AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

N.A.F.W.R. Conference

20th May 1955, Page 35
20th May 1955
Page 35
Page 35, 20th May 1955 — N.A.F.W.R. Conference
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?

Should Removers Have • Set Price Schedule?

SHOULD members of the National Association of Furniture Ware. housemen and Removers have a tinifoiTn price schedule to which all would be bound to adhere, or should the revised recommended rates compiled by the removals costing committee be regarded only as a guide?

This question (writes Alan Smith) was in the minds of members of the Association at their annual conference at Bournemouth on Tuesday, when Mr. W. Isard, committee chairman. explained how the suggested schedule was made up.

Because many operators were now using vans with light-alloy bodies, he said, depreciation was spread over 10 years, instead of five. Repainting was treated as a standing charge, instead of a running cost, as the mileage run by a van did not affect the incidence of this item.

Wages of drivers and foremen were averages between London and Grade 1 area rates, whereas wages of other staff were averages between London and Grade 2. This was because drivers and foremen worked in the " higherpaid " areas more often ' than other staff.

Labour Costs Varied

Vehicle operating costs, Mr. 1sard contended, did not vary much among members, but labour costs did. He emphasized the need for close recording of vehicle and labour costs and suggested a basis for calculating an employee's productive working hours.

This was to take 48 weeks' work a year. which allowed for holidays and absences, and 40 hours' productive work out of 44 hours a week. This gave a total of 1,920 hours a year. This figure was divided into the man's annual wages, plus other payments, to give the labour cost per man per hour.

The schedule applied only to local removals. It was impossible to recommend rates for long-distance work, partly because the incidence of return loads was beyond assessment.

Mr. Isard declared that if enforced adherence to stipulated rates were to become part of Association policy, it would not be unreasonable to expect any member to keep to a local Price agreement if he wished to enjoy the protection that 'the N.A.F.W.R. offered.

Replying to demands by delegates that the schedule be widely adopted and that price-cutters be exposed, Mr. G. Evan Cook, president, reminded them that there were many reputable removers who were not members. They should be encouraged to join and abide by the schedule.

Mr. L. 0. Woodbridge told the conference that until the British Gaernment were prepared to grant A or B licences to foreign operators to run vehicles into this country, it would be almost impossible to carry loads to Continental destinations in one vehicle all the way, because Continental Governments wanted reciprocal condi tions if they were to allow British vehicles into their countries.

Direct operation in such a manner would be more expensive than present container methods, but customers might, be willing to pay extra for its advantages. Articulated vehicles were probably best for this kind of work.

Another drawback, Mr. Woodbridge alleged, was that the British and French State Railway ferry services were adverse to carrying laden goods vehicles, the loads of which could be taken to their destination by rail, and had, in fact, a mutual agreement to prevent it.

Mechanical and technical difficulties had been largely overcome by the Geneva Agreement on International Road Transport, signed in March, 1954, and road traffic between Continental countries was run on job permits issued on a quota basis. The Government's attitude, however, impeded development, although a Channel tunnel might bring a change of outlook.

Delegates were not enthusiastic about reciprocal operation between British and Continental carriers.

Mr. H. Cecil Lewis, Southern Regional National Savings Commissioner, gave details of two new National Savings schemes intended to appeal to employers who had no superannuation or pension arrangements for their workers.

With one scheme, an employee saved voluntarily and regularly, and the employer supplemented his savings with payments up to 10 per cent. of the man's wages, or £100 a year, whichever was less. Funds saved were managed by trustees. If a man left his job his employers were not necessarily bound to give him the monies allotted by them to his account.

The rules.of the second scheme were broadly similar, except that the employer's contribution was 5s. a week, or equal to the employee's savings, whichever was less. Whereas the first scheme was chosen to provide retirement benefits, the second was intended primarily for short-term workers. The employer's contributions were not taxable and could be counted as a trading expense.

Mr. C. A. Davis. solicitor to the Association. raised the matter of increasing the £10 limit of liability in the N.A.F.W.R. standard form of contract. The railway limit was now £30. The existing N.A.F.W.R. limit was fixed 30 years ago. Was it not time, he asked, to bring it into line with present-day values of money?

A maximum limit referring to complete loads might also be laid down in the contract. The £10 limit applied only to single pieces or. packages.

Employees Might be Liable

Servants of a company were not parties to a contract between the company and a customer, and employees might be liable to payment of damages arising out of their own negligence. Mr. Davis thought that the standard contract might be amended to indemnify employees against their own negligence.

Mr. E. B. Haynes was one of the

minority of delegates who supported an increase in the limit. He proposed a sum of £25. There was a general feeling that the growing custom of insuring individual jobs removed the question of limiting the contractor's liability.

Mr. Davis further pointed out that an increase in the contractor's liability would benefit the insurers if a payment for damages had to be made.

Mr. P. E. Stoffel (Bray, Gibb and Co., Ltd.), insurance consultant to the Association, said that he did not think that any insurance company would risk its reputation by suing an employee to evade payment of damages.

The conference had a record attendance of about 120 delegates. One of the principal guests at the annual dinner was Mr. J. Verdonck, of Brussels, president of the Federation of International Furniture Removers.

The conferences of the British Association of Overseas Removers and the Federation of International Furniture Removers, which were also held in Bournemouth this week, will be reported in the next issue.'


comments powered by Disqus