Alan Law goes for another 12.50
Page 17
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
D-day is June 10 but Midlands hauliers already Facing the strike weapon
)PERATORS in the Midlands face the hreat of a strike by more than 500 irivers on June 10, if they do not meet a lemand from Branch 5/35 of the Transrort and General Workers' Union for a ;Op daily lunch allowance for drivers. ;hop stewards of the branch took the trike decision at their monthly meeting n Birmingham on Sunday.
On Monday Mr Alan Law, the FGWU regional trade group secretary, old CM that some Midlands operators' irivers were already striking. Two of the irst to be affected were Neely Trans)ort and Thomas Meadows and Co Ltd, )oth of whom are engaged in air freight raffic. Mr Law added that about 20 )perators were already paying the subistence money.
The managing director of Neely Fransport, Mr A. Neely, had been idvised by the West Midlands Region of he Pay Board that a subsistence allowince counted against the pay limit and hat, since he had made a maximum pay iward in September 1973, he would not )e able to introduce a meal allowance intil September this year. Despite being ;hown this letter his shop stewards called a strike on Monday morning.
Later the same day, Mr Neely took one of the stewards to the Pay Board's offices in Hirst Street, Birmingham, where he was again advised that the payment would be illegal if made now.
Mr W. P. Brown, of Thomas Meadows, told CM that his company did not intend to meet the demand. Lunch allowances were made for all Meadows staff in London and Manchester because of travelling difficulties but at all other depots the staff were in a position to have lunch at home.
The managing director of Ware Transport, another air cargo carrier, told CM that his company was paying the subsistence money, but he confirmed what Mr Brown had said. "I agree that men who go down the motorway need the allowance but men working locally are in a position to get home. It's a bit of a cheek really," he added, "but I am paying all 23 men to save trouble."
Among others reportedly meeting the demand are the own-account operators Foster Bros, outfitters, and Reed Corrugated Cases. Mr Law refused to divulge the rest of the names of those who had conceded. He said: "We told the employers we would not tell, and we keep our word. We try to achieve and maintain good relations with employers, and it pays to keep our word. They will all pay at the end of the day".
The union is arguing that workers with canteen facilities have subsidized food, and in other cases they have luncheon vouchers, while drivers do not.
Large firms like Thomas Meadows could be faced with an on-cost oi £100,000 a year if they were to meet the demand, said a spokesman for the company. "This is a way of getting £2.5( tax free," he said, and went on: "We have an agreement with the union thai normal working will proceed durini negotiations. By calling the men out or strike, Alan Law has torn that agreement up."
Mr Law commented: "Some of th( stewards have jumped the gun."
Following Monday's meeting Neely's shop stewards and the Pay Board, the men went to 5/35 branch to report. Later they returned to their employer and according to Mr Neely, they said: "Mr Law says it's a case of pay up, shut up or else," Mr Law was not available for comment on Tuesday, but the same day Neely's drivers took a vote and returned to work.
Mr Neely told CM that quite clearly the Pay Board's ruling prohibited him from paying, and that in any event, the cost for his 35 employees would be about £4,000 a year. He already anticipates a pay increase of £3.50 to £4 per week in September, "and of course, there's no doubt that they would be coming along to negotiate an increase in the meal allowance every May if this was granted," he said.
A spokesman for the Pay Board told CM that any firm who had made any kind of payment in excess of the Pay Code was in breach of the law and would be asked to remove the amount voluntarily. Failure to do so would result in them being reported to the Pay Board and a I4-day warning notice issued to them. "Should they ignore the warning and continue to make payment, then a restriction order would be issued and they would be reported to the Attorney General," said the spokesman.