Ongoing dispute between public bus company and regional authority

Since August 2006, the Ústí region in the northwest of the Czech Republic has been experiencing disruptions in its public bus service, as a result of a dispute between representatives of the Ústí Regional Authority and the Ústí Region Transport Company (DPÚK). DPÚK employees thus face uncertainty about the future of their jobs with the company.

Reasons for dispute

Up to now, the Ústí Region Transport Company (Dopravní podnik ústeckého kraje, DPÚK) has been providing public bus transport in the Ústí region in the northwest of the Czech Republic on the basis of a licence issued in the 1990s. DPÚK is now demanding the sum of CZK 315 million (about €546 million as at 17 January 2007) back from the Ústí Regional Authority (Krajsky urad Usteckeho kraje, Ústecký kraj), which it claims the authority owes for the services provided. Regional authority representatives disagree with this demand as they consider that the licence on the basis of which DPÚK provides its services is disadvantageous to the region. The licence was issued at the beginning of the 1990s and since then, according to representatives of the regional authority, transport conditions in the region have changed, requiring repairs and improvements in terms of routes and the intensity of services. DPÚK refuses to consider the authority’s arguments.

Action taken by DPÚK

As a result, on 1 August 2006, DPÚK buses did not leave their garages and no public bus transport was available in the Ústí region until 4 August 2006. Understandably, this gave rise to considerable dissatisfaction among the users of the services.

DPÚK had originally decided not to renew services as long as representatives of the regional authority refused to pay the debts demanded. However, apparently under pressure from public opinion, DPÚK eventually backed down and took up services again on 4 August 2006. The Governor of the Ústí region, Jirí Šulc, emphasised that: ‘One reason the transport company changed its position was definitely the fact that the regional authority organised 175 routes and would have been able by Sunday, 6 August 2006, to sign contracts guaranteeing 70% of routes, on which we would have been able to carry citizens. The administrative procedure launched by the anti-monopoly office also played a role.’ The anti-monopoly office is currently investigating whether DPÚK has abused its dominant position in the transport industry in the region. Nevertheless, this did not mark the end of the disagreement.

Job uncertainty for DPÚK employees

The dispute between the regional authority and DPÚK has resulted in uncertainty for several hundred DPÚK employees regarding their jobs. The regional authority has made it known that it is capable of organising public bus services in the short term from other sources. The Czech Prime Minister, Mirek Topolánek, promised that, if requested by the regional governor, the government is prepared to provide ‘extraordinary’ means of transport, such as Czech army transport units. In the long term, the government can also grant licences to other operators, even though DPÚK regards this as unlawful, given that the company owns the licence to provide public bus services until 2011.

On the basis of talks between representatives of the regional authority and DPÚK management on the provision of transport services in the Ústi region, representatives of the Transport Union (Svaz dopravy CR, SD CR) at DPÚK expressed serious concerns that the company’s employees could face job cuts by the end of 2006. For that reason, the union representatives attempted to call a two-day warning strike to be held from 7 September 2006 to midnight on 8 September 2006. SD CR was prepared to end the strike as soon as it received assurance that workers would be guaranteed jobs until at least 2 June 2007. Due to the pressure of public opinion, the warning strike was called off on 6 September 2006. Trade union officials pointed out, however, that in emergency situations the regional authority is allowed to call on drivers from other regions. Meanwhile, the union officials had learned that such assistance is apparently in violation of safety regulations, because drivers are not able to adhere to a timetable without driving buses above the allowed limited time period. In addition, many of the buses used by drivers in such circumstances do not meet the technical requirements; for instance, they are not adapted to provide access for baby prams or wheelchairs.

Commentary

This dispute is by no means over yet. On the basis of a concession process, the Ústí regional authority has chosen a new transport company to provide bus services in the region from 1 January 2007. However, DPÚK regards this process to be illegal. To date, the matter has not been brought before the courts in an attempt to end the dispute.

Sona Veverková, Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs