AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Management matters

22nd November 1968
Page 67
Page 68
Page 67, 22nd November 1968 — Management matters
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?

What makes a skilled craftsman?

INDUSTRIAL relations in the road haulage industry may not be in such a critical state as appears to be the case in the vehicle manufacturing industry but it is generally accepted that the National Negotiating Committee—which started with high hopes

)—has made little impact, The recent sporadic strikes by sections of lorry drivers concerned about the future introduction of tachographs, and earlier stoppages reflecting disquiet about other features of the Trans. port Bill illustrate ,the sensitivity of this problem area, The engineering side of the road transport industry is not often in the news and most road haulage concerns would wish to commend the steady and often dedicated efforts of fitting and maintenance staffs in keeping, the wheels turning. Repair workers, whether employed by the operating firms or by agents or garages undertaking road haulage vehicle repairs, should not be forgotten.

A recent case, tiny in itself, referred to the Industrial Court, reflects many issues, of current interest. In fact, some of the issues raised have been extremely "live" for the last 30 years or More. The fact that such cases can still crop up in 1968 bears witness to the incredibly slow rate of advance in improving our attitudes. Management thinking in the stereotyped patterns of long ago is often to be found in' young trainee managers today. Today's technical education aims to fit the student to make a practical contribution to current and future problems—not to be an expert in the use of obsolete equipment or well versed in archaic principles of organization.

The issue taken to the Court concerned a young man named Mr. Dennis Redpath employed by a Kent firm of automobile engineers and coachbuilders. He was a member of the National Union of Vehicle Builders which claimed on his behalf that he was a non-indentured apprenticeS who should have qualified for the adult skilled rate of pay provided by the Vehicle Building Agreement jointly agreed between the UK Joint Wages Board of Employers for the Vehicle Building Industry and the NUVB. Mr. Redpath was 21 on June 8, 1966 and it is perhaps significant that it was not until October 1967 that the union received a report from its Canterbury branch alleging that Mr Redpath was being paid at a rate considerably below his entitlement. On October 31 the union informed the employing company accordingly, requesting that the underpayment should be corrected. Within a few days the firm replied saying that Mr. Redpath had never been apprenticed and was employed as a semi-skilled worker, This prompted the union to obtain detailed information on Mr. Redpath's employment. The NUVB was concerned to establish Mr. Redpath's status as a skilled craftsman under either the Vehicle Building Agreement or the agreement made by the National Joint Industrial Council for the Motor Vehicle Retail and Repairing Trade (known as the Vehicle Repairing Agreement). The union believed that the Vehicle Building Agreement was the appropriate one.

After further correspondence a meeting was arranged between the parties on December 1, 1967 but both maintained their respective positions. On December 8 the union wrote to the Motor Agents Association requesting a formal conference. Because of staff changes at the MAA the meeting was delayed until January 29, 1968. Again, no agreement was reached.

At this stage the union decided that it would be fruitless to go through the procedures laid down by the Vehicle Repairing Agreement because there was no provision in it for any form of manufacturing and it felt that Mr. Redpath "was clearly employed as a bodybuilder and was therefore engaged in the vehicle body building industry". The general secretary of the MAA had written to a firm of bodybuilders as long ago as 1942 stating that the MAA had advised employers that any of its employees who were wholly or mainly engaged in building new bodies, whether for old or new vehicles, were in the vehicle body building industry and not in the vehicle repairing trade. (This, it might be thoulht, was a fine point!) On February 8, 1968 the union requested the help of the Regional Industrial Relations Officer of' the Ministry of Labour and a meeting between the parties was held under his auspices on February 21, at which the MAA was also represented. An offer by the employing firm to increase Mr. Redpath's pay by 3d an hour was made, hut rejected by the union.

It is instructive to pause here to sum

manse the chain of events which ultimately led to the offer of a 3d an hour increase in pay by the employing firm.

I. Mr. Redpath's pay grievance would he discussed, perhaps at some length, by a trade union branch meeting.

2. The branch secretary would be instruct ed to write to the NUVB head office to seek backing for the claim.

3. At least one union officer would have to investigate its validity, turning up the relevant documents, one of which was dated July 24 19421 (Clearly, there is a good filing system in being!) 4. The NUVB writes to the employing company.

5. The firm involved replies.

6. The NUVB obtains further information from its member.

7. The information is passed by letter to the firm.

8. Further correspondence ensues.

9. The union meets the employing company with no agreement.

10. The union writes to the Motor Agents Association. .

II. Fifty-two days pass owing to staff changes in the MAA.

12. The MAA, the union, and the employing company meet in conference. No agreement.

13. The NUVB writes to Regional Industrial Relations officer of Ministry of Labour.

14. A meeting of the parties is held under Ministry of Labour auspices. The employers offer Mr. Redpath 3d an hour increase. It is rejected by the union.

On March 25 1968 there was a further conference of the parties under the chairmanship of the regional industrial relations officer of the Ministry of Labour. There was no agreement and a formal claim by the union was submitted to the Ministry of Labour.

The Industrial Court proceedings reveal that Mr. Redpath, began work with the company at the age of 15 starting work in the bodybuilding department. It was the union's case that until Mr. Redpath left to work for another employer on March 29 1968—by which time he had, I presume not unreasonably, become a little fed up with . the delay—"he was employed in the company's vehicle building department; that for five years and 10 months prior to his 21st birthday he worked with skilled tradesmen who by instruction, guidance and example taught him the trade of vehicle bodybuilding, and that during the period from June 8 1966 (his 21st birthday) to March 29 1968 he performed the duties of a skilled bodybuilder in as much as the work undertaken by the company required the exercise of the relevant skills. He should therefore have been employed under terms and conditions not less favourable than those contained in the Vehicle Building Agreement."

The union argued that Mr. Redpath had completed a non-indentured apprenticeship of five years and 10 months with the company before reaching the age of 21 and that he should have been paid the skilled rate for adult craftsmen from the age of 21, as provided by the Vehicle Building Agreement. The union told the court that Mr. Redpath has been accepted by his present employers as a time-served craftsman.

In the course of Mr. Redpath's evidence to the Industrial Court it was claimed that the duties described were to a large extent those undertaken by any apprentice to vehicle bodybuilding and that Mr. Redpath "was de facto an apprentice because he entered the trade as a boy and was taught it by tradesmen. He had asked to attend a technical college but this request had been refused by his supervisors."

• It was further stated that many youths in the trade who served an apprenticeship were not indentured, that there was no provision in the Vehicle Building Agreement for the indenturing of apprentices, nor was a model form of apprenticeship provided. Many employers, it was said, did indenture their apprentices, and the union sometimes provided them with specimen copies of appropriate forms of indenture. Although the company had indentured a number of apprentices in the past, it had told the union that a decision had been reached some years ago not to indenture any more, because of the unsatisfactory conduct of some of them. There followed some detailed discussion as to the validity of the claim made on behalf of Mr. Redpath.

For the company it was said that it was founded 150 years ago to build horse-drawn conveyances. The main content of the business changed to automobile engineering with a residual interest in bodybuilding and repair and associated light engineering work, "The company's bodybuilding work constituted no more than 3 to 4 per cent of their business: about two-thirds of the 3 to 4 per cent was concerned with building new vehicles and the remainder with repairing bodies, mainly of commercial vehicles, after accidents and wear and tear. At present the company's bodybuilding section consisted of only one boy and one skilled man working on his own-account, since the foreman they formerly employed had left to take up another job."

The company, like most similar firms, observed only one agreement, appropriate to the majority of its employees. This was the Vehicle Repairing Agreement which had governed employing practices since 1941. "The company paid a levy in respect of all their employees to the Road Transport Industry Training Board, and it was submitted that this supported their contention that they were not engaged in the vehicle body building industry, since if they were they would be covered by the Engineering Industry Training Board."

A written contract of employment given to Mr. Redpath under the Contracts of

Employment Act 1963 had never been queried by him. It specified that the basic terms and conditions of his employment were in accordance with those laid down by the Vehicle Repairing Agreement.

"At no time was there any agreement of apprenticeship between the company and Mr. Redpath, whether verbal or written, explicit or implied, or any intention to apprentice him. He had been engaged solely as a boy labourer for work in any part of the company's establishment. The company had at all times employed from six to eight apprentices and these had all been properly indentured under the Vehicle Repairing Agreement and had attended courses of in struction, on a day-release basis, at a Col lege of Further Education. Mr. Redpath, however, had not been given day release because he was not regarded as an appren tice. It was true that at one time the company had said they would not take on any more apprentices, but that had only been a temporary decision affecting a particular department."

The company contended that Mr. Redpath's progression to skilled status should be in the manner prescribed in the Vehicle Repairing Agreement, in which "skilled craftsmen" were defined as "Those who can undertake all major and general repairs to motor vehicles, without supervision". It was submitted that Mr Redpath was not able to work without supervision, that all the work described in his statement had been carried out under supervision, and that he had been correctly paid as a semi-skilled worker.

It was further urged that Mr. Redpath's work was no more than would be normally expected of a semi-skilled operative on gen eral workshop duties and although most of his employment was in the bodybuilding shop he was not specifically engaged in the craft of bodybuilding. The company's standing in the trade required a minimum standard of skill before a trade classification was awarded, and in its view Mr. Redpath did not reach that standard. The fact that in his present employment he was paid as a skilled man did not in the company's sub mission clarify his degree of skill, since individual employers might have to pay high rates to recruit labour. It was possible to'be skilled at mass production, but not in the work undertaken by the company, which scarcely had two jobs alike throughout the year.

The court found that it had not been established that before Mr. Redpath's 21st birthday his status was that of an apprentice or that from that date until the termination of employment his status was that of a time-served or skilled craftsman. "The court therefore find against the claim and award accordingly. The court do not find it necessary to decide any of the other questions which were argued at the hearing."

I find this story illuminating but depress

ing. The court's reluctance to comment on the issues involved is disappointing. Thousands of young men in Mr. Redpath's circumstances ought to have qualified as skilled tradesmen at 21 after almost six years work on coachbuilding. No youngster wishing to study should be denied the advantage of day-release classes. No responsible parent should send any youngster at 15 into a job with no clearly defined prospects.

Under the influence of the RTITB we may hope before long that everyone concerned with vehicle operation or maintenance will have the opportunity of demonstrating ability by practical and theoretical tests. Apprenticeship "status" is an old tradition which deserves respect, though too frequently abused in the past. It should not in any circumstances deny "boy labourers" --or any other designated staff—the chance to progress to the limit of capacity. Of all industries, road transport needs to make the most of its human material.


comments powered by Disqus