest, settling disputes regarding the
proper interpretation of provisions of the local
scale contract, have just been given at Kansas
City, by Commissioner Bennett Brown, of the
Southwestern Interstate Coal Operators' Association.
DIGGING COAI, BY TIIK DAY.
THE COAL TRADE BULLETIN.
A dispute arose regarding the payment of wages
for men employed by the day digging coal, in opening
new mines for the Wear Coal Company, and
Mr. Brown was requested to give his interpretation
of the words, "Digging coal by the day" in
the contract.
A literal reading of the words would mean, he
said, that a man, unless he is actually employed
digging coal, would not be entitled to receive the
compensation provided for that character of work
in the contract. This construction is too narrow
and contracted, because the work of digging coal
involves and necessitates the performance of
much other work in connection therewith, such as
drilling holes, preparing blasts, care of roof, removing
slate, loading coal, brushing top or bottom,
laying track, pushing cars, etc. It has been, and
is now, the rule and custom in District No. 14, for
the miner to perform all of this other work
enumerated in connection with the work of mining
coal; and it has not been the rule and custom
in District No. 14, even when and where two men
work together in the same place, for one man to
be considered a miner, and the other a laborer or
helper, and as such, subject to higher and lower
remuneration for their work. There have heen
instances of this kind where a man would hire a
boy, or an inexperienced man, to work for him at
an agreed wage; but the rule almost invariably,
and now more so than ever before, has been, and
is, for the two men so employed to be full paid
and equal partners in all work done and compensation
received.
Now arises the question: "Is the conipany
within the meaning and intent of the contract,
when it hires one man as a miner to dig coal at
the wage provided for such work in the scale, and
another man as a laborer or helper to work along
with the miner and perform all the other work
required, at the scale provided in the contract.
•for all other work?"' I do not think so. When
two or more men are employed to work together
in one place, perform in conjunction all the work
requisite to digging coal, as before stated, all
should be classed as digging coal, and, as such,
are entitled to receive compensation provided in
the contract for such work, whether or not one
or more of them dig all the coal and the others
do all the other work; because, in this case, they
are in direct contact with, and mutually dependent
upon each other for the performance of all the
work necessary to digging coal. If, however, the
work is entirely separated, as, for example, it
would be when one or more men mined and dug
all the coal and shoveled it behind them, securing
the place and doing all the work necessary to
digging the coal as the work advanced, except
loading the coal into mine cars, brushing the roadway,
laying track, pushing cars, etc., and the
men employed to do such work were not required
to approach the mining face—then the man employed
to perform such work is only entitled to
recieve the compensation provided for that character
of work in the scale. That is to say, if a
man is hired to load coal into mine cars, to lift
up bottom or take down top, lay track or push
cars, and in the performance of this work he does
not, and is not required to come in direct contact
with the miner digging the coal renders the coal
digger no aid or assistance whatever in the digging
of the coal, or the care of the place, he is only
entitled to the compensation provided in the scale
for such work; but if, in the performance of his
work, he is required to come in direct contact
with the miner digging coal, either as a partner
or helper, he is entitled to the wage provided for
digging coal.
The distinction is only susceptible of comprehension
to men of practical knowledge and experience;
yet, in my judgment, it is just and equitable
to both parties concerned, as it prevents one party
taking advantage by hiring a man ostensibly to
perform one character of work, where it was, and
when it really is, intended he should, to a certain
extent, be engaged in doing other work; and it
prohibits a man hired to do a certain work, from
indulging in the hope that he can by sophistical
reasoning compel his employer to pay him for
work other than that which he is employed to
do and is doing.
CUTTING THROUGH HORSEBACKS.
A contention having arisen between the Devlin-
Miller Coal Company and the United Mine Workers
of America, regarding the interpretation of the
contract relative to paying extra compensation
while cutting through horsebacks in entries where
two men were working together on one shift, the
commissioner, upon request, gave the following
opinion:
Contract—"Article IV. Where entries are shifted
or where two men work together in entries on
the same shift. 27 cents per yard additional shall
he paid."
It was evidently the intent and purpose of the
parties to the making of this contract that the