Rosewood History

The Lowfield Colliery

Queensland Times (Ipswich, Qld), Wednesday 20 May 1925, page 6

A NEW MINE. A new tunnel has been opened up a couple of hundred yards from Westvale by Messrs. W. G. F. and H. N. Wass. who have had previous experiece of coal mining in the district, and it has been named Lowfield Colliery. The brothers sank a shaft and discovered coal in August last, and in October they commmenced the business of getting coal from the tunnel which had been sunk in tihe meantime. Their production at present is about five tons a day, and this is drawn from the tunnel by horse power, but the mine is still in its infancy. As trade is procured, and further development takes place, it is hoped that a colliery of much greater proportions will be established. At present, only the three brothers are engaged. in the work of getting coal. They have sent coal to Brisbane and to the Ipswich gas works, and have had favourable reports as to its quality. The seam they are working on at present is about 53 feet deep vertical, and it contains a band of stone about nine inches thick, which is easily picked out. Three bords are being worked, and there is room for two others to be worked from the present tunnel. The trial shaft has demonstrated that there is another good seam of coal at 77 feet, but the brothers came across a big supply of water at that depth, and it was thought wise to work on the higher seam for the present. The coal is taken by means of a motor lorry to the Rosewood railway station.

________________________________________________________

Queensland Times (Ipswich, Qld.), Friday 10 June 1938, page 9

£5 FINE IMPOSED. Coal Mining Breach.
ROSEWOOD SUMMONS COURT.
Pleading Guilty to a charge of having committed a breach of the Coal Mining Acts, William Wass, Manager of the Lowlield Colliery, was fined £5., with 6/ costs of Court, in the Rosewood Summons Court yesterday.

Mr. G. A. Cameron, P.M., presided. Mr. T. Sharp, Inspector of Mines, charged defendant with having committed a breach of Section 80 (1) of the Coal Mining Acts of 1925-30 in that at Lowfield Colliery, near Rosewood, he drove a winding engine by means of which persons or materials were drawn up, down, or along a shaft, pit, or inclined plane or level in a coal mine without holding the necessary winding licence applicable to such winding engine, and further that he was then Manager of the colliery.

Plaintiff, who appeared, was represented by Mr. A. D. Finn, barrister, from the Crown Law Office. Defendant, who also attended, pleaded “Guilty” to the charge.

Outlining the facts of the case, Mr. Finn said on February 10 Inspector Sharp saw defendant on the surface at Lowfleld Colliery, where he was engaged in driving a winding engine. The engine was a petrol motor for which a special driving licence was required. Mr. Sharp said to defendant: “You are still driving that engine, Bill.” Defendant replied in the affirmative and added that his son, Roy,. who had a licence to drive, had just gone underground, and defendant was carrying on the work until he returned. On November 16, 1937, the Inspector also had visited the mine, and on that occasion he had found defendant driving the engine. He had spoken to him about it. On June 3, in the same year, Mr. Sharp visited Lowfield, and on that occasion he found an employee, who did not possess the necessary certificate, driving the winding gear. While the Inspector was dressing preparatory to going underground, the man who was driving left his post to go below and defendant took over the control of the motor. Prior to this, Wass had been warned against driving without a licence. He was told then that the engine must be driven only by a man holding a certificate for that class of work.

It was over 16 months, went on Mr. Finn, since defendant’s attention was drawn to this breach. Since then, defendant’s son had obtained a licence entitling him to operate the engine. “It seems,” added Mr. Finn, “that he is the only one who does not drive it.” He pointed out that the section of the Act dealing with this class of offence provided that in the case of a Mine Manager, a maximum fine of £50 should be imposed, and in the case of an ordinary employee it was up to £20.

IGNORANCE OF BREACH.
Defendant, in a statement, said he was in the Inspector’s office on Tuesday. On that occasion, he stated, the Inspector told him if he pleaded “Guilty” to the charge no solicitor would appear for the department. He added that he had been told by the Inspector if a person holding a certificate to drive winding gear usually was engaged on the work, he (defendant) could drive on other occasions. When Mr. Sharp visited the colliery on February 10 defendant was driving the engine, but he did not understand that he was committing a breach. When the Inspector asked him if he still was driving the engine, defendant told him that his son had a “ticket” for the work, but the young man went underground when anything was wrong in the mine. “When it suits them their word is not worth the breath it is spoken with,” commented defendant. “I am not out wilfully to disobey the law. Everyone, I do not care who he is, has to break the law sometimes.”

The Magistrate: Mr. Finn says you were spoken to on two previous occasions.

Defendant: I do not think the plant was in use on those occasions. It was there but it was not being used.

Mr. Finn said when the Inspector went to the mine in February he found defendant driving the engine. If an accident occurred, unfair criticism would be levelled at the department. The department did not want defendant to allow the engine to be driven by anyone other than a licence holder.

Defendant said Lowfield was a small mine. and men could not be allowed to remain idle. The Railway Department continually sent memos to managers telling them that the coal must be kept clean, and, therefore, men could not be allowed to be idle.

Mr. Finn: The Inspector tells me that at no time has he told defendant that one man holding a licence at the colliery is sufficient to allow others to drive the winding gear on occasions. The breach has been going on for so long; that is what the department is concerned with.

The Magistrate: Cases have come under my notice where accidents have happened with this kind of gear, and so it is necessary to have certificate holders on these jobs where life and property are at stake. Defendant: I do not think the Inspector would say that there was any carelessness or mismanagement with it.

Mr. Finn: If defendant is a competent man, why does he not apply for a licence?

The Magistrate: I must take into consideration the fact that a warning was given on three previous occasions. There has been a certain amount of flouting of the law.

Defendant was fined £5. with 6/costs of Court; in default, 10 days’ imprisonment. Defendant asked for a fortnight in which to pay, and his application was granted.

ANOTHER ACTION ADJOURNED.
In another action the same defendant is charged by the Industrial Inspector, Mr. T. J. Metcalfe, with having committed a breach of the Coal and Shale Mining Industries’ Award, in that, being an employer, bound by the award, he paid an employee, George Sleaford, aged 19 years, whom he employed as a labourer at the mine, a lower rate of wages than that prescribed by the award for work done by Sleaford during ,the week ended Saturday, January 22.

Metcalfe, who did not appear, applied for an adjournment for a month in this case. Defendant said he had no objection to an adjournment being granted.

The case was adjourned to the next sitting of the Court in Rosewood, on July 14.

________________________________________________________

27th September 1948 – Forty miners at Lowfield No. 2 mine, Rosewood, have ceased work on a demand for increased amenities and improved working conditions. Miners at the face have objected to double wheeling of full skips for a distance of 80 yards, which is claimed to be unprecedented in Australian mines. This dispute is the first in the Rosewood district for many years.