TRANSPORT MERGER

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21216, 12 September 1940, Page 9

TRANSPORT MERGER

LICENSES FOR COMPANY CASES BEFORE AUTHORITY TRANSFER QUESTION DEBATED Further argument regarding the transfer of several licenses of private carriers in Hamilton to the recently formed merger company. Transport (Waikato) Limited, was heard before Mr F.. J. Phelan, the No. 1 Licensing Authority, in Hamilton yesterday. The cases were adjourned from Monday and decision in all cases was reserved. The authority stated, however, that he hoped to release his findings before the end of the week. The license transfers to which opposition was expressed by the Hamilton District Carriers’ Association involved certain ones which, it was alleged, were semi-dormant. These were the cases of H. D. Desmond, E. Woodward, P. A. Minnear, F. J. Rothwell and G. Smith. Expressing the satisfaction of the association at the explanation regarding the operations of Rothwell, Mr W. J. King, representing the association, said opposition to that application would be withdrawn. Company’s Case Mr Phelan explained that the transfer of licenses from certain operators to Transport (Waikato) Limited had been held up on the grounds that it was alleged that they were lying semi-dormant. In order to afford an opportunity for the parties to call evidence, the sitting had been adjourned from Monday until yesterday. Mr J. F. Strang, appearing for the company, said he had inquired into the business of those operators whose transfers to the merger company were opposed, and he had evidence to show that, in each case, the licenses were in active operation before the formation of the merger The authority remarked that he was not concerned whether the licenses in dispute were uneconomic before steps were taken to transfer them to the merger company, provided they could be economically worked by the company in the event of their transfer being approved. The main question was whether they had been reasonably fully operated. Area of Operation Mr King said there were several carriers who operated in the 'country district and also worked within the borough in the former exempted license area. The association, which had the membership of the majority of the carriers in Hamilton, was apprehensive that the merger company might work those vehicles exclusively in the town, whereas previously they spent considerable time on country work. The association felt that, if that were to occur, the interests of the majority of the association members who were engaged exclusively on town carrying would be affected. If such were the case, Mr King added, the association would not object to exclusive town operation of those carriers, provided the country portion of their license was deleted. The authority added that his department had been responsible for the formation of the Carriers’ Association and he would like to see cooperation between the association and the merger company. The principle of merger companies was also approved by the Government. Mr Strang replied that he was certain that it was the intention of the company to be entirely fair toward the association. Resignation From Association Mr King said the formation of a merger company of carriers in Hamilton had been discussed by the association. Only about 18 members were in favour of the formation of a merger company compared with about 82 members opposed to entering a merger. As a result, the 18 members said they would resign from the association. Mr Strang interposed that those members had been requested by the association to resign. The authority expressed the hope that provision had been made in the articles of the association of the company that other carriers could join the merger. Mr Strang replied that, because sufficient members of the association did not become associated in the merger, the company had been formed as a private concern. However, there was nothing to prevent the formation of a public company. Lengthy evidence regarding the individual cases was heard.