Trolley bus workers strike

Download article in original language : GR9904123FEL.DOC

In early March 1999, the trade union representing workers at Athens-Piraeus Area Trolley Buses (ILPAP) launched a programme of strike action directed mainly against the publicly-owned company's new general staff regulations, and calling for the retraction of management circulars and orders, allegedly seeking to do away with existing industrial relations practices. ILPAP management has rejected the union's claims and has taken legal action against it, demanding that the strikes be declared illegal and unjustified.

Athens-Piraeus Area Trolley Buses (ILPAP) is a public service company totally owned by the Greek state. On 1 and 12 March 1999 respectively, the trade union representing the company's workers, the Union of ILPAP Workers, decided to a launch a programme of strike action for 4, 16, 17, 18 and 19 March, which it communicated, as the law requires, to the legal representative of ILPAP. The strikes were decided on after the union issued an official statement to ILPAP setting out the framework of demands behind the industrial action, which concern the implementation of ILPAP's new "general staff regulations" (GKP) .

The ILPAP workers' union invited ILPAP management to participate in a public dialogue, in which all the competent ministries and other competent bodies, as well as the media, were invited to participate. The dialogue was set for 2 April 1999 at the offices of the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE), and it was proposed that a mediator/arbitrator from the Mediation and Arbitration Service (OMED) conduct the discussions between the two sides. Meanwhile, the union asked passengers for their understanding in view of the strikes already announced and others that seem sure to follow.

Strikers' demands

According to the administrative board of the ILPAP workers' union, the following demands had been decided on by the striking workers:

1. immediate payment of the cost of milk not provided to workers from January 1998 to date, and immediate provision of milk to those eligible for it. Many ILPAP workers had previously been entitled to free milk;

2. certification by ILPAP of the beginning and end of the total time workers are required to work;

3. an end to alleged management "abuse" of staff's legal working hours;

4. discontinuation of unilaterally implemented heavy work schedules, which are not, it is claimed, in accordance with the conditions prevailing in the company and have not been approved by the competent Labour Inspectorate;

5. introduction and implementation of health and safety regulations;

6. safeguarding of passenger safety, which is allegedly at risk due to physical fatigue among drivers;

7. immediate payment for rest periods worked during 1998; and

8. withdrawal of the circulars and orders by which management, in alleged violation of collective agreements and labour legislation, is said to be seeking to overturn the procedures, terms and conditions under which workers provide their services.

The most important demand from the workers' side may be the certification of the beginning and end of the total time that they are required to work. The union states that ILPAP management drew up on 27 January 1999 a notice (number 10) informing trolley bus crews of various changes in the manner, time and place that drivers on lines 2 and 3 receive and hand over vehicles The reason given for the issuing of the notice was said to be implementation of Law 2669/1998 on the "organisation and operation of urban transport in the area of Athens-Piraeus and vicinity". The changes made by the notice do not allow for certification of the beginning and end of working time, as specified in Article 40 paragraph 2 of the new general staff regulations. The union maintains that the imminent changes will cause serious problems for the smooth running of ILPAP, and at the same time upset workers' normal personal life. In particular, it claims that the impending changes will cause:

• problems for drivers, who will be exposed and unprotected in the face of any delinquency or ill-will on the part of monitoring bodies or their colleagues, since drivers will be deprived of the possibility of providing written proof of the exact time and place they began work;

• serious problems both for the normal family and social life of workers and for the safe conveyance of passengers, in view of the fact that the place where drivers take up work will always be different. This, it is claimed, will result in drivers being in a permanent state of confusion and anxiety, since they will not be able to plan their daily schedule;

• serious implications for drivers' relations with each other. Every time one driver is late beginning work, this will have an adverse effect on others, while some workers may take advantage of the impossibility of certifying the beginning and end of work, in order to work against their colleagues. This, says the union. will result in friction which will upset what has heretofore been an excellent working climate; and

• problems for timetables and smooth changes of shift, resulting in poor service for passengers and a bad image for ILPAP in the eyes of citizens.

Other issues

According to the ILPAP workers' union, there are, apart from the abovementioned demands, various other areas of change causing great concern to workers, the most important of which are the following:

• rest days are being reduced being from 119 to 104 per year;

• the introduction of split shifts will mean that many drivers will be on the road for 12 hours a day;

• the daily rest break is abolished for various categories of workers;

• bus ticket and pass sellers are given less time to turn in their daily receipts;

• various categories of workers will receive less pay due to the abolition of various benefits; and

• the employer's contribution to the workers' social insurance fund (TAP-ILPAP) is being reduced.

Management positions

On 2 March 1999, ILPAP management, denying the claims of the Union of ILPAP Workers, and refusing to accept its demands, initiated legal action against the union, asking among other things that the strikes be declared illegal and unjustified.

Management has stated that the union's demand not to implement the new GKP, which were introduced by Law 2669/1998, is unlawful and cannot be met, because it is aimed exclusively at non-implementation of the law. Management has voiced the following objections to the various individual demands:

• in accordance with Law 2669/1998, fewer categories of staff will be eligible for free milk, which is now provided in the form of fresh milk to be consumed during working time. The relevant measure will have retroactive effect following approval of the new supply schedule;

• with regard to certification of the times that employees start and stop work, management states that only 5% of the union's members are no longer covered by such certification, and that drivers also sign an itinerary sheet when they take delivery of and hand over vehicles, so that there is proof of the times they start and stop work;

• management calls the demand for an end to violations of statutory daily working time vague and unfounded, because ILPAP is implementing the new rules which are included in Law 2669/1998. This is also true of the demand regarding unilateral implementation of heavy work schedules;

• as concerns introduction and implementation of employee health and safety regulations, as well as provision for the safety of passengers, management says that ILPAP has seen to it that drivers are able to relax fully at the stations where they take their breaks. Management also states that, in accordance with the new regulations, drivers work fewer hours than formerly, with a 20-minute break to rest and recover their strength;

• with regard to immediate payment for rest periods worked during 1998, management has rejected the demand on the grounds that it is not based on the real situation, because ILPAP has already paid workers for most of the rest periods worked both in 1998 and in previous years; and

• on the final demand, regarding violation of the collective agreement and labour legislation, management contends that issues relating to industrial relations have been formulated and defined afresh in the new staff regulations.

Commentary

The case of ILPAP is undeniably part of a more general framework of changes taking place in the Greek public sector where, in the context of "modernisation", changes are being made which have a direct impact on industrial relations in the sector. The main characteristic of these changes is the introduction and enactment in law of flexibility, something which has essentially been missing from industrial relations in Greece and which now forms part of a broader policy in favour of greater flexibility in the labour market. Given the absence of meaningful dialogue, the conflict between the two sides and the accentuation of their differences was to be expected, and has resulted in a solution being found through legislation. (Eva Soumeli, INE/GSEE)