AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

VOLUNTARY PAY AGREEMENT PLAN TO R.H.A. COUNCIL?

10th April 1964, Page 32
10th April 1964
Page 32
Page 32, 10th April 1964 — VOLUNTARY PAY AGREEMENT PLAN TO R.H.A. COUNCIL?
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?

FROM OUR INDUSTRIAL CORRESPONDENT

THE Road Haulage Association on Monday moved a step nearer its declared policy of trying to establish voluntary pay and conditions negotiations between B.R.S., and the unions. There had earlier been one or two exploratory meetings with the three unions concerned (the Transport and General Workers, United Road Transport Workers, and Scottish Horse and Motormen). On Monday the first of a more formal series of meetings was held.

Officially, the R.H.A. says: ".Nothing definite came of this very informal meeting."

However, I understand that, in fact, it was decided to hold another meeting after the R.H.A. national council meets on May 13, when they will be asked to approve the setting-up (if possible) of voluntary machinery.

There are so many ifs and buts attached to this matter that it would be unwise to read into it the end of the Road Haulage Wages Council—at least for several years yet. It is, indeed, by no means certain (I would judge) that the 140-strong national council will approve the idea.

No doubt the larger concerns would be in favour, but many smaller operators might be less happy. And on the national council you get just one vote, whatever your size. In any case, it is such a big step that the council might well hesitate to take it.

Another imponderable in this matter is the union position, the predominant voice being that of the T.G.W.U. According to the R.H.A. secretary-general, Mr. G. K. Newman, there is some reason to believe the unions might support such a set-up. But would they? They have nothing to lose by talking with the R.H.A.; but this should not be taken to imply agreement with the R.H.A. aims. I would guess the unions to be much happier with the present wages set-up whereby they play off one agreement (B.R.S.) against another (R.H. Wages Orders).

There is little doubt, I think, that most employers—including B.R.S.—would prefer to have just one body negotiating for everyone. But can the R.H.A. convince the unions of the association's ability to enforce on its members any voluntary agreement arrived at? It has no statutory power of compulsion upon members about anything—least of all wages.

Can the R.H.A., indeed, show any way in which it could enforce such agreements on the one-third of the haulage industry (not all of whom are small-sized concerns) who are not R.H.A. members? Of course, they cannot do so.

The R.H.A. is not propounding any new theme; indeed, they are not so claiming. There has been talk of setting up such a body for years. Other industries have got rid of unwanted statutory wages councils. Usually voluntary machinery is set up and the wages council used only to rubber-stamp the decision. Then, after some years, it can be proved to the Minister of Labour that the wages council is redundant. He will then wind it up and vest the statutory powers in the new, voluntary body.

That, briefly, is the commendable theory. But what of the actual practice? This is, I fear, just the first step down a very long and winding road.

Consider B.R.S., for instance. Even assuming that they desire such an overall body, can anyone honestly imagine them going out of their way to seek new avenues of co-operation with the R.H.A. at this precise moment in history. An election is looming, the R.H.A. is about to advertise publicly against nationalization, and in its policy statement (issued last month) the association did not always draw the happiest of comparisons with B.R.S.

Just as a final, random thought—has anyone yet thought about the C-licensee, who generally speaking has to follow the pattern of Aand B-licence wages and conditions agreements? At the moment I fancy the Traders Road Transport Association would be horrified if drawn into discussions. But if the R.H.A. drew nearer the body they have in mind, the T.R.T.A. might well start making interested noises. And I don't suppose the unions would like to have national negotiations on C-licence pay.


comments powered by Disqus