Debate over minimum service during public transport strikes

Download article in original language : FR0409105FFR.DOC

A long-running debate in France about whether a minimum level of service should be required during public transport strikes was reignited in July 2004 by the publication of a government-commissioned report supporting such a measure. The social partners, which are deeply divided on the matter, have been consulted about minimum service provision by the government.

Relatively high levels of industrial action in the public transport sector - rail, bus, metro, air etc - has given rise to decades of intense debate as to whether or not a minimum service should be maintained during strikes. In France, while strike action is allowed for collective reasons, the right to strike is an individual one, which does not necessarily require a strike call from a trade union. Although rules vary from one part of the sector to another, industrial action is permitted in public transport, but with specific notice requirements that do not exist in other sectors. These requirements, which were set in place despite significant misgivings on the part of trade unions, are often bypassed in practice. In order to avoid individual penalties for unofficial strikes, notice covering all employees at all times is often given systematically.

When industrial disputes (expectedly or unexpectedly) break out in public transport, management calls on non-strikers to maintain a partial service. The unpredictability of staff numbers and skills available during a strike makes the response to such calls slow, uncertain in its results and, according to some unions, liable to manipulation by management.

The Paris Public Transit Authority (Régie autonome des transports parisiens, RATP), which runs the Paris metro and bus service as well as a part of the regional public transport network, has for the past few years had in place an in-house dispute-resolution system, which has helped significantly to reduce the number of strikes, especially short-notice walk-outs. The French National Rail Company (Société nationale des chemins de fer français, SNCF) reached a company-level agreement on this issue in 2003 (FR0304106F), though it is yet to yield some of the desired results. The overall trend in strike action is downwards in public transport, but the process is slower than in other industries and the impact of strike action on passengers remains significant. Individual passengers as well as corporate customers are quick to show their frustration at industrial action. Some polls indicate that the vast majority of the population is in favour of an initiative providing for the maintenance of a minimum service during public transport strikes.

New report

The widespread industrial action that took place in 2003 (FR0305103F and FR0306104F) and 2004 (FR0402103N), notably over the government’s plans to reform pensions (FR0309103F) and sickness insurance (FR0406105F), revived the controversial debate surrounding public transport and strikes. The President of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, came out in favour of developing a minimum service initiative, and the government set about putting this into practice. A group of experts, none of whom were drawn from trade unions, was commissioned to produce a report, which it submitted in July 2004.

The 'Mandelkern report', named after the working party’s leading figure, takes stock of the legislative and regulatory situation and the available statistical data on strikes in the public services. The report is strongly in favour of measures to ensure continuity of service for the travelling public in the event of industrial action in land-based passenger transport. It suggests that negotiations might be held compulsorily before any strike is called. It also proposes that the required strike notice be raised from five to 10 days, during which period talks and the organisation of a minimum service could take place. This option is underpinned by a proposed requirement for those employees vital to ensuring continuity of service to declare their intentions with regard to striking or not at least 48 hours prior to the start of action.

The Mandelkern report, which accepts the difficulty of defining a minimum level of service, advocates the creation of bodies responsible for organising public transport service during strike action and for regulating the conditions of social dialogue in the companies concerned.

Responses

Politicians, trade unions and employers’ associations have taken up differing positions on the minimum service issue.

Those on the political right had already made their position on this issue clear, for instance in May 2001, when the Senate (with a conservative majority) called for a package of measures akin to those proposed in the Mandelkern report. In December 2001, a few months after this move by the Senate, the main employers’ confederation, the Movement of French Enterprises (Mouvement des entreprises de France, MEDEF), called for 'the constitutional right to strike' to be treated on an equal basis 'with the right to continuity of public service'. MEDEF recommended that strikes by certain categories of personnel be banned and that staff be subject to requisition (ie ordered to work by the public authorities).

The political left is opposed to amending the current legislation. It contends that it is difficult to implement genuinely workable restrictions and that the collective and individual right to strike must be safeguarded. The trade unions, which are more strongly entrenched in the transport industry than in most other sectors, all view the proposed minimum service initiative as above all a move to curb the right to strike, and have stressed the need for a consultation process.

All sides agree that consultation is required and that priority should be given to social dialogue as a way of both avoiding disputes and of dealing with the impact when they do occur. However, they differ in the confidence that they place in the results that can be expected from the consultation process. There are elements among both the conservative parties and the employers that are calling - either for electoral reasons or under pressure from exasperated companies - for restrictive measures. However, others on the right fear that heavy-handed restrictions will only serve further to fuel disputes in the most strategically important sectors. Political parties on the left are aware that passengers are also voters. The trade unions recognise that the consequences of specific strike action in these sectors damage their image in the eyes of the public.

Commentary

There are no legal barriers to amending the legislation governing the right to strike, which is enshrined in the Constitution, just as there are no legal impediments to determining a minimum service. The issues raised and proposals put forward in the Mandelkern report are currently the subject of a theoretical debate. The next step, if the government deems it appropriate to proceed down this road, will be to develop tangible solutions, which will not rebound on the law, the state and corporate management whenever new industrial disputes arise. Is not inadequate legislation more effective than undermined legislation? Could not the definition of the priorities of a minimum service shift the dispute battleground to passengers themselves or between corporate customers and passengers, thus benefiting strikers who would no longer be held responsible for the impact of strike action? Will company management be able to deal with individuals' advance declarations of intention to strike, or will such declarations trigger insoluble disputes with local supervisors? Lastly, are not the services provided by non-striking workers already equivalent to any possible minimum service? (Christian Dufour, IRES)