AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

URTU retreats from legal

24th April 2003, Page 7
24th April 2003
Page 7
Page 7, 24th April 2003 — URTU retreats from legal
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

scrap over !dam pay deal

• Union leaders have decided not to take legal action against Cheshire haulier James Ham & Sons for imposing a pay deal without their agreement.

The United Road Transport Union says enforcing a legallybinding agreement would not produce long-term benefits.

URTU gained recognition at the company, which employs around 400 drivers, following a ballot 18 months ago.

Last summer, lrlam boss David Irlam sidestepped union negotiators by unilaterally imposing a pay rise.

Talks at the conciliation ser

vice ACAS ended in deadlock last month (March), leaving URTU with the option of trying to secure a legally-binding agreement through the Central Arbitration Committee ( CM 1319 March).

But URTU divisional officer Roy Abrahams believes that lawyers would have been the only winners. 'What we all ought to be concerned with is developing a working relationship whereby they recognise that we have a role in representing the views of their employees, and we understand and respect their position of running a corn pany and all the difficulties that go with that."

He adds that the imposed deal was actually higher than that offered during the negotiations. 'We take the view that it would not have been imposed at that level without our involvement."

Pam Thomhill, spokeswoman for James elm & Sons, deckled to comment.

URTU is due to submit a new pay claim to the Cheshire haulier in August. It says the earliest the company can try to force a de-recognition ballot is December 2004.


comments powered by Disqus