Trouble brewing at Southampton docks
Page 4
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'Sensitive' dockers cause problems for hauliers
by CM reporter
A TOUGH line being adopted by dockers at Southampton has created serious problems for hauliers serving the port this week. Major trouble could lie ahead if matters are not resolved soon. One of the first companies to be affected is Southampton Warehousing Ltd which has found its fleet of artic wine tankers in the middle of a rapidly worsening labour relations situation this week.
Southampton Warehousing's vehicles were unable to carry out their traditional ferrying work with tank loads of Martini wine arriving at Southampton from South Africa because of the attitude taken by dockers employed in the port.
The ferrying movement from the dockside to the Martini bonded store a mile away was blocked by dockers on the grounds that such movements within the docks area should be the province of dockers and not the lorry drivers who have undertaken this job—and subsequent road delivery operations, nationwide, for years.
The dockers' attitude is difficult to understand because British Transport Docks Board is said to have no suitable equipment to replace the artic tankers of Southampton Warehousing. There are Tugmasters in the port, but considerable delays are involved if this means of movement is employed.
I understand that one Union Castle Line vessel with a consignment of Martini aboard has been routed to London. Another cargo is said to have been returned to Le Havre, for transfer into road tanker vehicles consigned to Britain.
There is a pipeline under construction to convey the Martini direct from the dockside to the bonded store but this, I gather, will not be completed for several months.
The Southampton dockers' insistence on container vehicles being equipped with twistlocks has again erupted. Vehicles equipped with Klem Klamps, regarded as a viable alternative by many road hauliers, do not commend themselves to Southampton dockers and one vehicle so equipped arriving at the docks from Suffolk recently was turned away. Road hauliers and drivers using the port were incensed by this because the dockers have made much of the risk to the public of container vehicles without adequate fixing devices being on public roads ; in the instance referred to the dockers appeared to have no objection to the vehicle being returned to Suffolk.
Another Southampton firm, Fitters Ltd, of West End, which was formerly able to undertake night shunting work on the docks, has had to incur additional mileage to and from its depot—six miles away—to try to mollify the sensitive dockers.
I understand that the dockers have refused to send representatives to recent meetings of the port's road transport liaison committee.