Boundary Areas of R.H.A. Cause More Trouble in Yorkshire
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ARISING from the Perry scheme dispute in Yorkshire, as to what should be the location of the boundary line between the Road Haulage Association areas planned to centre on Leeds and Sheffield respectively, a meeting of Doncaster and district hauliers involved was held, last week, to decide by vote as to which of the two areas their locality should be attached.
The meeting was held because of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Hauliers' Association's disputed claim that the Doncaster locality should be in the R,I-LA, area centred on Sheffield. Similar circumstances led, to the calling of a Barnsley and district operators' meeting some weeks ago, at which, as we have previously reported, the vote also went against the Sheffield Association's claim to the inclusion of the Barnsley locality in .the Sheffield area. • According to . a report presented recently to the Federation of Yorkshire Road Transport .Employers, the Sheffield Association refused to accept the Barnsley decision, stated that it was not interested in the Doncaster meeting, and declared that unless its Barnsley and Doncaster claims were met it would not participate in the merger.
The decision. of the Sheffield Association's, committee not . to merge in the R.H.A., but to offer affiliation whereby it remains " independent and autonomous," failing which it will be completely severed from the 'hew Association, raises a question as to the position of those operators in Sheffield and adjacent plates, such as Rotherham, who are members of operators' organizations other than the Sheffield
body. In the carrying out of the merger, what area machinery will be provided to meet their case?
As an alternative to an R.N.A. area centring on Sheffield, it may he that there will be a reversion to proposals originally made under the Perry plan, whereby, for RM.A. purposes, Yorkshire would be divided into only two areas an eastern and a western. It was in compliance with representations from Sheffield that the idea of having a third area, centring on that city, was adopted.
The Doncaster meeting, which had an independent chairman in Mr. W. F. C. Skewes, president of Doncaster Chamber of Commerce, was convened for the attendance of Doncaster and district members of the Yorkshire area of A.R.O., the North-eastern Division of the C.M.U.A., the Federation of Yorkshire Road Transport Employers and the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Hauliers Association, Secretaries of all these organizations were present except in the case of the Sheffield Association, nor did the last-named body appear to be represented among speakers in the dismission,
Mr. Harry Clark, manager and secretary. of the Yorkshire Federation and secretary of the West Riding (Leeds) Area Committee of the R.H.A., explained that the latter body had. decided the meeting should be held so as to give the Doncaster and district operators concerned an opportunity 61 constitutionally and . democratically deciding for themselves as to which .R.H.A. area their locality should be attached, without any interferenee or
pressure from outside quarters. The first report of the Perry Committee, he pointed out, laid it down that all matters regarding area boundaries and their, adjustment, and the situation of area offices should be left for local settlement, subject to the approval of the governing body of file national organization. Agreement had already been reached as • to the boundary between the R.H.A. areas covering West Yorkshire and East Yorkshire, and there was every reason to expect that a boundary settlement with. the Northern area would be completed shortly. • Voting resulted in 12 .being east. in favour of attachment to Leeds and five to Sheffield. About a dozen operators arrived too late to record their votes..