Page:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu/616

592

to 28, as a result of a further invitation from the Prime Minister. This conference produced a further set of proposals from the owners, and the first detailed proposals for a settlement made by the Government in the course of the dispute, but these were rejected on the 28th by the National Delegate Conference, on the ground that they did not concede " the fundamental prin- ciples of a National Wages Board and a National Pool." No definite progress had been made as regards the proposed estab- lishment of a permanent scheme for the regulation of wages in the industry. The Government suggested that the period of the permanent scheme should be one year from the close of the tem- porary period, subject thereafter to 3 months' notice on either side. This suggestion became part of the final settlement of July i. They declared that a national pool or levy would involve legislation and must be regarded as a political issue; but they would accept a " National Wages Board " entrusted with the tasks of drawing up a schedule of districts and determining the principles by which wages should be adjusted in the districts, as well as with the duties of interpretation. The owners also spoke at this time of " areas " rather than " districts," the " areas " being the six divisions of Great Britain, among which the 25 dis- tricts are distributed by the Second Schedule of the Mining In- dustry Act, 1920. On the other hand, as a result of the statements of the owners and the Government, substantial progress was made with the preparation of a detailed temporary scheme for the emergency or abnormal period. The main points of these proposals may be summarized as follows:

1. The duration of the temporary scheme was to be three months.

2. In each of the three months, a maximum sum per shift should be fixed, and the wages of no miner should be reduced by more than that maximum sum. The maximum reduction would be expressed as a national flat rate.

3. For the first month a maximum reduction of 33. per shift was proposed and for the second month, one of 35. 6d.

4. The Government were prepared to make a grant of 10,000,000 as their share in the cost of the scheme, and it was suggested that a portion of this grant might be carried forward into a fourth month.

5. The owners were prepared to waive all share in the surplus in any area, if the taking of that share would have the effect of reducing the rates of wages in one month as compared with the previous month. This was an elaboration of the proposal of the owners as regards the emergency period given above, and made public on March 25.

6. The owners were also prepared to agree that, during the period of the temporary scheme, deficiencies in standard profits should not be carried forward from one accounting period to another.

The miners, however, were as much opposed to this proposed temporary scheme as to the owners' permanent scheme. They could not accept a temporary settlement which was related to district settlements; they could not accept reductions which would force their wages below the cost of living level; and they maintained their demand that the Government should render financial assistance to the industry so as to prevent this occurring. On a cost of living basis they argued that the maximum reduction in the first place should be 25. per shift: whereas the Govern- ment proposed a first reduction of 35. per shift.

From the close of the second series of joint negotiations on April 28, a whole month elapsed before official negotiations were resumed. A third series of negotiations was then begun on May 27, an address being made by the Prime Minister to a joint assem- bly of the central committee of the Mining Association and the executive committee of the Miners' Federation. Proposals for a settlement were submitted by the Government separately to the two sides on May 28, and on June 3 the observations of owners and miners on these proposals were communicated to the Prime Minister. The reply of the Miners' Federation, drawn up by their executive committee, was to the effect that in every instance the districts had rejected the proposals. On June 4 the Prime Minister announced that the Government's offer of a grant of 10,000,000, intended to mitigate the reductions in wages and allow of a gradual scaling down of wages until they reached an economic level which the industry could sustain, would be with- drawn unless a settlement were reached within 14 days. This announcement was followed by joint meetings between owners and miners on June 6, 7, 8 and 9, and on June 10 the National

Delegate Conference of the Miners' Federation adopted a recom- mendation of their executive to refer the alternative courses of action to a ballot vote of their members. The alternatives were put to the men as follows:

" (l) Are you in favour of fighting on for the principles of the National Wages Board and National Pool, with loss of Government subsidy of 10,000,000 for wages if no settlement by June 18 1921?

" (2) Are you in favour of accepting the Government's and owners' terms as set forth on the back of this ballot paper? "

The result of the vote was known on June 1 7 : the first ques- tion was answered in the affirmative by 433,614 members, and the second question by 180,725. The previous decisions of the representative bodies of the Federation were thus emphatically confirmed. The Government therefore announced their with- drawal of the proposed subsidy, and the basis for a temporary settlement had for the time being disappeared.

From the point of view of the final settlement, however, this third series, of negotiations was important for the modifications which were made in 'the owners' permanent scheme. The owners definitely adopted the Government suggestions regarding the duration of the permanent scheme and the establishment of a National Wages Board; they proposed the establishment of similarly constituted district boards to determine district ques- tions; they accepted a proposal made by the Government that if the rates of wages as fixed under the permanent scheme did not pro- vide a subsistence wage to low-paid day wage workers, additions in the form of allowances per shift worked should be made by the decision of the district wages boards; and they were prepared to guarantee that the miners should receive during the first year of the agreement a minimum percentage addition of 20% to the standard wage as proposed by the owners.

The final period from June 17 to July i was remarkable for the marked changes in the attitude of the executive of the Miners' Federation. On June 18 an invitation was issued to the ex- ecutive committees of all unions affected by wages disputes to meet the miners' executive at the earliest possible date, with the object of taking joint national action with the miners to secure their several demands. The meeting was arranged for June 25. Mean- while the annual conference of the Labour party held at Brighton on June 21-4 showed plainly that no support for extended mili- tant action would be given by other trade unions. The projected meeting of June 25 was therefore abandoned, and the Prime Minister was again approached by the miners' executive with a view to securing a satisfactory wages settlement. Joint negotia- tions between miners and owners were accordingly resumed on June 27, and on the evening of that day it was reported to the Government that an agreement had been reached, upon the assumption that the Government would reopen their offer of a grant of 10,000,000 to the industry. On June 28 the Govern- ment expressed their willingness to subsidize wages as required, during the temporary period, up to a maximum of 10,000,000. The miners' executive then referred the proposed terms to their districts; and their recommendation that the terms should be accepted was indorsed at the district meetings. On July i the final agreement between the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association was signed, the House of Commons voting, on the same day, a subsidy in aid of wages in the form offered by the Government on June 28. Work in the coal mines throughout Great Britain was resumed as rapidly as the circumstances at each colliery permitted.

The agreement largely incorporated the terms of the interim proposals. With regard to the temporary period of three months, it was agreed that the maximum national flat-rate reductions should be 25. per shift in the first month, 2S. 6d. in the second month, and 35. in the third month; and that, in those districts where it was not necessary to enforce the full maximum reduc- tion, the wages payable during the temporary period should be calculated in terms of uniform district flat-rate reductions, and not in terms of basis rates plus percentages. On the other hand, the Government subsidy was now a maximum sum, and any balance not issued in respect of the temporary period of three months was no longer available to ease any further reductions