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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160 
Surprise cargo of Bauxite costs haulier £100 in fines
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
CHIPS carrying bauxite for the British Aluminium Co. in Burntisland rarely dock at Grangemouth. But when 1.7 one did last year the company engaged Walker Bros. (Cowdenbeath), of Moss-side Road, Cowdenbeath, to transport the bauxite to its works. And this led to Walker Bros. being fined £.100 at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court last week for overloading.
They were found guilty of three offences on roads in Grangemouth, between Grangemouth and Burntisland, and in Burntisland between August 1 and August 30.
On 269 occasions they used 33 lorries when the weights of each lorry exceeded 14 tons; on 124 occasions they used 14 sixwheelers when the weight of each exceeded 20 tons; and on 93 occasions they used five lorries with more than 6 wheels when the
• weight exceeded 24 tons.
They were found not guilty of failing to comply with the conditions of a licence for a lorry in that they carried bauxite on three occasions.
Four previous convictions were libelled but Mr. E. G. Smith, Procurator Fiscal, pointed out that these were not excessive for a firm of such a size operating over six or seven years. "I would not like your Lordship to infer that they do not normally take steps to comply with the regulations," he told Sheriff John Allan.
For the firm, Mr. George Johnston, said he thought the Sheriff was satisfied the charges had arisen out of an unusual set of circumstances. There was no reference to bauxite previously having had to be transported from Grangemouth and there was no evidence to suggest it was likely again.
It had been shown that before the contract started there had been an arrangement for facili ties for removing surplus from overloaded lorries but these facilities had not, in fact, been available.
He continued: "It was also shown that the circumstances were brought out to a considerable extent by the system whereby the cranemen and the dockers were paid by results and, bearing in mind this arose just after the dock strike, there was every endeavour to get as much bauxite loaded in one day as possible. It does seem reasonable to infer that they were trying to make up for wages lost during the dock strike."