John Masterton (1837-1908)
Miner
John Masterton, together with David Izatt (possibly his son-in-law), challenged the practice of deduction of payment for coal hewn by the miners contracted on the basis of a fixed sum per full hutch (the container used to transport coal from the coal-face to the surface). It appears that the coal company made deductions on the basis of the quality of coal contained in the hutch. Despite the Sheriff's closing words that day, eventually, standard practice in collieries changed so that every hutch was weighed, and the miners themselves clubbed together and paid for a "checkweighman" to observe the weighman employed by the colliery owners and verify the accuracy of the weight measured. Mutual trust was never fully established between miners and mine-owners.
Genealogy
John Masterton was the third of nine children born to George Masterton, labourer, born in Cramond, and Frances Shaw of Dunfermline. This places him as part of the large group of Mastertons that orginated in Cramond and Kirkliston. George's parents were James Masterton and Jean Gilbert who had been married in 1794 in Cramond, Midlothian. A fuller genealogy of the extended family of John Masterton can be found at this link
.In the Dunfermline Sheriff Court yesterday, before Sheriff Gillespie, David Izatt and John Masterton, miners, Lassodie, sued the Lassodie Coal Company for 4s. 41/2d., being the amount of wages due to pursuers for alleged illegal deductions made on the hutches of coal sent up from No. 4 pit, Lassodie, during the fortnight from 28th June to 4th July. Mr Kennedy, advocate, Edinburgh, contended on behalf of the pursuers that according to the Mines Regulation Act, if a miner sent up a hutch from the pit properly filled, the employers were not entitled to make any deduction, and that it was illegal to do so even though it was the custom of the colliery. The pursuers had given the usual fourteen days' notice that they would not allow standing deductions to be made, and that they were to be paid for every properly filled hutch. The Sheriff - Dross is coal scientifically, but not of the same commercial value as big coal. Mr Kennedy - A miner can easily fill a hutch properly without dross. The Sheriff - But was it done in this case? The defenders deny it. Mr Kennedy said the employers had no right to strike a general average for the work of the whole miners in each pit, but that they ought to take each man's work individually. Mr Ross, solicitor, Dunfermline, for the defenders, stated that the men were parties to the standing deduction of 1/2 cwt. on each hutch. It was part of their contract, and the masters refused to alter the conditions of employment for the pursuers. The Sheriff said the miners were warranted in trying to get higher wages, but he would advise them to try and get it in money, because he did not think it would benefit either the masters or the miners to have each hutch weighed. He would consider the case.
The Scotsman
5th September, 1883