Mexborough and Swinton Times July 19, 1941

Hickleton Hitch

Company Reply to Men’s Version

On Sunday members of the Hickleton Main branch of the Yorkshire Miners’ Association will meet to Warder the recommendation of the Pit Production Committee that Hickleton shall fall into line with other D.A.C. pits, and during the war period in the event of a fatality shall continue at work with the consequent payment by the Company and contributions by the men to the dependants.

The Pit Production Committee consists of representatives of the men and the management, and it is understood that the men’s representatives will support the recommendation at Sunday’s meeting, though of course the final decision rests with the men. Last week-end a statement was issued by the Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd., in reply to the outline of events leading to the stoppage of the previous week-end contained in a statement by Mr. W. M. Starkey. Hickleton Y.M.A. branch secretary, which was quoted in our last issue.

The Company pointed out that the agreement over which the misunderstanding occurred was signed on March 29th, 1929, and stated that when a fatal accident occurred before noon the pit would play for the rest of the day, and in the case of one occurring in the afternoon or an injured man dying before midnight, the Pit would play on the following day. The statement added that notification of the death of the workman injured on July 4th was not received by the Colliery until Saturday morning. ”

Apparently a number of colliers had heard of the death of the injured workman and 136 refused to work on Saturday morning. The remainder of the men worked.” The decision taken at Sunday’s branch meeting that no one should work on Monday was “obviously illegal,” according to the Company’s statement, which added that the agreement definitely stated that the following day (the one succeeding the fatality), should be the play day, and the resolution meant that the branch selected as the play day a shift over 64 hours after the fatality.

The Company denied any charge of refusing to honour the agreement and added that it would have been a very patriotic gesture on the part of the men if they had taken the opportunity of continuing at work and giving the dependants the benefit of the agreement which was under consideration (i.e., that referring to payment of £5O to dependants instead of playing