Borders blockaded on day of cross-border industrial action in road transport

Download article in original language : FR9809128FFR.DOC

An international day of action by lorry drivers on 8 September 1998 was relatively well supported in Europe, especially in France. It was designed to increase awareness among drivers and the general public about the issue of driving time - especially relevant in the EU, where regulations on this subject are currently under discussion. The action was thus also aimed at European employers, coming a few days before the planned final round of negotiations on EU rules governing lorry drivers' working time.

In Europe, the worldwide campaign on road transport workers' hours launched by the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) in March 1998 had a particular significance, owing to issues specific to the European Union. In France, the campaign followed the long lorry drivers' strike in the autumn of 1996 and again in 1997 (FR9711177F). The ITF, along with its European counterpart, the Federation of Transport Workers' Unions in the European Union (Fédération syndicale des transports, FST), called an" international day of action" on 8 September 1998, aimed at increasing awareness among the public and among drivers themselves of the dangers of the excessively long periods that lorry drivers spend in the cab (EU9809127F).

Driving time and social standards

The campaign launched by the ITF, under the slogan "Fatigue kills", draws attention to the 1979 International Labour Organisation (ILO) [Convention No. 153 on hours of work and rest periods (road transport)](http://ilolex.ilo.ch:1567/public/50normes/ilolex/pdconv.pl?host=status01&textbase=iloeng&document=154&chapter=1&query=(C153). This Convention, laying down health and safety protection for professional drivers, including a maximum working week of 48 hours, has so far been ratified by only a handful of countries. In the EU, the 1993 Council Directive on certain aspects of the organisation of working time (93/104/EC) excluded from its coverage most transport sectors, including road transport. Furthermore, the only EU legislation governing drivers' hours - Council Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport- is perceived as outdated, and was stated by the European Commission in 1997 to have shortcomings and to be in need of an overhaul. It was with the objective of filling in the gaps in existing Community regulations that in 1997 the Commission asked the EU-level social partners in road transport to seek an agreement on working time in the sector (EU9808122F). In light of the fact that the final round of negotiations on these issues between the social partners within the Joint Committee on Road Transport was to take place on 18 September, FST participated in the ITF campaign with the aim of having a decisive influence on the negotiation of outstanding issues.

A series of meetings had gone some way towards establishing a degree of consensus between the EU-level social partners on drivers' hours, but a few stumbling blocks remained in the lead-up to the final round of talks. The calculation of waiting time is subject to great disparities from one country to another, which contributes to the difficulty of harmonising regulations. However, the issue that led to the greatest differences in opinion in the talks was that of derogations from any European-level agreement: resulting from collective bargaining or by other means, such derogations would give great latitude for adapting the European rules to local situations and, as a result, put the very substance of these rules and their ability to regulate the conditions of competition at stake.

The issue of derogations was of concern not only to trade unions but also to employers' associations. In France, the Nation Road Transport Federation (Fédération nationale des transporteurs routiers, FNTR), for example, deplored the relative lack of precision in the conditions for derogation provided for in the draft text of an agreement and feared that certain employers' associations - those in the UK, for instance - would excessively bypass common agreements. For their part, the Chamber of Industrial Haulage Contractors (Chambre des loueurs du transport industriel- CLTI) and the French Federation of Forwarding Agent Organisations (Fédération française des organisations commissionnaires du transport- FFOCT) expressed the same concerns but appeared to consider that the draft text was better than no text at all.

Real mobilisation

On a world scale, the ITF initiative had very uneven results. Leaflets were handed out at the USA-Mexico border, in Brazil, Argentina, India, Burkina Faso and in eastern European countries such as the Ukraine and Bulgaria. The European Union, however, was the scene of unprecedented rallies and large numbers of road-blocks were set up to enable protesters to stop and talk with lorry drivers. In France both selective and mobile blockades, primarily at international border crossings, were organised, involving drivers of different nationalities. At ports such as Calais, Dieppe, Cherbourg and Ouistreham, lorry drivers hindered the loading and unloading of vessels. At many border crossings, union representatives cooperated - for example: at the pont de l'Europe in Strasbourg; Irun and le Perthus on the Spanish border; roads and motorways to Lille, Antwerp, Valenciennes and Liège; Modane and the Mont Blanc and Fréjus tunnels in the Alps; and Vintimille on theCôte d'Azur. These initiatives saw much cross-border inter-union collaboration in speeches, leaflet distribution and rallies.

On the whole, the FST was very satisfied with the day of action. For their part, French union representatives were satisfied for two reasons. Firstly, drivers' reactions to speeches and leaflets indicated real interest, which was increased by the novelty value of the international scope of the action. The confusion that marked the end of the strike in the autumn of 1997 had led to real fears on the part of lorry drivers for their future. The fact that lorry drivers were so receptive seems to have dispelled this threat to some extent. Relations between the unions have improved somewhat and the absence of the CGT transport federation (Fédération CGT des transports) from the FST working time negotiations was compensated by regular information provided by the CFDT transport union, which participated in the European-level delegation. However, the greatest satisfaction could be drawn by trade unions from the general involvement of FST members, which had previous acted, if they had acted at all, in an uncoordinated way. In particular, the fact that Spanish, German and Belgian unionists participated in the day of action substantially changed the conditions for organising trade union action in this sector, and its scope. It was, all in all, a first for Europe and very different from a similar initiative mounted in June 1997 which had only limited support. One other cause for celebration in some quarters was the fact that French trade unionism, sometimes seen abroad as being on the verge of disappearance, could on such an occasion be just as efficient as any other.

Commentary

In France the day of action on 8 September 1998 did not reach the heady days of the blockades of former strikes. However, in this case, no comparison should be drawn: the context and thrust of this mobilisation were very different and the results achieved on a totally different scale. Action as part of a wider international context, taking place all over the world simultaneously with common objectives, is a notable event in a world where trade unions are confined by national borders.

An examination of sectoral mobilisations over a long period of time leads to the belief that this day of action was different in meaning from the mere sum of national days of action. It could well be an important step in the creation of a sectoral dimension for European trade unionism, thus making it more than just a juxtaposition of national unions. This day of action certainly strengthened the FST and the ITF, whose tradition as the most combative International Trade Secretariat was confirmed. It is now important to gauge the effects of this medium- to long-term success on the most important current issues, especially in Europe. The forthcoming Directive on working time in road transport and in particular the much needed updating of Regulation 3820/85 are issues for both employers' associations and unions. These EU-level rules will, or will not, lay down a regulatory environment providing a framework for national agreements. If agreement is reached on limiting the ability to derogate from the EU rules, or if the authorities so decide, social gains made in France over the past few years could really be applied on a permanent basis, provided that the monitoring authorities are really able to do their job. In addition, it is important to note that the way that EU rules are drawn up is important. If an agreement were drafted by the European-level social partners, it would have a stronger impact on the EU Council of Ministers than if the Commission drew up the proposal. As far as French unions are concerned, they would not automatically accept an EU-level deal, since they could not easily support an agreement that fell short of current provisions or did not guarantee the gains made during the two strikes of 1996-7.

This issue is, in any event, a test for the social capacity of the new Europe under construction, until the next difficult period for road transport comes along when the countries of central and eastern Europe join the European Union. (Jean-Marie Pernot, Ires)

[After this feature was completed, the social partners' talks over an EU-level agreement on working time in road transport failed to reach a conclusion on 18 September 1998. No further progress was made at a final meeting on 30 September, the deadline for agreement, and the Commission announced that it would propose Community legislation on the issue. For further details, see EU9809127F ]