A.R.O. Chairman Replies to Left wing Statement
Page 48
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Major J. B. Elliott Alleges that "Many of the Material Statements Contained in the Letter are Misleading and Untrue"
AREPLY, dated December 7, has been issued by Major J. B. Elliott, chairman of Associated Road Operators, to the letter circulated by certain left-wing members of the Association. The letter, which urged members not to support the proposed merger with the Commercial Motor Users Association on present terms, and to press for the election of a new A.R.O. National Council, was published in full in The Commercial Motor dated November 27.
"Misleading and Untrue."
"Many of the material statements contained in the letter are misleading and untrue," declares Major Elliott. "It may be here said that Mr. Andrews, chairman of the South Wales Area, has, since the publication of the letter, unreservedly withdrawn his signature, which was given as chairman without his authority, also his support of the views expressed in the letter, as he finds from further information he has received that the circular does not convey the real position.
" Another of the signatories, a member of the National Council, has informed me that he knew when he signed the letter that one of the most material points in it was untrue.
" Many of the statements made in the letter are based upon hearsay and rumour, and the least that might have been done by the National Council members who signed it was to have sought information as to its truth or otherwise from head office.
" I propose now to draw attention to some of the inaccuracies and misleading statements contained in it.
Where is the "Strong Body "?
" It is stated that there is a strong body of opinion in A.R.O. against the amalgamation on its present lines ; that the general feeling in the areas is opposed to any merger with the C.M.U.A. on the lines at present suggested and that area representatives on the National Council are practically solid against a merger on these lines. It requires only one vote over 25 per cent, of the votes cast at the meeting to defeat the resolution for the merger, yet members are anxiously urged to make every effort to vote against it if it is to be defeated.' The signatories to the letter cannot themselves be very convinced as to the strong body of opinion and practically solid feeling of which they speak.
" The signatories are described as ' a large number of A.R.O.'s trusted leaders,' and it is complained that out of a National Council of 47, 17 are
n30
passenger members and eight represent nobody but themselves. What are the facts?
"The National Council consists of 17 passenger, two ancillary, three Scottish and 24 haulier members. Haulier members outnumber the passenger members by half as many again. Ten members signed the statement, of whom only six are members of the National Council, representing about one-eighth of the Council. It now appears that eight more signatories have been added, of whom only three are members of the Council.
Little Council Support.
"Even now, less than one-fifth of
the Council support it. An official statement being sent with the authority of the National Council to all members to-day (December 7) bears 29. signatures, all members of the National Council. Excluding the Scottish members, 70 per cent. of the National Council support the merger to-day on the lines agreed 'so far back as February last.'
" It is complained that, but for the issue of the writ, the members would not have been consulted until after the merger. This is untrue as the agreement which was to have been signed on October 1, setting out the terms of the merger, stipulated that it should not take place unless a 75 per cent. majority vote in its favour had been given by the members at an extraordinary general meeting.
" It should here be noted that Mr. Humphrey Cooke, who was the solicitor to the plaintiffs in the writ, complains in his covering letter that ' notwithstanding ' the extraordinary general meetings being called for the purpose of electing a new National Council, the principal item on the agenda for the second .meeting is the merger. Two members issued a writ seeking an injunction to restrain the merger until the members had been consulted, and now the same two members complain through the same solicitor that the merger is on the agenda for the members to decide.
"It is claimed that the present National Council is stale. It was known by the whole Council, including those members of it who signed the statement, that a new Council should have been -elected in May of this year. In fact, the Council passed by-laws for this purpose and instructions were issued to area secretaries in January to proceed with re-elections, and some areas did so. The re-election of the Council is, however, a three to four months' process, and it was manifestly impossible to continue the merger negotiations, which were at their height in May, while re-election was going on.
"The matter was, therefore, dropped when the merger was taken up. Furthermore, if the members have finally to agree, merger or no merger,' on the lines put before them, does it really matter whether an old or a new Council deals with the details?
"Now, as to the terms that the members 'will doubtless be surprised to learn' are included.
Agreed Last February.
"The name and the appointment of the two principal officers were agreed by the National Council in February, circulated to the areas, and published in "fhe Road Way.' Every member, therefore, knew them. The National Council then included Messrs. Todd, Richardson, H. J. Lloyd, Downer, Pye and Hindley, all signatories to the letter.
"There was only one dissentient, and he was not one of those gentlemen. It is stated that a good deal more information has come into their possession since February which has altered the situation entirely, but the information, if any, is not given.
"The badge was agreed by the joint committee of construction and reported to the National Council in July. No dissentient voice was raised.
"Regarding Mr. Bristow, the letter states that no one can tell you what the new officers' salaries are to be, and yet asserts that Mr. Bristow's appointment is at a high salary. It is pure guesswork.
Mr. Sewill's Post.
" Regarding Mr. Sewill, it is not true that he was to be appointed for one year only. His appointment was to be for a Minimum of one year and then to be reviewed by the National Council of the new body. This was accepted by the National Council and agreed to by Mr. Sewill last March. * " Regarding 'The Road Way,' it has not been decided to discontinue it. It has never been a paying proposition to A.R.O, and the C.M.U.A. contract with a firm of publishers was not entered into while negotiations were in contemplation.
" The next three points deal with the fundamental question of equality of representation in the areas and sections, The same structure as the A.R.O. was to be adopted in the new C.M.U.A. articles and, to give effect to this, it is provided that the agreement for the merger, which was ready for signature on October 1, is null and void unless the consent of the High Court is obtained to the alteration of the C.M.U.A. memorandum to make these fundamental articles unalterable.
"As regards the political adviser, so
far as 1 know, he has never raised any question regkrding his position in the new body. The whole question of a political and propaganda department was agreed by the joint committee of construction to be left to the National Council of the new body.
" It is untrue to say that no one knows what the financial position of the C.M.U.A. is and what reserves it holds. The financial position of each association is known to the proper officers of both associations. Financial disclosure is obviously a fundamental principle of a merger. If nobody knowS, how do the signatories believe A.R.O. have double the finam• cial resources? The A.R.O. membership is not double that of the C.M.U.A., nor oven near double. These statements are wild in the extreme.
Practically every statement in the letter, therefore, has either to be categorically denied or shown to be misleading. But the serious part is this : The •truth should be known to at least the Council members who support the letter, for the majority of them were members of the Council from the inception of the negotiations and at least five of them served on the joint committee of construction, where the details of the merger were dealt with. " Incidentally, members should be warned not to lodge their proxies with area secretaries, as advised in the letter referred to. If they are to be lodged in accordance with legal requirements, they should be deposited at the Head Office of the Association by 2.30 p.m. on Saturday. December 12."
The Editor must repeat the disclaimer published with the earlier letter, namely, that he can obviously accept no responsibility for the accuracy of any claim made by the participants in the merger dispute.