AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Cool reception for P. and I. Board Report

3rd June 1966, Page 51
3rd June 1966
Page 51
Page 51, 3rd June 1966 — Cool reception for P. and I. Board Report
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?

BY JOHN DARKER, AMBIM UIRST reactions to the report of the

National Board for Prices and Inomes on busmen's pay and conditions in ,ondon and the provinces were distinctly .osty.

Mr. Jack Jones, acting assistant general ecretary of the TGWU, said the union's /orst fears were confirmed. "The P. and I. board seems to be acting in the role of n arbitration board, which makes nonense of the tried and trusted system of ,ovemment enquiries", he said. "The 'helps Brown Report of 1964 was an xpert study of London transport probems, but the P. and I. report was an ippraisal by a much less qualified body vhose views invalidated much of Phelps 3rown".

Although the Board endorsed the accepanc,e in principle of the claim for a 6.6 per :ent increase in basic rates by London Hismen the union regretted that the issue vas referred to the Board. "To use the 5.6 per cent claim as a lever towards oneIlan bus operation and a relaxation of the landing passenger rule was regrettable", aid Mr. Jones. "These are matters for negoiation between the parties."

Mr. Jones said he was astounded that the Board should argue there was no case for exceeding a 3+ per cent pay increase for the staff of municipal and company undertakings, for the cost of living had increased by more than 6 per cent.

The employers' side of the National Council for the Omnibus Industry are perturbed that a further increase in the basic wage rates of as much as 3 per cent should even be envisaged this year on top of the five per cent increase last month with the introduction of the 40-hour week. In many cases, say the employers, it would have serious implications for the level of fares, and they express concern that the National Council's joint declaration on restrictive practices is in a number of places not being honoured, though this was intended to be part of the trade union's contribution towards the cost of the 1965 wage increase of 6 per cent, and of the sick pay scheme and 40-hour week introduced in 1966.

London Transport Board say the report reinforces their developing policies for conserving manpower and changing the pattern of services. They plan the further introduction of larger buses and the extended use of one-man buses and multi-standing fiat-fare buses and, possibly. automatic fare collection devices.

In Birmingham, Mr. Arthur Silcox. TGWU officer responsible for Midland Red busmen, said the recommendations would come as "a great disappointment". His road passenger transport secretary colleague, Mr. C. Draper, anticipated "a load of trouble" for those concerned in the Midland bus industry, for the union had striven to reduce the differential between London busmen's pay and that of provincial bus

Crews.

The Scottish regional organizer of TGWU, Mr. Raymond McDonald, said of the report: "I know our members are going to be dissatisfied and rebel over this. I feel sure they will express their views and ask for a national conference. We will not accept it".

An official of the Scottish Group calculated that a rise of 3+ per cent would add £750,000 to their annual wage bill. "It would certainly mean we would have to look at our fares structure again", he said.

Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh corporations would also have difficulty in meeting a wage increase within present levels of fares.


comments powered by Disqus