AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No to N.C.B. Transport Men's Three-week-holiday Claim

26th February 1965
Page 29
Page 29, 26th February 1965 — No to N.C.B. Transport Men's Three-week-holiday Claim
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?

FROM OUR INDUSTRIAL CORRESPONDENT

THE Industrial Court, in a judgment I published last week-end, turned down a claim by 1,202 transport workers employed by the National Coal Board for a third week's holiday with pay. The judgment, although confined in its application to these workers, could have far wider repercussions in the haulage industry.

The men concerned, who are employed by the Board's North Western Division in Lancashire, Cheshire, Cumberland and North Wales, are mainly engaged on coal distribution to industrial and domestic consumers. The remainder are engaged on services ancillary to mining, including the removal and dumping of pit refuse, the movement of men, machinery and stores and the transport of coal from collieries to washeries.

The Transport and General Workers' Union, to which the men belong, claimed extra holidays in line with the extra rest days granted to miners and in the coarse of negotiations specified a third week's holiday with pay. In their submissions to the Court, the union contended that 141 large industrial undertakings, having separate transport agreements, currently granted additional holidays or rest days over and above the two working weeks provided for in the standard agreements. For example, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, who were one of the Board's largest customers for retail coal and

distributed throughout the country, had for some time granted extra holidays with pay based on service increments. A list of approximately 60 other industries giving additional holidays to employees after 12 months' service or longer was placed before the Court.

It was submitted that the Board, in not granting extra holidays or rest days to their transport workers, were in a privileged position and at a considerable advantage over their direct competitors, namely the gas and electricity supply and oil industries, all of which granted favourable holiday entitlements over and above two weeks, and the first two of which were also nationalized industries. In the oil industry, which was the Board's main competitor, transport workers also had an advantage in this respect over other exporting industries.

The union stated that over the years the employers had constantly quoted to the union the provisions of the Road Haulage Wages Council Orders, but the union maintained that the only relevance they had to the workers concerned was with regard to variations in wages.

The case submitted by the union was based primarily on C licence operation. which was covered by Part TI of the Road Haulage Wages Act 1938. Under that Act the industries in which C licences operated could pay due regard to the wages and conditions of other workers associated with those industries. It had, however, been difficult to convince the employers that their position in this regard was the same as that of all C licence operators. The union had over 500 agreements with C licence holders, all of whom gave the same conditions to their transport workers as to their other employees.

The National Coal Board in their evidence to the Court submitted that under a national agreement ancillary workers who were not directly concerned with mining should be related to the conditions in the appropriate outside industry. In the case of the majority of the 1,202 transport workers covered by he claim, they were engaged in coal distribution on precisely the same work as other coal merchants.

The transport workers had for a number of years followed movements in wages and conditions of service in the appropriate sections of the transport industry, as represented by, for example, the Orders of the Road Haulage Wages Council and general practices in the dis tributive coal trade. The union had

accepted those arrangements. It was

pointed out that the employers had not attempted ,.to subject the workers concerned to features of coal-mining agreements that would be disadvantageous to them and they therefore saw no reason why the men should be entitled to select certain advantageous features of the coalmining agreements for their own benefit.


comments powered by Disqus