In October 2004, six of the eight trade unions represented at French National Railways (SNCF) signed an agreement designed to prevent industrial disputes at the state-run company. The agreement came at a time when the free market-oriented wing of the ruling conservative coalition was preparing to table legislation requiring minimum service during public transport strikes.
Download article in original language : FR0412101NFR.DOC
In October 2004, six of the eight trade unions represented at French National Railways (SNCF) signed an agreement designed to prevent industrial disputes at the state-run company. The agreement came at a time when the free market-oriented wing of the ruling conservative coalition was preparing to table legislation requiring minimum service during public transport strikes.
Discussions on establishing an 'industrial dispute warning system' began at French National Railways (Société nationale des chemins de fer français, SNCF) in 1997 (FR0409105F), after another state-run public transport company, the Paris Public Transit Authority (Régie autonome des transports parisiens, RATP), had reached this type of agreement on preventing disputes with its trade unions the previous year (FR0304106F). After President Jacques Chirac was re-elected in 2002, the difficult process of talks (FR0402103N) was speeded up because of pressure from members of the governing conservative coalition, who have been unrelenting in their calls for legislation on the issue of maintaining minimum services during public sector strikes. The legal situation is quite complicated given the very fine line between providing guarantees for passengers and restricting the right to strike. In France, the right to strike is an individual one, enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution of the French Republic. This right is not unalterable, but amending the Constitution was not the most obvious first choice in dealing with the issue. The other problem is of a more practical nature: how is it possible to define a minimum or guaranteed service for a sector that carries millions of passengers daily, especially commuters in the Paris area?
The major unknown quantity throughout this negotiation process was the position that the largest trade union at SNCF, the railway workers' federation affiliated to General Confederation of Labour affiliated (Confédération Générale du Travail, CGT) - which won 47.1% of votes in the most recent workplace elections of employee representatives at the company - would take. A draft agreement designed to prevent industrial disputes was drawn up and four trade unions announced in autumn 2004 that they intended to ratify the accord. These were the transport sector federations affiliated to: the National Federation of Independent Unions (Union nationale des syndicats autonomes, UNSA) (14% of the votes in the most recent workplace elections); the French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff-General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff (Confédération française de l’encadrement-confédération générale des cadres, CFE-CGC) (0.7%); the French Christian Workers’ Confederation (Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens, CFTC) (5.88%); and the General Independent Union of Drivers (Fédération générale autonome des agents de conduite, FGAAC), (3.3% of the total vote, but 31% among train drivers). The French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail, CFDT) (7.5%) was reluctant to sign an agreement that had failed to obtain the support of the largest union. However, as soon as it looked likely that the CGT would endorse the agreement, CFDT announced that it would also sign. The accord was signed on 28 October 2004. Two unions rejected the agreement - the General Confederation of Labour-Force ouvrière (Confédération générale du travail-Force ouvrière, CGT-FO) (6.61%) and Sud-rail, the second largest union at SNCF (14.8%).
After much discussion, CGT decided to endorse the agreement because of what the general secretary of its sectoral affiliate called the 'additional resources and support it gives employee representatives and trade unions in conducting effective social dialogue'. At the same time, CGT, along with the other unions, let it be known that it would be watching the subsequent stages closely. The debate is not over, and there is every likelihood of the issue of minimum service provision during industrial action cropping up again.
The October agreement seeks to prevent industrial disputes, but does not rule out strike action. The Minister of Transport, Gilles de Robien, had a mandate to go further and ensure continuity of service during industrial action. While the Minister was pleased with the agreement, saying that it was preferable to legislation, he was quick to announce his resolve to continue discussion over the establishment of guaranteed services during strikes. He has announced three initiatives:
the creation of an 'independent guarantee authority responsible for the implementation of agreements';
new public transport sector-wide negotiations on the principles endorsed in the SNCF agreement; and
a debate concluding in spring 2005 on the terms and conditions underpinning the provision of a minimum or guaranteed service during strikes.
The managements of the two largest public transport companies, SNCF and RATP, have indicated that their preferred option remains negotiated rules (FR0409105F). However, the government, under the watchful eye of the free market enthusiasts in its ruling Union for a People’s Movement (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, UMP), could be tempted to take the more radical legislation-based approach, if an agreement does not seem enough to protect what are seen as passenger interests. With a view to putting down a marker, the unions organised a joint day of action and demonstrations (without a strike call) on 25 November 2004.
Eurofound recommends citing this publication in the following way.
Eurofound (2004), Agreement on dispute prevention signed at SNCF, article.
