Solving Some Tricky Wages Problems
Page 21
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By &TA.
Difficulties which Have Arisen in Interpreting R.H.2: Normal Loading, Agricultural Workers' Overtime Rates in Particular Circumstances, and the Guar anteed Week Mistaken Impressions that Need Correcting: Solutions of a Number of Difficulties that are Puzzling Operators in a Wide Variety of Spheres of Transport
THERE is nothing very complicated about the wording of the Road Haulage Wages Order, R.H.2. As Government publications of its kind go, it is quite a simple document. That does not mean, however, that it is fully understood by every operator, for such is not the case.
In all my 20 years of experience in dealing with hauliers' inquiries, I have never had such floods of letters to answer as have reached me during the period which has elapsed since the coming into force of this Order. Even the simplest of its clauses have required explanation. On the other hand, there are many which are capable of dual interpretation and need clarification.
• Defining Vehicle Capacity • Of the simpler provisions, that which is most often overlooked is the one which defines the capacity of the vehicle. Many operators are still under the impression that the unladen weight is the basis for classification. That is entirely wrong. Vehicles are classified, for purpose of wage assessment, according to carrying capacity. This capacity is the load normally carried by the vehicle. That is to say, if it usually carries five tons, then that is its classification even if, occasionally (but not too frequently), it carries six tons.
In Grade 1, 2 and 3 areas, but not in London, if the load normally carried exceeds 3i tons, the basis of classification is the gross laden weight. Moreover—and again the London area is excepted—the load on a vehicle and trailer must be taken together in assessing the capacity.
Now, an obvious difficulty arises here—the case of a vehicle which, on some days of the week, runs solo and on other days hauls a trailer. For some da.ya, therefore, its gross laden weight does not exceed 12 tons and the statutory wage, in a Grade 1 area, is 68s. On the other days the gross weight exceeds 12 tons and the statutory wage is 73s. The proportion of use, with and without the trailer, is so even that there is no way of deciding which is the normal. Presumably, the solution of this problem is to pay the driver according to actual use, that is to say, on the basis of 73s. per week for the hours worked with a trailer and 68s. per week for the rest of the time That, however, is only my interpretation. The Order gives no certain guide.
The problem does not, however, end there,. for the question of overtime may arise. Suppose the driver works 56 hours per week, of which 28 are with trailer and 28 without. On what basis is his overtime pay to be calculated? Should he be paid on the 73s. rate, and receive 13s. W., or on the 68s. rate and be paid 12s. 9d. for his overtime? Here, again, the probable solution is to split the difference; but that may not please everyone.
• Load-assessment Difficulty • For a really difficult problem of load assessment take this one. An operator engaged in parcels carrying has a fleet of vehicles of various load capacities, each of which, usually, is allocated to a particular route. In all eases, as is the practice in this branch of haulage, each driver is kept, so far as possible, to one route. There are four typical vehicles: A, capacity 3i tons;' B, 30 cwt.; C,2 tons; and D, 30 cwt. They normally run on routes 1, 2. 3 and 4.
Sometimes, especially at the commencement of a week, there is insufficient traffic to justify putting all the vehicles on the road, and the expedient is adopted of setting one vehicle to do the work of two. The driver of, say, a 30-cwt. machine may -find himself in charge of one which carries, for that day, si tons.
Now, according to the wording of the Act, the normal loading of the vehicle driven is 30 cwt., and the statutory wage should, therefore, be 60s. 6d. in a Grade I area. It is most unlikely, however, that the driver will be content, on the days when he carries 3.. tons and is entitled to be paid at 65s. 6d. per week, to receive only at the rate of 60s. 6d.
My own solution of that particular problem was to recommend payment according to the load carried, that is to say, at the rate of 65s. 6d. for the hours during which the heavier vehicle was being Operated, and at 60s. 6d, for the rest of the time.
I am by no 'theanS sure, however, that, in so , doing, the operator is complying with the law. A safer method might he to put the inen on day rates, but there may be administrative objections to that course.
• The Effect of Strikes • Quite a storm has been raised in some quarters by the clause (para. 5) relating to the suspension of the guaranteed week, especially in reference to sub paragraph (b), dealing with strikes. I must give the precise wording of that paragraph, for that is important. It states that the suspension may take place
" where the employer is unable to carry on his business by reason of a strike or lock-out, provided that not less than four clays' notice of such inability be given to the worker."
Now, that may be, and has been, interpreted to mean that if the workers, i.e., drivers, go on strike, then the employer must give not less than four days' notice that he has no work for them, or, in Other words, pay them for four days from the time they refuse to take out their vehicles.
I have it on good authority that such interpretation is incorrect. It is meant that such notice must be given in the event of a strike in a business other than that of the haulier himself, which will involve him' in loss of traffic and, thus, compel him to lay up his vehicles. That is no great hardship, as it is rare for strikes of any consequence to occur without a week or usually a fortnight's notice. Similar objection has been raised to sub paragraph (a) in the same clause, relating tO climatic conditions, such as snow, floods, or ice, which preclude vehicle operation. It has been pointed out that, in such circumstances, the worker may be away from his home depot when the snow falls and be unable to return to his home depot. It is specifically stated that 24 hours' notice must be given to the worker at his home depot. The employer is thus compelled to continue to pay men who, through no fault of the employer, are not working.
My personal opinion here is that the hardship cuts both ways. Moreover, the occasions when all the unfavourable conditions arrive together are so rare as to make the objection one which is comparatively
• The Case of the Milk Worker •
The milk worker is providing quite a lot of fun for those in the industry who have nothing better to do than to solve puzzles. Paragraph 53 of R.H.2 defines a milk worker as " a regular worker engaged on seven days a week exclusively in the collection of milk from farms and its delivery to dairies."
What importance is to be attached to the word " exclusively" in the above definition? Does the fact that a milk worker, at some time during the week, drives a vehicle conveying traffic other than milk debar him from the description? If so, he cannot be called upon to work on Sundays for less than a wage at the rate of time-and-a-half. I cannot believe that such was the intention of those who drew up the Order.
• Pay of Sundry Milk Workers •
Again, there appears to be no need to pay a milk worker at more than time-and-a--quarter on Sundays, no matter how long he may work on that day. Paragraph 1 (e) states that a milk worker shall be paid at the rate of time-and-a-quarter for the first six hours worked on a Sunday. The natural inference is that, after those six hours, he will be assumed to be working Sunday time and he paid time-and-a-half.
But, if reference be made to paragraph 10 (a) it will be seen that overtime for milk workers on Sunday is to be at the rate of time-and-aquarter. I have answered questions on this point by recommending that, after the first six hours, the men be paid at the rate of time-and-a-half, but that is only my own opinion. I may he quite wrong and it may have been intended that they should be paid no more than time-and-a-quarter. Thus, R.H.2 is no more a guide
to this than it is to the next problem, which also relates to milk workers. Paragraph 1 (d) reads:— " Workers to whom the Grade 3 rates apply, and who are engaged exclusively in hauling from a farm in a Grade 3 locality to any place within a Grade 3 locality agricultural produce originating from the farm, may be paid 10 per cent. less than the appropriate Grade 3 rate of wages. . . ."
It would appear, from this paragraph, that a milk worker hauling from a farm in a Grade 3 area to a dairy also within a Grade 3 area should be classed as an agricultural worker and paid accordingly. Once again, however, that word " exclusively" crops up and seems to destroy the whole purpose of the clause, in so far as it applies to milk workers, presuming, of course, that it was meant so to apply, and I am informed that it does, for few indeed of these milk workers who operate within a Grade 3 area are exclusively engaged upon that work.
It seems to me that the word " exclusively " should be deleted from both these paragraphs and the word "mainly substituted. substituted.
• When is a Vanguard Not a Vanguard? •
What is a "vanguard "? When does he cease to be a vanguard and become a " mate "? We are all of us quite clear in our own minds what we mean by the word, which conjures up a picture of a pert youth swinging on a rope at the back of a parcels-delivery van and, obviously, little concerned with the cares of his guardianship. But what does R.H.2 mean by the term? What about this case, for example?
A firm operates 6-tonners which, in the ordinary course of events, carry a driver only, no mate. To meet the requirements of one particular customer, however, a second -man is taken when carrying for that client. For the sake of economy, and because this " mate " serves no really useful purpose, a youth is employed. Is he a vanguard, or is he a mate as implied in the first paragraph of the Order?
I have said that he is a vanguard, provided that he is under 18 years of age, but that he is a mate, and entitled to the statutory rate of pay for mates, if he be over that age. There is a chance, however, that a vanguard may be accepted as such if he be under 21 years of age. The wording of the paragraph relating to this matter is "Attendants (18 and under 21 years of age) other than workers employed as vanguards."
• Waiting Time Troubles •
Here is another problem, of particular interest to livestock hauliers, but also of concern to operators who work into docks, or under conditions which involve long periods of waiting time for both vehicles and drivers.
The practice, in peace-time at any rate, is for livestock to be collected from the farms in the early morning and taken to the markets. There both vehicles and drivers wait, sometimes for as long as two or three hours, for delivery instructions.
The question which arises is to what extent is this waiting time to be treated as working time, both for the computation of wages due and the guaranteed week? This problem has not arisen before, because it has been the habit of such operators to pay their men a standard wage, regardless, in the main, of the hours worked per week.
I have replied to this and similar questions that if, during the waiting time, the men be required to be in attendance on the vehicle, or within call at any moment during the waiting time, then they are deemed to be working and must be paid accordingly. Meal times only may be excluded from the total of hours worked, during the day.
• More Problems Next Week •
The foregoing are some of the problems arising from R.H.2. There is another set of a somewhat different description and with those I hope to deal in a subsequent article.
Meantime, there is this tailpiece, a problem of my own which I would like the Wages Board to consider in all seriousness. What, if any, is the usefulness of the clause imposing a higher rate of wages in cases where the vehicle works into a highergraded area? Or, more precisely, what harm would be entailed if there were no such clause? t
If it be deleted there would be saved a good deal of complication and heart-burning, out of all proportion, in my humble opinion, to any more or less imaginary loss which operators in the higher-graded areas would suffer.