1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
Smithfield Strike : Delay in Negotiations Admitted
Page 96
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BY A SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT IF the committee of investigation appointed by the Minister of Labour into 1 the "causes and circumstances" of the unofficial strike by members of the Transport and General Workers' Union at Smithfield meat market, London, clarifies the position in the eyes of the general public it will have served a useful purpose. It is unlikely, however, to bring the two sides in the dispute any closer together.
The committee sat at Westminster, on Monday, under the chairmanship of Prof. D. T. Jack. He was assisted by Mr. W. A. Morrison, general secretary of the National Union of Printing, Bookbinding and Paper Workers, and Mr. D. K. Rollit, of the British Employers' Confederation.
Submitting the case for the T.G.W.U., Mr. Fred Eastwood, national. secretary, road transport (commercial) group, recalled that on June 5, 1957, an application was submitted to the Joint Industrial Council for London Meat Carriers for an increase of 15 per cent. on the basic rates of pay, consequent on the uplifting of the speed limit on heavy vehicles from 20 to 30 m.p.h. It was also felt that as a result of the higher speed, the normal working day could and should be encompassed within a 10-hour period.
Further meetingsof the council took place on October 3, 11 and 22, but by January 23, a further meeting revealed that no agreement could be reached. On April 10, at another J.I.C. meeting, the employers indicated. that they were not prepared to concede the claim, but said they would try to secure information from the journey sheets for March in order to ascertain the savings that could be achieved.
Strike Threatened
The union members thought that had there been the desire to do so, the employers could have obtained the information they were now seeking during the previous nine months of negotiation. It was decided to withdraw their labour, so far as the whole of meat transport was concerned, if a satisfactory answer were not forthcoming within a week. Certain of the independent companies, however, had already conceded the 15 per cent. claim, and they were to continue working.
On April 17 a further meeting made it clear that the employers were not prepared to make an acceptable offer. On the two following days meetings were held between representatives of both sides and officers of the Ministry of Labour, again Without finding a solution.
In -the week beginning April 20 n-ormal work ceased except in six " conceding " companies. ' Subsequently, 24 other concerns agreed to the increase for their drivers. On the night of April 20 a nitmber of porters employed by United Carriers, Ltd., and the Union Cartage Co. received a week's notice.
Other notices followed the next morn
ing, involving in all some 600 men. The T.G.W.U. claimed that the dismissals took place without consultation in accordance with normal procedure.
All the employees in the market withdrew their labour in sympathy on May 12. A return to work was made on Monday, June 23.
The application to the J.I.C. was based on an agreement with British Road Services, the basis of which was a reduction of the maximum working day from Ii to 10 hours, with a compensatory .15 per cent. payment for loss of earning capacity.
On the introduction of the agreement, B.R.S. would be applying the increase to a large number of meat-vehicle drivers other than those based on London and covered by the J.I.C. agreement. B.R.S. were stated to own more than half of the vehicles on charter to U.C.L.
For the Union side, it was pointed out that the claim carried certain advantages for the employers, including standardization of running times, improvement in tractor operation, elimination of plus payments, saving of payments associated with long book-off and subsistence allowance, as well as the greater availability of vehicles.
Mr. H. F. Minter, for the employers, represented by the Wholesale Meat and Provision Transport Association, said that only about 200 of the 1,700 drivers and mates were affected by the change in the speed limit.About 80 were employed on local distribution work Where a change in the speed limit could have little practical effect.
The employers had always been ready to concede that some adjustment in pay, although not 15 per cent., would be warranted for the men if and when they were asked to take advantage of the higher speed limit. They had not, so far, been asked to do so.
The issue before the J.I.C. was not clearly .defined. It was also complicated by the fact that similar applications had been made to other bodies, including the employers' panel of the Road Haulage Wages Council and the road haulage section of the British Transport Commission.
Discussions had also been in progress with the T.G.W.U. and the Road Haulage Association. A request from the Union for a 15 per cent. increase for all haulage workers, whether drivers of heavy vehicles or not, had been refused in October, 1957.
The employers' side of the J.I.C. were aware that decisions reached in the course of their negotiations might have wide repercussions in other quarters.
The argument that B.R.S. had conceded an increase of 15 per cent. in principle . was misleading, because the circumstances of London meat drivers were vastly different. Although a year had passed, B.R.S. had not yet given effect to these principles.
As to the trade union claim that, as a result of the uplifted speed limit, an 11-hour day could be worked in 10 hours,. the employers' side felt that the argument was invalid: either the men had previously been "going slow" or work sheets were being falsified and managements were ineffective in securing reasonable work content in existing circumstances.
Wages Above R,11. Scale
The employers stressed that they already paid wages substantially higher than those provided for in Road Haulage Wages Council Orders.
Mr. Minter referred, " with great reluctance," to the strike committee. This body had issued statements from the local trade union offices at 58 Long Lane, Smithfield.
He also named Mr. E. Recknitz and Mr. J. Farquhar, who had figured prominently at mass meetings called by the strike leaders. Neither of these men were members of the J.I.C. and they had not been involved personally in discussions with the employers. Both, however, were well known for their activities in previous unofficial strikes in connection with the meat trade and it was understood that both had been debarred from holding any office in the trade union organization.
Prof. Jack questioned both Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Minter closely on the constitution of the J.I.C. Mr. Eastwood said that his Union had at all times made efforts • to terminate the strike, but that the workers' side of the council were not prepared to take their case to arbitration while there was still a chance of reaching a settlement in the council. He 'agreed, however, that strike action had been taken contrary to the constitution, and that no reference had been made to the Ministry of Labour.
Causes Sought The chairman said that they had heard the circumstances of the unofficial strike, within the terms of reference of the Committee, but he asked the spokesmen of each side what they considered to be the causes of the dispute.
Both Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Minter agreed that there had been delays in negotiations, but that they were unavoidable.
The committee adjourned to consider their findings, and asked the two sides to hold themselves in readiness for further appearances, if required, yesterday or today.