Should Contracts Influence Licence Grants?
Page 48
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
QHOULD the existence of agree Ps-) ments, or contracts, proper12 drawn up between hauliers--whethe they haul goods or passengers—hi allowed to influence Licensini Authorities, or Traffic Commissioners in granting licences? This questiol has cropped up within the past fey weeks in two traffic areas—the Wes Midland and the Metropolitan areas Mr. John Else, the West Midlanc
Licensing Authority, as reported exclu sively in The Commercial Motor Ins week from Birmingham, bluntly told thi National Union of Mineworkers that would not be dictated to in deciding Whc should be licensed among the mans operators in the area wanting to cam
miners'. allowance coal.
These disputes, I understand, come ur with 'a fair amount of regularity and, nc doubt feeling more than a little fec up with the squabbles that take place within his court room, Mr. Else told al parties concerned to get some commonsense into the problem.
It seems that the miners are entitled tc 12 cwt. of free coal a month. This hm to be collected in bulk from the collier) .d there is, apparently,-keen competiiti aritimg local hauliers 16 do the . .
Because of complaints of short-weight :liveries (and short: weight • there is nand to be when the 12 cwt. delivered a. collier's home is only ": judged" and it weighed when it is Off-loaded) the cal branch of the Mineworkers Union ..pped in and, at a meeting at which ily 150. members attended out of a ernbership of 1,860, they decided who ould in future carry the coal. They vitedthe haulier concerned to sign a mtract specifying, among other things, at the coal would be weighed into cwt: bags on the colliery premises :fore the vehicle passed through the des; that scales should be carried, and her things too.
The Union then, before the haulier in iestion (a .." newcomer ") was even :ensed to do the work, had decided who [mild do . their work. Other local tubers naturally objected to the appliAloft.
At the inquiry, Union officials as well members gave evidence supporting the )plicant. Asked by Mr. Else :how they mid stop other licensed hauliers from srying .the coal; if they were asked . to ) so, the reply: came: "In. cohjunction ith the management we would like to op them. The National Coal Board ill do ,that." No wonder Mr. Else was xtiirbed.
It si) happened that Mr. Else granted e licence. But he Made it abundantly ear that the reason was becatise he 'nod there was, a: real need, and not :cause of any contract between the irties.• Two vehicles had been taken off te road by another haulier who was not )w in the -business, and evidence was yen of an increase soon tO take place the • number -Of mineworkers to be nplOyed at the colliery the near Mire:. This was the reason. Mr.-Else ressed, for. the grant.
The,case in the Metropolitan area conred aseriek of express services :tween London and Luton Airport. illside Coaches, Ltd., Charles Rickard -ours), Ltd., Samuelson New Transport a., and Seamarks Brothers, Ltd., were
involved in applications and objecons, and counter applications and )jections, in connection with the new rport which Luton Corporation are weloping as an alternalive to the
ondon and Gatwick airports. . Passengers using the airport have to be handled" before they board coaches in ondon for conveyance to Luton." In Lis particular case a contract had been -awn up between one of the operators id the "air handling company" for the tchisive right to deal with the passentrs.
-The end of the story cannot yet be Id because the Commissioner. Mr. . I. ,R. Muir, has reserved his decision. ut. again, the question will presumably
faced—should the existence of a Attract between the parties be allowed influence the granting of a licence?