Sub-area Representation on Area Committees of R.H.A.
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LIVELY discussion concerning the representation of sub-areas on area committees of the Road Haulage Association arose during a meeting of Aand B-licence holders held in Huddersfield last week. After a resolution -to form a Huddersfield sub-area of the R.H.A. had been adopted, and the officers and Committee had been elected, it was suggested that the. Chairman (Councillor J. T. Gee, of Huddersfield), and the vice-chairman (Mr. L. Bachleley, of Hohnfirth) be the sub-area's representatives on the West Riding (Leeds) Area Committee.
Mr. H. H. Walker, of Brighouse, thereupon stated that, according to the constitution of the R.H.A., no subarea could at present send delegates to represent it on the area committee. For the inception of the merger scheme, the latter body had been formed by means of nominations from what were formerly the Yorkshire Area of A.R.O., the North-eastern division of the C.M.U.A., and the Federation of Yorkshire Road Transport Employers. As he understood the position under R.H.A. rules, sub-area representatives, as such, -could not function until the first elected area committee came into operation in 1P41.1.
Councillor Gee, already a member of the area committee as a nominee .of one. of the merged organizations, said he did not think it would be fair if a subarea could not be represented on the present area committee:.
Mr. Harry Clark, secretaryof the area, agreed that Mr. Walker's statement of the position was correct according to the strict reading of R.H.A. rules, but • it seemed hardly .fair that, until the firSt elected area committee came into operation, a sub-area should not be able to send, representatives.
•
'How was the area, committee to get to know a sub-area's views on any question; unless there be someone to speak for it?
Mr. Walker replied that the R.H.O. constitution did not permit the cooption of members on to R.H.O. committees, and that was the big safeguard for the small man. " You all know what happened with co-option in the past," he added. " After a committee had been elected, it co-opted whom it Councillor Gee: " We are not trying to do any co-opting. Everything we are 'doing here is above board. It is a question of whether we shall have proper representation on the area committee—representation which we have a perfect right to demand." •
Mr. H. H. Beaumont, of Ripponden, speaking as a member Of 'the area com mittee, said he would welcome the appointment of Mr. Baddeey to the area committee as the representative of the Huddersfield sub-area. .
" I don't know that we are altogether going to stick to _rules of procedure at this stage," he added. "We have been at loggerheads enough in this industry. We want to work for the benefit of the industry rather than to work slavishly to a book of rules," There was more lively discussion in life closing stages of the meeting when a non-member of R.H.A., who said he had been in road transport for 45 years, stated that he had refused to be a 'member of any operators' association because he suffered a disservice at the hands of one such organization 10 'years
ago. He suggested that " the bile men" had such influence in association work that the small operator had_ little chance of advancing his cause, Councillor Gee replied by stressing the democratic safeguard provided by R.H.A..'s "one member one vote" rule. " No matter how many vehicles a man operates," he ertiphasized, "that' operator has only one vote."
The following were elected to the subarea rommittee: Messrs. L. °batsman, R. Rothwell, . B. Tinker, A. Brown, E Ellis, E. Beaumont, A. Audsley, R. Riley, R. Bottomley and IL Mne/ey. Two places for Brighouse pepresentatives were left open, in view of an intimation by Mr. Wane: that application might be made for establishment of a Brighouse sub-area. Al7