15.01.2013 Views

i STEAM COAL - Clpdigital.org

i STEAM COAL - Clpdigital.org

i STEAM COAL - Clpdigital.org

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

additional compensation allowed was to offset any<br />

loss the men so working might sustain through<br />

decreased opportunity to earn. It is also evident<br />

that the inconvenience of two men working together<br />

in an entry is not decreased while cutting<br />

horseback as compared with cutting coal. Consequently<br />

the equitable and just reasoning and consequent<br />

interpretation of the contract would he<br />

that the men are just as much entitled to receive,<br />

and the parties to the making of the contract intended<br />

they should receive, the same additional<br />

compensation when cutting horseback as they receive<br />

when cutting coal. The contract says:<br />

"27 cents per yard additional shall be paid," and<br />

while it is true that it is not the rule and custom<br />

to measure and pay for horsebacks specifically by<br />

the yard, yet where entry is measured to ascertain<br />

the distance driven, the number of feet or yards<br />

of horseback cut through while driving said entry<br />

is never deducted from the length so ascertained.<br />

Consequently, reasoning from that basis also, the<br />

men are entitled to the extra compensation when<br />

working two men together in an entry cutting<br />

horseback.<br />

I fully understand that horseback is paid separately,<br />

but the amount of horseback cut, plus the<br />

coal, determines the total distance the entry is<br />

driven.<br />

In my judgment, unless the parties to the making<br />

of the contract had some other mutual understanding<br />

at the time the contract was executed,<br />

the miner is entitled to be paid the additional<br />

compensation when cutting horseback while working<br />

two together in one entry.<br />

Ge<strong>org</strong>e Richardson, president of District No. 14,<br />

having concurred in and endorsed the above opinions,<br />

both now oecome decisions on the interpretations<br />

of the contract.<br />

ENGINEERS' WAGES.<br />

It has been agreed and decided between the<br />

presidents of Districts Nos. 14, 21 and 25, United<br />

Mine Workers, and Commissioner Bennett Brown<br />

for the Southwestern Interstate Coal Operators'<br />

Association that the interpretation of the contract<br />

for the payment of engineers' wages, is that the<br />

wages paid engineers for the month of September,<br />

1903, for mines in operation one year, based upon<br />

the output of the mine during the month of November,<br />

1902, is the wage to be paid at all mines,<br />

extfpt new mines which have been put in operation<br />

less than one year prior to that date. The<br />

payment of engineers in these mines will be advanced<br />

in accord with the tonnage rate, provided<br />

for i.. the scale, and that all engineers who have<br />

received an increase of wages since September 1,<br />

1903, through a misconception or misunderstanding<br />

of the agreement, will be reduced to the rate<br />

established in September, 1903, based on the out<br />

THE <strong>COAL</strong> TRADE BULLETIN. 29<br />

put for November, 1902, less the 5.55 per cent.<br />

reduction applied in September, 1904, as per agreement.<br />

It is also agreed that the contract for the payment<br />

of engineers, contemplates the classification<br />

of engineers hoisting coal in new mines, as thirdclass<br />

engineers, entitled to receive $61.40 per<br />

month of 26 days of 9 hours per day, until the<br />

pit has reached the capacity of 300 tons or more<br />

per day, when the wages of the engineers will be<br />

increased to the second-class rate of $68.95 per<br />

month of days and hours as above stated.<br />

In his circular addressed to the members of the<br />

Southwestern Interstate Coal Operators' Association<br />

Commissioner Brown says: "The accompanying<br />

interpretation of, and decision upon the<br />

engineers' scale is not in accord with my judgment<br />

or sense of justice, but is the only solution<br />

to the question I could get the other parties to<br />

the contract to agree to.<br />

"You will understand by this decision that the<br />

wage established for engineers in September, 1903,<br />

based upon the average daily capacity or production<br />

of the mine during the month of November,<br />

1902, in operation one (1) year prior to that date,<br />

is the wage to be paid, less the 5.55 per cent, reduction<br />

effective September, 1904, to the end of the<br />

present contract period; no matter what the capacity<br />

or production of the mine may be. That<br />

is to say, the wage paid engineers at these mines<br />

does not rise or fall with the tonnage produced.<br />

but, in all new mines placed in operation less than<br />

one year prior to November, 1902, the engineers'<br />

wage rises with the increased tonnage, according<br />

to the scale."<br />

ALLEGHENY <strong>COAL</strong> CO. TO<br />

INCREASE ITS INDEBTEDNESS.<br />

Stockholders of the Allegheny Coal Co. have<br />

been called to meet at Springdale January 25,<br />

1905, to vote upon the question of increasing the<br />

indebtedness from $300,000 to $450,000. The date<br />

set for the meeting is the anniversary of the<br />

explosion in the Harwick mine in which about<br />

182 employes of the company lost their lives. The<br />

proposed increase is to pay off debts incurred on<br />

account of the disaster.<br />

A Record River and Harbor Appropriation.<br />

It is the opinion of officials of the war department<br />

that the river and harbor bill, to he passed<br />

by the coming session of Congress, will aggregate<br />

fully $75,000,000 including both the cash appropriations<br />

and those under the continuing contract<br />

system. This will establish a record. In the last<br />

river and harbor bill, passed more than two years<br />

ago, the total carried was about $65,000,000.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!