AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Coal Board Contract Criticized By Yorkshire Commissioners

15th July 1960, Page 75
15th July 1960
Page 75
Page 75, 15th July 1960 — Coal Board Contract Criticized By Yorkshire Commissioners
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?

AGREEMENTS between the National Coal Board and operators of

miners' contract services were Criticized by the Yorkshire Traffic Commissioners at Leeds last week, when Maj. F. S. Eastwood, chairman, commented: "I am not surprised we hear of strikes, if they handle their other affairs in the same manner."

Mr. Cyril Cadman, Inglemoor Farm, Moorends, near Doncaster. sought to continue. without modification, an express service between Winning• Post Hotel, Moorends, and Bulleroft Colliery—'although his contract had been withdrawn by the N.C.B. Harold Wilson, Ltd., Stainforth, near Doncaster, operating jointly with R. Store, Ltd., and Samuel Morgan. Ltd.: applied, with Board support, for a new licence for the service.

For. Wilson, Store, Morgan and the N.C.B., Mr. J. Evans said that from 1956 to November, 1959, the service had been operated by Cadman undercontract to the N.C.B. It had been run by the joint operators since November. 1959, under shortterra licence, after an approach by the Board. The service conveyed colliery workers on three shifts a day,, and payment to operators was based on weekly mileage.

Writ Issued •

The Board were no longer prepared to accept Cadman because. according them, he had been, and was still:attempting to charge for mileage which he had never operated. Since the matter had boiled up, Cadman had issued a writ against the N.C.B. claiming the money he alleged was due to him. A defence had been entered by the Board, and the action was still pending at Doncaster County Couri.

It was alleged, said Mr: Evans, that during three weeks in October, 1959, Cadman charged the Board for two vehicles totake day-shift men from Thorne to Bullcroft. and for two vehicles to take afternoon shift men out and bring back day-shift workers. On November 8, 1959, an account was received from Cadman for 3,978 miles operated at is. 9d. per mile. This could have been achieved only by the operation of two vehicles.

Mr. George Miley, area wages control officer, N.C.B., said that on November 4, with a Mr. Chapman. he interviewed Cadman at his home to ascertain why no transport had been provided on the morning of October 27 and also why two buses had not been run on the services as scheduled. To the latter question Cadman had replied that one of his buses had been off the road for three weeks. Asked why he bad charged for two buses when only one had been run, Cadman replied: "What I lose on the swings I gain on the roundabouts."

Cross-examined by Mr. F. S. Marshall, for Cadman. witness said that he did not know that Cadman was at the time suing the N.C.B. in respect of the drainage on a farm, of which he was the tenant, which had "caused a lot of sore heads in the Board" for nearly two years. He agreed that Cadman, who was "being accused of obtaining money by false preteaccs," had written to the Board on November 2. to den 'i the accusation and ask for further information.

Mr. John Fuller, industrial relations officer, N.C.B., said_that he had instructed Hiley and Chapman to interview Cadman after hearing of the failure to operate-on October 27. He had reported to his superiors, and Cadman'scontract had been terminated.

Mr. Harry Chapman, clerk with the agreed that he had, on instructions from his superiors, told all operators of the Thorne service that they were not to employ Cadman if they needed a relief bus.

Mr. Marshall: "You and Mr. Hiley were judge and jury on NoVember 4. You tried Cadman in his own backyard and found hirri guilty. You went back and pronounced your finding and it went up and up until he was sacked and blackballed finally."

Mr. Chapman: "Well, that is what did actually happen after the meeting, yes."

In evidence Mr. Cyril Cadman said that he commenced the service in 1956 at the request of the Board, after they had unsuccessfully approached other operators. Since then the Board had given him weekly forecasts of the number of passengers expected. it was his duty to arrange for this number irrespective of how many travelled. Up to October, 1959, he had failed to get the men to work on only one occasion. Mr. Fuller appeared to accept his explanation -at the time. .

On November 4 he was informed that Mr. Hilcy and Mr. Chapman were coming.' to see him'. At the interview he explained that he followed the driver of the firSt bus to the last picking-up point. If all the men had got on that bus, fie had no need to go any farther with his own vehicle. He: turned out two buses each morniag and covered the, driver as far as the last picking-up point, eight miles distant. On some occasions he had turned back and on .others had gone through to ' the colliery.

Answering Mr. Evans, witness admitted that he had not operated the mileage shown in the account, but maintained that he had operated the service in accordance with the agreement.

.. So Badly Organized Told that the operations of Cadman and the joint applicants were not the subject of a formal written contract,' Maj.' Eastwood commented: "Is it so • badly organized? " When Mr. Evans submitted that the operator was entitled to charge only for full journeys, the chairman said "No man. on -earth is going to.'1urn' out a vehicle with a driver at 4,30 a.m. to run eight miles and get no money for_ it."

He recalled Mr. Fuller in connection with a letter written by the Board to Cad-, man in 1956, which, he said, did not set out the amount to be paid, and remarked: "I would not have dreamt that a. nationalized board of this size should send out ridiculous letters supposed to be agreements:

Adjourning the applications for details of the operations of the joint applicants, Maj. Eastwood said: "I do think theBoard are very Much to be complained of in the way they have handled this. It is not even businesslike. I am not surprised we hear of strikes, if they 'handle' their other affairs in the same Manner."