GMB calls on government to act on 'underfilling' in pubs as 95 per cent minimum liquid in glass becomes the maximum in pub chains

12 December 2011

Practice now so acceptable and unchallenged that commercial rents and contracts like payments for pub managers are being fixed on yields that are impossible to achieve without under-filling says GMB

GMB, the unions for tied pub tenants, has written to Ed Davey Consumers Affairs Minister at BIS asking that Government act over the practice of “under filling” in pubs which has now become so widespread that commercial and other contracts are based on targets that are impossible to achieve without “under filling”.

Pubs are required by law to serve a full pint but there is room for confusion over the size of the foam head. There is a code which states that "a head of froth is excessive and unreasonable if the measure of draught beer does not contain a minimum of 95% liquid after the collapse of the head".

This minimum of 95% liquid is being interpreted in practice as a maximum of 95% liquid in many chains. GMB want action to end linking other contracts to this illegal practice as pubs are required to top up to 100% if customers request this. The practice is making life very hard for the honest and decent tenants who look after their customers and do not cheat or short change them.

Set out is the text of the letter from GMB to Mr Ed Davey, MP Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET

Maria Ludkin GMB National officer for legal and Corporate Affairs writes:-

“Dear Mr Davey

I am writing to you to ask for your Department to take action to ensure a consistent application of Weights and Measures legislation to pubs and other licenced premises.

The integrity of Weights and Measures legislation and their consistent application is fundamental to the operation of free and fair markets. The lack of a consistent application in pubs is now spilling over into commercial and other contracts and is making life very hard for the honest and decent tenants who look after their customers and do not cheat or short change them.

The proper application of Weights and Measures legislation has come to the fore in a very sharp way in the case of a GMB member Dave Mountford a tied pub tenant in Derbyshire. Mr Mountford, with the support of GMB is contesting a demand from his landlord Punch Tavern for a 60% increase in his rent.

In the course of his discussion with his landlord Mr Mountford put forward the view that in calculating his profits Punch does not take full account of the normal wastage that is part and parcel of running a pub. Wastages are due to several factors likes spillages and slops, the amount not sold at bottom of kegs, product drawn off during line cleaning and changing kegs, and kegs not been 100% full when delivered from the brewery. In their own defence Punch pointed to Association of Licenced Multiple Retailers (ALMR) bench-marking on wastage. Mr Mountford raised the issue direct with Mr Bish, Chief Executive of ALMR, to clarify what allowances should be built in for wastage.

Mr Bish responded on 16th November saying that there was no specific line providing for wastage in any of the bench-marking ALMR did. He went on to say that he had consulted the Venners, a major stocktaking firm in the industry, and the feedback he got was that wastage was offset by under-filling. This is what he wrote:

“I also spoke with Venners. The feedback I got there was that they regard yield as the best measure of efficiency in converting product [draught beer] to cash and believe that yield approaching 100% is achievable – mostly through the under-filling of brim glasses by [say] 2-3% that offsets the entirely reasonable wastage at the bottom of casks and line cleaning of course.”

For years beer drinkers have regularly complained about the short filling of particularly beer and lager in certain outlets. It would seem that Mr Bish and his Association have known, and by implication condoned, this illegal practice. It is shocking that Mr Bish head of ALMR which represents 96 companies that between them operating 10,423 outlets in the UK did not bat an eyelid at the statement from Venners or comment on it in any way.

Section 43 of 'The Weights and Measures Act 1985' stated the following:

In ascertaining the quantity of any beer or cider for any of the purposes of section 25 or sections 28 to 31 above, or of the Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1984, the gas comprised in any foam on the beer or cider shall be disregarded and, for the purposes of this subsection," beer" and " cider " have the meanings given by section 1 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979.

Due to lobbying by vested interests this section was not implemented. Instead they proposed a voluntary code which stated that "a head of froth is excessive and unreasonable if the measure of draught beer does not contain a minimum of 95% liquid after the collapse of the head".

This is clearly intended to fix the maximum amount of froth in a glass – which is 100% full with liquid and froth after the collapse of the head. It is now being used instead to justify the practice of filling glasses with 95% liquid and a tiny amount of froth after the collapse of the head.

So much has this practice become acceptable and unchallenged that rents for tied tenants and other contracts like bonus payments for pub managers are being fixed on yields that are impossible to achieve without under-filling. For example a GMB member in East Midlands employed by one of the major pub chains had a written target for yield of 99.75%. This is not uncommon. GMB consider such yield targets as illegal.

GMB would ask you to call on the Trading Standards Institute and Local Government Regulation – the two national bodies dealing with weights and measures – to conduct an urgent review of how the law on what constitutes a pint is being applied in pubs across the land. We need this as GMB members who run pubs are being put under financial pressures to under-fill as I demonstrate above. As you can see they are told that under-filling should be used to offset wastage.

There is a need for clarity so that when a customer orders a pint and pays for a pint they should get a pint. That would also give GMB members a clearer legal defence against pressures to skimp and under-fill.

I look forward to hearing from you”

---

Press releases, papers and documents published on this page are the intellectual property of an organisation unrelated to Central Lobby. We promote their parliamentary and political campaigning activities as they are subscribers to the Central Lobby service.

As such, Central Lobby does not edit, endorse, or attempt to balance the opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases and other such types of content are the responsibility of the originating organisation.