To Whom Do The Statutory Rates of Wages
Page 40
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IT has been made quite clear to me, from inquiries I have received, that many operators do not yet appredate the limits of application of the scales of wages Made obligatory under the Road Haulage Wages Act. H a man be a driver or a mate, well, yes, he must be paid the statutory wages, but there are, however, many employees, not drivers, or even mates, so far as that term is ordinarily understood, to whom the provisions of the Act apply.
It is concerning these men that so much misunderstanding exists, so much puzzlement, as to whether, in any particular case, the man concerned is covered by the Act.
• The _Position of the Helper • • Here is an example of the kind of problem that arises in this connection. An operator is under contract to the local authority to collect household refuse, and to do the work expeditiously he employs a helper to collect the dustbins and load them on to the vehicle. This helper travels on the vehicle. Is he or is he not to be paid statutory wages under the Act?
Again, what is the position of porters and packers engaged in the removal of furniture?
It is probable that the answer, in any specific instance, depends upon the facts. That is to say, it is impossible to state that any dustman, or any porter or packer, must be paid the statutory rates of wages laid down in the Order.
So as to arrive at an understanding of the matter it is necessary to know the answer to the fundamental question, " What is a haulage worker? " Otherwise, what work must a man be doink if the Act and particularly the wage scales laid down in the Order (R.H.2) apply to him?
This is defined in the Third Schedule to the Act, and in paragraphs 58 to 61 inclusive, of R.H.2. Readers must refer to their own copies as there is too much to reproduce here. The following explanation may simplify the matter.
The factor which makes the definition somewhat difficult to understand is that the qualification for statutory wages is two-fold. •The man must be employed in any or all of five classes of work and must be required to travel on or accompany the vehicle for the purpose of doing any such work. The two conditions must be met. That is the rule which must be borne in mind.
Of the five kinds of work, the first is the obvious and easily understood one of driving or assisting in the driving or control of a goods vehicle. This, clearly, refers to drivers and mates. It also seems to include vanguards, but they are especially excluded in the -first paragraph of the Order.
Another form of work, "acting as attendant to the vehicle,'? seems almost to mean the same thing, except that it is probably meant to cover the attendant on a trailer, who, otherwise, might not be deemed to be driving or assisting in driving or in the control of the vehicle.
The other three are collecting and loading goods on to the vehicle, attending to them while in transit and unloading Or delivering them.
• Workers That Are Excluded • One more point. A person occupied in any or all of the ways described above is not a road haulage worker, within the meaning of the Act, if the main purpose for which he be required to travel on the vehicle is that of executing work other than road haulage, on the arrival of the vehicle at its destination. That" lets out," as it were, such workers as building operatives, who load their equipment on to a vehicle, travel with it to the building site, and there unload it. Similar workers are also excluded.
Now, to return to the case of our dustman. His is really a complicated and difficult case. In the first place it has to be remembered that, according to the Road and Rail Traffic Act, a vehicle which is used by a local authority, or by a person acting in pursuance of a contract with a local authority, for collection or disposal of refuse, does not require a licence of any description under that Act Therefore, the provisions of the Road Haulage Wages Act also are inapplicable.
The inquiries which came to me about dustmen and the like, were all, however, in connection with vehicles which were licensed under the Road and Rail Traffic Act. In that case, Therefore, my answer was that the dustman was, in fact, a road haulage worker, as defined in that Act and, as such, entitled to be paid the statutory rates of wages which applied to workers of his status. The amount of such wage is, however, still in doubt, as I shall show later.
• Effect of the Hiring Allowance • There is a peculiar exception, which must be borne in mind when dealing with a question such as the above, relating to the use of A and B-licence vehicles on work other than that covered by the class of licence. It is described in Section 15--2 of the Act, and, so far as this particular case is concerned, sub sub-section (c). It relates to vehicles held under a hiring allowance.
If, for example, the above-mentioned vehicles, A or B licensed as they were, had been authorized under a hiring allowance, then this section would seem to except them from the application of the Act, during such time as the operator could prove that they had been engaged on work which called for no description of licence at all under the Road and Rail Traffic Act. Such work is, as I have shown, the collection or disposal of refuse.
A similar problem arose out of an inquiry from a reader who stated that he had a driver On a lorry under a B licence but engaged solely on Clicence work. His question was whether he need pay the driver the statutory rates of wages set out in the Order. The answer is " Yes," because the vehicle is, presumably, " specified " on a B licence. If it had been merely " authorized "as part of a hiring allowance the answer, according to sub sub-section (b) of the above, would have been " No."
I come now to the problem of porters, packers and similarly engaged workers in the furnitureremovals industry. On the face of it, and in the light of the definition set s out above, they are undoubtedly " road haulage workers," within the meaning of the Act. As such they would appear to be entitled to the statutory wages laid down in R.H.2.
Rates of wages, however, are given only for drivers, statutory attendants and mates and, in 1(b)iii only, for " attendants." Nowhere in the Order is there a scale laid down which can be stated specifically to apply either to the dustman mentioned above, to porters and packers in the furnitureremovals industry, or, indeed, to any of the numerous " road haulage workers" whom the Act is, obviously, meant to cover, and who cannot be described as " attendants " as that word is ordinarily understood.
• Association Exposes Muddle • Some of this muddle, for muddle it undoubtedly is, has been exposed as the result of the spirited action of the National Association of Furniture 'Warehousemen and Removers. That Association objected to the original wording of R.H.2, wherein reference was made to "Road Haulage Workers other than Drivers."
Its reason was that it would mean interference with an agreement as to the wages to be paid to their employees—apart from drivers— arrived at through the machinery of the Joint Industrial Council for the Furniture Removals Industry, which has functioned successfully for 20 years.
The representatives of this industry submitted that the Central Wages Board, in its anxiety to arrive at agreed proposals for drivers, had entirely failed to devote adequate consideration to the position of those persons described as "other road haulage workers" who would be affected.
Moreover, it was pointed out that the Board had not taken into sufficient account the existence of this Joint Industrial Council, and by failing to do so had not correctly carried out the provisions of the Act, Part 2 (4). This provides that the Board shall take into consideration any decision of a Ioint Industrial Council, etc„ when framing proposals for fixing remuneration.
Realizing, on the publication of R.1-1.2, that the situation, as regards the payment of their employees, was still doubtful, the Association wrote to the Minister asking if its agreement was to continue to apply. That question has been referred by the Minister to the Central Wages Board for dis-cussion and, presumably, decision. As I write there is prospect of these and the other matters described in the previous article in The Commercial Motor, dated April 13, being thrashed out by the Central Wages Board and, by the time these words appear, some improvement, may be on the way to be effected. Perhaps, soon, we shall have a new and revised Order, an R.H.4, and shall have to start all over again. Who knows? S.T.R.