The Oskaloosa herald. (Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa) 1885-1919, 1907-10-24


United Mine Workers OF America,
which is now in effect and governs
the parties to this controversy. In
this agreement find the following
language: 1T is not the intention OF
this provision to encourage the dis
charge of employees or the refusal OF
employment to applicants because of
personal prejudice or activity In the
matters affecting the United Mine
Workers of America. If any employee
shall be suspended or discharged by
the company. and 1t is claimed that an
Injustice has been done him. an ihves-
tigation to be conducted by the par.
ties and in the manner set forth in
resolution No. s." 1t is under the
foregoing agreement that this contro-
yersy has been submitted to arbitra-
ton.
1t is claimed by the Miners Union
that Mr.. Ramsay, the person whose
certificate has been revoked by the
State Mine Inspector and over whom
this controversy arose, has been act
i've in the progress and advancement
of the local organization in the COM
munity of Buxton, and that by his act
ivity in this. respect he has incurred
the dislike of the company and that
the prejudice OH this account is the
moving cause against Ramsay and that
this prejudice is the cause of refusing
to give him employment as a miner
AS to this accusation | have no cyi.
dence to sustain it and will have to
assume that the company, through it's
officers, have taken this stand under
the impression of their rights in the
premises.
This position of shot examiner be-
ing creation of law, no one, as | I'M
derstand it, can assume the duties of
this employment without having first
submitted to an examination under the
supervision of the State Mine lnspec-
tor as a test OF his qualification to be-
come shot examiner. / further un-
derstand that no one is eligible to
present himself for examination ex-
cept miners employed in the mine in
which such shot examiner is to be
employed as such; that after the ex-
the applicant found qualified, and from
among those qualified the company Sc
lects the number, be it one or more,
and takes them from their employment
as miners and assigns them to the
employment as shot examiner as pro-
nj I,., h. n
to this employment by the company
and taken, from his employment as a
miner, may be first-class miner and
give entire satisfaction in that capac-
ity and be failure as shot exam
liner, as | understand from the facts
has proven in this case according to
the decision of the Mine Inspector in
revoking Mr.. Ramsay's certificate and
thus disqualifying him from continu-
ing as shot examiner. Being thus dis
qualified and found incapable, does
this justify the company in dispensing
with his services as a miner? In 9th
err words, is the company justified in
discharging him on account of his
| failure as shot examiner?
1t must be remembered that this
employment as shot examiner was for
the company, and having assumed this
duty of his own choosing, he was re-
quired and the company had right
to demand his best efforts as care
full, prudent man in the exercise of this
dangerous work, and If he failed to
exercise and perform this duty as a
careful, prudent man should do, but
was negligent to the extent that his
certificate was revoked, | would be
inclined, IL this was the only question
in the case. to hold adverse to the
contention of the Miners Union, that
he had an absolute right to be re-
stored to his employment as miner
without regard to his conduct as a
shot examiner. If the person serving
in the capacity of a shot examiner
was impressed with the notion that
he had the right to be employed as a
miner, no matter what his conduct
had been as shot examiner, it might
and perhaps would in some men in
duce them to be careless, knowing
that there was no penalty no matter
what the disaster resulting.
Now in this case it does not appear
that. the company found any fault with
this man as a shot examiner or a
miner of coal in its employ, the sole
ground upon which the company
claims the right to discharge this man
is because the State Mine Inspector
revoked his certificate. This right of
revocation by the Mine Inspector is
not questioned by any of the parties
to this controversy. and there is no
evidence before me as to how or when
the Mine Inspector received the infor-
nation upon which he based his rea-
son for revoking this certificate. am
satisfied in view of existing circum-
stances, and especially in view of the
custom which is claimed to prevail
respecting shot examiners and check
weighmen, and which is not denied by
the company, that this man, Ramsay,
did not lose his right of employment
as miner and that he is entitled to
be so employed.
| wish to say that in my inyestiga-
tion of this question | have been at a