The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-07-12 00:00:00

NEGLECT OF WORK BY COLLIERS.

At the Petty Sessions, yesterday, before Major
Fletcher aim Mr. B. Littlewood, sixty-three
colliers in the employ of Messrs. Samuel Evers
aud Sous, at Homer Hill Colliery, were sum-
moned for neglecting their work on the lith
inst. Mr. Perry appeared to prosecute, suit
Mr. Stokes and Mr. Clulow defended.

Mr. Perry, in his opening remarks, said when
the men entered the service of their employers
the agreement was to give or take 14 days'
notice. The special rules were stuck up on the
211 d inst. The men objected to something in
the rules and called Mr. Foley, the manager's
attention to it. Mr. Foley then distinctly ex-
plained to them that it was to dive them an
opportunity of stating any objection they had.
He also told thew not to be foolish and strike,
but give or take the 14 days' notice. Complain-
ants had only claimed 10s from each man as
compensation, but teat would not at all a ap-
proach the loss they would sustain by the
neglect of service.
Mr. Edward Foley said : I am manager at
Messrs. Samuel Evers and Sons Colliery, Homer
Hill. The rules produced were posted up on
the 2nd inst. the defendants were summoned
and the rules were to give and take 14 day's
notice. In consequence of a message received,
I went and had an interview on thb 3rd inst
with some of the well. On Thursday I saw the
other men. All the men were there, and I asked
them what they wanted,when Joseph Nock said,
" What abont these rules 1" when I told them
they were hung up for them to object or accept,
and should have to report to Mr. Baker, and
told them that they would work under the old
rules for the 14 days'. Win. Phillips said he
could read the rules himself. They left work
and the loss sustained by their neglect of work
would be £5O, and have put it at lOs each man.
. _

-
Cross-examined : I know all the defendants,
and engaged them all at various times. I have
II .) IlleillOrandlitil to show when each man was
engaged. Did not give them a copy of the rules
at the time they were engaged. The damage
would arise in consequence of the pit playing,
and would arise when the men played of their
own accord. On the Monday and Tuesday
this week, they played because some of the
men did not come to work, and made a com•
plaint to my employer. On the Monday and
Tuesday prior to the Saturday some of the men
came to work, but did not work. On the Tuesday
they came to work, but I refused to let them
work because we were doing some repairs.
Commenced on M mday and they were not
finished on the Tuesday. They were working
under the old rules. The latter were hung up in
the pay office. The old rules were not hung up
jel the hovel. The men objected to both of the
rules hung up, and said if they went to work
while the " Local " rules were hung up they
should be bound by them. I told them they
would not be at work under those rules until
they were put in force, and that they would be
sent to Mr. Baker to be approved of or rejected.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clulow : I did not
have any conversation with Westwood or Wm.
Reece, but Reece said that he would not work
unless the local rules were pulled down. On
Thursday, the men did send for me in the
work place, and objected to the local rules.
Mr. Stokes, addressed the Bench for the
defence, and said it was a very serious matter
both for men and masters, and it is necessary
that the best feeling should exist between
masters and men, and that it was not from any
capricious motive that the defendants refused to
go to work ; but they had a bona fide right in
objecting to work under the local rules posted
up, as they were of opinion that it attacked
their rights. And if they had continued to
work under the local rules posted up they would
in a short time become binding upon them. He
would admit that the men did refuse to go to
work on the day in question, on account of the
local rake being posted, and refused to be taken
down by the manager when asked. And he
considered the men had no alternative but to
refuse to work, and that the fact of the men con-
sidering they had a bona fide right in leaving,
and what was done by the men was the only
thing they could do ; and he asked the Bench
to diaraise the case.