AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

tevocation is Threatened

25th December 1959
Page 21
Page 21, 25th December 1959 — tevocation is Threatened
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?

Keywords :

Cabinet Works, Ltd.), pleaded guilty to record and hours offences concerning the Leeds vehicles during May and July. The company were fined £195, with £52 10s. costs. Six drivers were fined £165.

Mr. Wurzel said the charges were based on evidence from the gate book at the Leeds Cabinet works, which recorded the comings and goings of the vehicles and drivers. After working all day on loading, certain drivers had been in the habit of taking their vehicles home for a short period before driving all night to Scotland or other distant destinations, returning the next day.

Mr. G. Ditchburn, for the defendants, said these matters had been the responsibility of the traffic manager at Leeds, Mr. G. Holt, and were unknown to the parent company until the question of prosecution arose. Steps had been taken to ensure there would be no recurrence of the offences.

Revocation Inquiry A. Waite (Coal), Ltd., and an associated company, E. Dudley (Transport), Ltd, appeared before Maj. Eastwood to show why vehicles on the A licences of each company should not be revoked or suspended.

A. Waite, with eight of their drivers, were fined £248, and £10 10s. costs, by Batley magistrates on September 24, on 365 charges of failing to keep records. Mr. W. R. Hargrave, who appeared for both companies, pleaded special circumstances.

He said the business was started by Mr. A. Waite in 1932. Until the present proceedings there had been no complaint, but during the past few years the haulage side of the business had increased so rapidly that administration became completely out of control. It was conducted by girls in the office. The log sheets were left to the drivers themselves and were checked only to calculate wa2es.

Slackness with Accounts When one of their principal customers, Cawood Wharton and Co., Ltd., threatened to take their business away because of slackness with accounts, Mr. Waite engaged a full-time secretary, Mr. H. Croft, but nearly three years had been required to catch up with arrears of work.

Mr. Croft said he joined the company in 1956 and was reaching the matter of log sheets and drivers' hours when the Licensing Authority's enforcement officers took the records away.

Maj. Eastwood commented that the total of 365 offences in three months must be almost a record. It was remarkable that the high wages paid to the drivers had not drawn Mr. Croft's attention to these matters before.

Referring to E. Dudley (Transport), Ltd.. Mr. Hargrave said that, although this company, with five of their drivers, were also fined £271, and £10 10s. costs, on 77 charges concerning records on September 24, the essence of the com

plaints was the failure of the drivers to complete section two of the log sheets with regard to times of arrival and departure. These times had been correctly shown in section one.

After taking legal advice, Dudley's pleaded guilty and were told that it was not essential they should attend court. In Mr. Hargrave's view, they were illadvised, as they were unable to refute evidence given concerning a bonus book which, it was alleged, was kept for work beyond the permitted hours.

The company's explanation was that this was an additional column in the wages book to show work done by the drivers for T. F. Firth and Sons. Ltd., within the curtilage of their mills. One of the directors of the defendants also acted as transport manager for Firth's.

Payments to Drivers Maj. Eastwood said the records showed payments to both companies' drivers for up to 83 hours for a five-day week. Explanations that the men were engaged on loading-bank or other work were not satisfactory. It was the law that any such work must be included in the drivers' permitted hours.

In a written decision, he said later that he had decided not to revoke or suspend either of the A licences concerned, but he warned both companies that he would do so in the event of any further breach of the regulations. He drew the attention of E. Dudley (Transport). Ltd., to the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Regulations, and particularly to Regulation 5, which defines the words " driver" and "work."


comments powered by Disqus