AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

letters

18th June 1971, Page 68
18th June 1971
Page 68
Page 68, 18th June 1971 — letters
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?

Dispute about a dispute

Perhaps your article on page 22 of CM June 11 "Labour Relations Round-up" by John Darker, should have read: "Attacking the inions"; or is it just my own union; or is it just personal attack on yours truly?

Whether Mr Darker was complaining about me as a trade union officer or as an amateur journalist is a moot point I cannot remember ever crossing Mr Darker, or even meeting him.

I was under the impression that, whilst papers for syndicates of papers) had different points of view and entered into dissent via editors' viewpoint and articles, "dog did not eat dog''.

Perhaps I could have the opportunity to go over the points Mr Darker mentions. His allegation that I am at variance with employers, worries me not at all. I would rather have that reputation than boast how many lunches I have had with employers, which seems to be the norm with some other union officers.

This was not impartial reporting, as at no time did Mr Darker ask myself or any other union officer the other side of the story. At no time has he contacted the conciliation officers of the Department of Employment for their point of view. This leaves the "unbiased reporting" of Mr Darker's open to question.

The figment of his imagination reaches its climax in the paragraph that states there was no discussion before the commencement of the strike at Harrison's of Dewsbury. The men, four and the shop steward, were sacked, without any negotiation. The rest struck in sympathy. It was only then that the union was called in.

It is a complete untruth that a meeting had been arranged "by local management" before the "blacking" of Onward Transport, by our brothers in the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Amalgamated' Union of Engineering Workers, The company would not go to arbitration or conciliation before this "blacking" took place.

For some years I was blacklisted by the employers in this area, and I contributed my views to CM under the name of "Truckie". With this in mind I spoke strongly at a meeting some months ago in favour of keeping contacts open with Commercial Motor.

The trade union movement is under attack at the present moment from a number of sources. However, the technical Press turning on us is a new form of attack. No doubt the movement will overcome people like Mr Darker as it has overcome other biased people in the past.

Perhaps Mr -Darker could look into his crystal ball and tell us about this "mysterious agreement" that Harrison's of Dewsbury had for nine weeks, until they failed to produce it to the chairman of the conciliation panel,

The only thing on which I agree with Mr Darker is his proposal for regional conferences between the RHA, PTA Department of Employment, and trade unions. However, if employers still take their instructions from the present Tory Government, then I feel these meetings will develop into nothing more than a talking shop.

Referring to Mr Darker's final paragraph regarding bad feeling between myself and the RHA in Manchester; this is the result of the Road Haulage Association refusing to negotiate with me, and the "secret" meetings they have which result in these so-called "mysterious agreements" which Harrison's via the RHA allege that / signed. The fact remains that I have not yet seen this document, nor as previously stated, were the company able to produce this "agreement".

What employers tell Mr Darker I cannot be held responsible for, but perhaps the next battle I have, the employers might engage Mr Darker as their advocate.

JOHN W. STEVENSON, United Road Transport Union, Manchester. !John Darker writes: -I am at a loss to

understand why Mr Stevenson should construe my comments as a personal attack upon him or indeed upon his trade union. It is a travesty of the situation, in my view, for him to imply that 1, or Commercial Motor, or the technical Press, is 'turning on us in a new form of attack'. A journalist would be failing in his duty if he did not report a marked variance between a report of a dispute in a union journal and the view of the affected employer. The journalist must take the position of a neutral observer—neither pro-union nor pro-employer. When both sides to a dispute feel so differently about its causes, an observer could justifiably feel that underlying causes have not been dealt with satisfactonly".—Ed1


comments powered by Disqus