Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No o-m-o bonus for 2-man job

21st August 1970, Page 28
21st August 1970
Page 28
Page 28, 21st August 1970 — No o-m-o bonus for 2-man job
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?

• An industrial court has dimissee claim by the General and Munici Workers' Union that the Economic Bus 4 South Shields, which does not opeg one-man buses, should nevertheless drivers o-m-o bonuses. The union argi that members had approved in principle drive one-man buses. Other companies w using services of this kind, and Economic Bus Co was under an obligat to pay the same wages as other operators

The union said that by not paying bonus, the firm was underpaying employ by about 15s a week; the firm would o be entitled to withhold bonuses if its driv had not been willing to adopt one-n operation.

For the company, it was stated it wo not be able to run its services efficiently g punctually with o-m-o; as it did not intl starting one-man services, it had not mi any agreement on the matter with the urn The court decided that the firm had contravened the regulations dealing vi comparability of wages between rg service employees.