Railways and B.R.S. Put Negotiation in Danger
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Uniting to Oppose Hauliers' Applications for Licences: Serious Menace to Independent Operators : Traders' Freedom Threatened
" Unless a reasonable and sometimes less selfish attitude is adopted by British Railways and British ROad Services in licelisMk matters, the whole system of road-rail negotiating committees may be placed in jeopardy."
THIS warning was given last week by Mr. R. Morton Mitchell, chief executive officer of the Road Haulaae Association, in an address to the South Wales and Monmouthshire section of the Institute of Transport, at
Cardiff, , The work of the negotiating committees had been of the utmost importance. Of those applicants for licences who had been invited to attend meetings of the committees, more than threequarters were believed tO have accepted. Probably two-thirds of the cases discussed were disposed of by agreement.
" At the present time the tendency has been for British Railways to be more selective in their objections, but the position now arises of British Railways and British Road Services acting more in partnership than formerly in regard to licensing matters," said Mr. Morton Mitchell. '
Soon Back to 36,000 "Although B.R.S. have still .a large number of vehieles to sell, at least until the Transport Act of .1953 is amended, they are applying, for new, licences in 1114115i parts of the country. At the present rate of progress and from figures recently examined, it will not take B.R.S. many years td rebuild their fleet to a total of 36,000 vehicles, which was the number with which they are supposed to have started when sales of B.R.S. assets began.
"
This is a serious menace to independent road hauliers, especially when one finds in one -town British _Railways opposing the application of 'an independent road haulier, and in the same town B.R.S. applying for licenees for the same types of vehicle as are being applied for by the independent road haulier."
So king as the railways and B.R.S. worked together in the way they were doing, there could never he genuine competition' in their [Ong-distance operations. If competition were said to be desirable, the objective of bringing road and rail together to promote economic running was defeated.
Before nationalization, the financial control of the railways over Pickfords and Carter Paterson yielded successful co-operation between road and rail—a straight-forward commercial development not enforced by political action. It brought profit to the railways and might have been extended into other fields as time went on.
. The 1947 Act deflected the natural course of events and an entirely false position had been built up over the past eight years. The preeipitate action of B.R.S. in applying for new licences, following the Government's announcement of their intention to amend the 1953 Act, pointed to the danger of a' monopoly in long-distance goods transpoi t being built up.
Since licensing had been applied to B.R.S. vehicles, .the State undertaking had been steadily exchanging light vehicles for heavy ones. It had sold the lighter ones, so as to leave private enterprise mainly with lorries suitable for shorter-distance work. Because of their joint policy in the licensing courts, B.R.S. and the railways were in a strong position to expand their road services at the expense of independent hauliers.
Industrialists should carefully watch the Government's present proposals. 'lite British Transport Commission Were well able to develop their semi-monopoly in long-distance haulage into a full monopoly, and independent hauliers: would be powerless to stop it. Traders would lose their freedom of choice.
Mr. Morton Mitchell referred to a recent statement by Sir Reginald Wilson, of the B.T.C., that the Commission must determine the traffics that they would seek and, if necessary, let the rest disappear.
"This may not be a threat to trade and industry," he remarked, "but it does suggest that whoever is going to have a choice of he means of transport, it will not he the trader or the indusfrial,• ist. I suggest that' the choice will lie with the Commission, and neither the "Government nor the trader or industrialist will like that."
One Negotiating Body
Dealing at length with labour relations, Mr. Morton Mitchell said it was desirable that the employers and workers should be organized in one
body on each side., could be brought within the p'rocedure. of the' Road Haulage Wages CotinCil, or the use of the National' Joint Industrial Council for the mid 'haulage industry could be extended to include the State updertaking, provided that, for this purpose, it was entirely divorced from the Commission.
At the moment the Commission's road services tended to be looked upon as part of the B.T.C. and were, therefore, strongly influenced by decisions taken to deal with the wages of railway workers or London Transport bus drivers.
This situation could not be entirely satisfactory to the managers of B.R.S., nor was it satisfactory to the independent haulier, whose drivers' conditions were naturally influenced by decisions affecting drivers employed by B.R.S.'
The opposite was also the ease, because B.R.S. had on occasion to follow agreements made on behalf of hauliers. At present the minimum rates and conditions of employment of B.R.S. drivers were almost identical with those laid down in the Road Haulage Wages Orders. The advantages were probably heavily on the side of private enterprise, in which bonus payments were made for good work.
Although the Wages Council was recognized as the main negotiating machinery, there was much to be said, on occasions, for using the voluntary N..I.I.C. Decisions of both bodies were equally enforceable. The difference between them was merely that under the Wages Councils Acts, an officer of the Ministry of Labour could prosecute an employer for infringing a Wages Council Order.
Apart from prosecution of the employer, the worker could, in both cases, after adopting'ihe appropriate procedure, recover any difference between the wages paid to him and that which ought to have been paid. ,
Advantage of Wages Council
One of the advantages of the statutory procedure of the Wages Council was 'that individual employers could object to new proposals. The council considered representations from both workers and employers before arriving at a final decision. The objection to the procedure was that it was lengthy, and sometimes three months elapsed from-the date of an application by the trade uhions for an increase in wages until the Order granting it was issued.
" Whatever happens in the future," Mr. Morton Mitchell added, "the employers in the road haulage industry should come together in dealing with claims by the employees' organizations. It May be that employers would merely consult and then carry, out their, individual 'negotiations on a basis agreed
by consultation." , He gave a warning about dealing with clearing houses. It was important, he said, that any haulier undertaking work from such an organization should do so only after checking the rate. He should also make certain that the conditions were suitable and that the, clearing house was reliable.
Et.R.S. had to a large extent become a clearing, house, and 'many independent. haulieli were accepting traffic sub-contracted to them by the State undertaking. It was believed that, in the main: the rates paid by B.R.S. were reasonable, but there was a danger that they would try to cut a rate to a trader to obtain his business and then have the work undertaken by.an independent haulier.