AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

R.H.E. Ignores Arbitration Tribunal's Ruling

8th June 1951, Page 34
8th June 1951
Page 34
Page 34, 8th June 1951 — R.H.E. Ignores Arbitration Tribunal's Ruling
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?

I N open court; last week, Mr. Montgomery :White; K.C., chairman' of the .TranspOrt 'Arbitration Tribunal,. complained that the Road Haulage Executive, in reaching agreements with hauliers for compensation, had ignored the Tribunal's decision in the Maggs case. He emphasized that the Tribunal's decisions must be taken as correct, unless subsequently upset by the Court of Appeal.

" We have observed with some concern." he said, " that in certain cases there have been submitted for confirmation agreements hearing dates some weeks after our. 'decision in the Maggs case. but entirely ignoring the effect of our decision in that case. The ippli-, cation for confirmation has, • nioreover,. been supported by an affidavit filed on behalf of the Executive, that the compensation agreed ' represents, with as much accuracy as possible, the amount required to be paid on a strict application of the Act.'

"Our anxiety has not been 'relieved by our being informed by the solicitors for the ExecutiVo that there has never been any question of not putting decisions of the Tribunal into effect immediately they. were known, 'provided there was no likelihood of appeal against them,' and that the Executive was bound to regard the decision on profits tax as still sub judice while there. was a possibility of appeal against that decision.'

"While we acquit the Executive and its solicitor of any intentional courtesy, we consider that this communication discloses a most" improper attitude. It is not for the parties . to decide that our decisions are wrong, or to arrogate to themselves the .right to postpone giving effect to them.

appreciate that negotiations as to compensation may extend over a considerable period, and that agreement may be reached, though not put into writing, before a relevant decision is given by this Tribunal.

"Where the Tribunal takes a different view from that on which an agreement has been based, and either party is disposed to question the decision, three Courses are open. • .

. ".The parties may loyally accept the decision and modify the terms agreed or in process of negotiation accordingly. Alternatively, the parties may suspend negotiations pending the determination of the question by the Court of Appeal.' Or, thirdly, the parties may 'agree to compromise the question, and submit the agreement to the Tribunal (where that is necessary) for confirmation as being a reasonable compromise of a disputed claim.

"If this last course is adopted, the agreement should disclose upon the face of it what it is that has been compromised, so that it may clearly appear that the parties are aware of the relevant decision.


comments powered by Disqus