i STEAM COAL - Clpdigital.org
i STEAM COAL - Clpdigital.org
i STEAM COAL - Clpdigital.org
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.