AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Yorkshire Up in Arms at Association Merger Delay

26th May 1944, Page 22
26th May 1944
Page 22
Page 22, 26th May 1944 — Yorkshire Up in Arms at Association Merger Delay
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?

ASSOCIATION merger complications in Yorkshire were indicated at last .week's general meeting, in Leeds, of . members of the Federation of Yorkshire Transport Employers. Complaint of delay in the progress of merger arrangements was particularly directed at A.R.O., and allusion was made to a continuation of the dispute as to what should be the boundary line betw'een the Road Haulage Association areas centred on Leeds and Sheffield respec

tively. • A point stressed in the demand for a speed-up of merger plans in Yorkshire was the fact that joint central offices in Leeds having already been leased for the Road Haulage Association, th4 Traders' Transport Association and the Passenger Vehicle Operators' Association, the three-years' tenancy is due to begin on June 1, at a yearly rental of £220, plus £176 16s. for rates.

With reference to the position of A.R.O. 'a Yorkshire area in relation to the merger, it was Mated that at the inaugural meeting the West Riding ,(Leeds) Area Committee of the R.H.A. held nine weeks previously,. A.R.O. representatives indicated that they anticipated their merger arrangements • could be completed within a month's time. It was evident that their anticipations had not been fulfilled, but it was felt that the responsibility rested on A.R.O. nationally rather than on the Yorkshire area, Included in a report 'presented by Mr. Harry Clark (manager and secretary of the Federation), which the

meeting approved, was a resolution recommended by the Federation's Council and described. by one speaker as an ultimatum to the Yorkshire Area ofA.R.O. This resolution. was to the effect that unless, at an early, date, A.R.O. gave to the FederatiOn a written guarantee to complete its Part of the merger arrangements for the West Riding (Leeds) Area of the R.H.A., the Federation would suspend negotiations and approach the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Hauliers' Association, with a view to making a joint application with that body " for attachrnent to the proposed one national associa

tion.'' , " Difficulties at A.R.O. Headquarters "

In discussion. on the position of A.R.O. in relation to the merger scheme, Mr. Frank ThOmpson (Leeds) said that he thought progress towards the merger was being held up by difficulties at A.R.O. headquarters. He believed that A.R.O. members, in .both Yorkshire and other parts of the provinces, were generally desirous of the merger, but they "could not move in the matter without ratification by A.R.O. headquarters.

Councillor J. Gee (Huddersfield), who is chairman of A.R.O.'s Huddersfield Sub-area, said ,that it must be 'remembered that A.R.O. is a big national organization, and that this fact tended to protract the time taken to complete a merger, Mr. Clark, secretary of the West Riding (Leeds) Area Committee for the

R.H.A., reported on the dispute con-cerning the location of the boundary line between -that area and the R.H.A. area centred on Sheffield:

• Explaining that the Sheffield and South. Yorkshire Hauliers' Association claimed the lootindary'should he placed so that Barnsley and Doncaster were in the Sheffield area, Mr. Clark stated -that following the open meeting held to give Barnsley operators an opportunity to vote on the Barnsley issue, a similar meeting was to be held at Doncaster.

Although the result of the voting at Barnsley was definitely in favour of that district being attached to the ,Leeds area, the Sheffield Association was refusing to abide by that -result, and had stated that unless its Barnsley and Doncaster' claims were upheld it would have nothing to • do -with the merger.

Mr. Thompson said that it had been plainly indicated to the Sheffield Association that it would have no support from the Yorkshire Federation in its refusal to accept the .result of the, vote at the Barnsley meeting, which was constitutionally convened and democratically conducted. • Mr. Clark suggested that, assuming the Doncaster Meeting voted in favour of attachment to the Sheffield area, such a decision might influence the Sheffield Association to change its attitude with regard to Barnsley.

Mr. Storey (Leeds) said that the Sheffield Association would have to give way on the Barnsley issue if the boundary-. dispute were to be settled.


comments powered by Disqus