COMPETITION BY RAILWAYS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21903, 2 October 1936, Page 15

COMPETITION BY RAILWAYS

Carriers Allege Unfairness EVIDENCE PUT BEFORE : COMMITTEE. Allegations of unfair competition by thei Railways Department were made yesterday before the committee enquiring into the carrying business o£ Christchurch, by a representative of the Master Carriers' Association, The associatic also asked that aU carriers licensed in the city be compelled to charge the rates adopted by its mem-r heirs, ’

T. J. S. Young, manager of the New Zealand Express Company, Christchurch, gave evidence on behalf of the association. He gave the committee a list of rates observed by members of the association, these being ■based on die supposition that the 44hour week would be made valid. If the week’s work were reduced to 4Q hours, the rates would probably have to be increased.. There were quite a number of owner-drivers outside ' of the association, who were not bound by its rates. Hence, the association would like its rates made binding on all carriers. Very little advance had been made in the new rates, compared with the old schedule issued in 1924, said the witness. The rate for sugar, rice, anu allied products had gone up from 3s 9d t 4s a ton; at 4s 3d a ton the rate on hardware, pig-lrori, and the like, remained the stole; and the rate oh bar-in had been reduced by 10 per cent. Other slight variations were quoted. Over-all, there had been very little increase, the public being treated very reasonably. The association was very anxious that steps should be taken to prevent unfair competition involving price-cutting by owner-drivers not bound by the award or operating under a profit-sharing SCh6IAG« Witness referred at some length to what he described as unfair competition by the Railways Department, in undertaking certain work previously carried out by private carriers. The delivery of railway parcels in the city was at one time let by tender to the carriers, but, on the last occasion tenders were called, the Post and Telegraph Department secured the job. Another matter that hit the carriers very hard was the practice of the railways in undertaking furniture packing and removal, and the free collection of parcels destined to be earned P n the railways. , . % Witness was cross-examined by Mr A. Clark, assistant traffic manager of the railways at Christchurch. “You realise that it was the intense competition on the part of the rpad operators that really brought about competition by the railways? he sskedt Witness: I can’t deny that. And the same thing applies in regard to household removals? —I don’t think it does. ' , . „ 0 In answer to the chairmaa, Mr P. M. Butler. Mr Clark said it was the intention of the Railway Department to make submissions to the commission before its sitting ended.