Dispute hits Irish Rail

A seemingly intractable dispute between the Irish Locomotive Drivers' Association (ILDA) and Irish Rail has caused widespread disruption to Irish train services during summer 2000. A recent initiative by third parties to resolve the dispute was rejected by ILDA. As the dispute approached its 10th week in mid-August, the situation was one of deadlock and stalemate.

The major company in the Irish rail transport sector is Iarnród Éireann (Irish Rail). Irish Rail is a wholly publicly-owned company that operates on a local, regional and national level, and is one of three subsidiary companies of Córas Iompair Éireann (CIE), the state body responsible for public transport. Irish Rail currently operates in a monopoly position, but the Minister for Public Enterprise has recently suggested that this may change in the future. The government is already committed to encouraging private sector participation in the provision of bus services. At present, Irish Rail is going through a major process of change, incorporating cost reductions and the introduction of new work practices to increase efficiency. These changes have occurred in tandem with EU measures to promote the liberalisation of European transport systems (TN0003402S).

Industrial relations history

Industrial relations have historically been highly adversarial at Irish Rail, and generally remain so. There has been a history of bad management, as well as of inter-union rivalry. A low-trust "them and us" culture is deep-rooted. In recent times many jobs have been shed as a result of "rationalisation" measures. Furthermore, the company has historically been characterised by low basic pay rates and and extensive overtime working. Employee communication and information-sharing have also been limited as a result of the highly bureaucratic structure of the company. The railways have been historically underfunded by successive governments. As a consequence of these factors and experiences there is low morale and fear and resentment of change amongst the workforce, because they generally perceive it as a threat.

The antagonistic industrial relations climate has meant that there has been frequent industrial conflict in the company. In recent years, this conflict has primarily, but not exclusively, centred round a number of unofficial stoppages by the Irish Locomotive Drivers' Association (ILDA) (IE0004149F). ILDA's origins lie in a group of drivers who were dissatisfied with a 1994 Irish Rail productivity agreement which, it claims, resulted in the removal of mileage payments to drivers. The drivers decided to break away from their former unions, namely the Services Industrial Professional Technical Union (SIPTU) and the National Bus and Railway Union (NBRU), and form ILDA. ILDA claims to have 130 members at present, which constitutes nearly half of Ireland's mainline train drivers, with SIPTU and the NBRU representing the rest. ILDA is now a registered trade union, but it has not been granted a negotiating license and the company refuses to recognise it for negotiating purposes. ILDA's request in the courts for a license was not granted by the High Court, and it has appealed to the Supreme Court. A decision is due on this in November 2000. It is debatable whether the union's push for recognition will be successful, given that successive governments and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) have actively promoted a process of union amalgamation and rationalisation to deal with the problems associated with "breakaway" unions, and what was formerly a highly fragmented union structure. At present, CIE still has a very fragmented union structure.

The current dispute

A major dispute between ILDA and Irish Rail began in the week beginning 19 June 2000, and has seriously disrupted train services in Ireland. The dispute has lasted nearly 10 weeks at the time of writing (mid-August), with no sign of a settlement, despite a recent initiative to resolve it through third-party mediation. ILDA insists that the dispute is primarily about safety concerns arising from the "new deal" for train drivers that was agreed in 1999 between company management and the two officially recognised train drivers' unions, SIPTU and NBRU, whose members narrowly voted in favour of the deal in a secret ballot. ILDA was excluded from the negotiations and the ballot because it is not a recognised union. ILDA members refused to work to the terms of the "new deal", thus sparking the present, seemingly intractable, dispute.

It is worth comparing the terms of the "new deal" with the previous terms for train drivers. Under the old arrangements, drivers worked an average of 55 hours per week for average annual earnings of IEP 27,000. However, basic pay for locomotive drivers was only IEP 14,239 per annum, with the rest being made from earnings from overtime. Some drivers worked up to 60 hours over a seven-day period in order to earn what they perceived to be a decent wage.

The "new deal" was seen as a blueprint for tackling the problems associated with low basic pay and the "overtime culture" at Irish Rail. It incorporated a significant increase in basic pay, in conjunction with significant reductions in working hours/days and overtime levels. A new composite payment system for train drivers was introduced that guaranteed annual basic pay packages, over a maximum five-day working week, ranging from IEP 26,165 for 43 hours to IEP 29,207 for 48 hours. Other changes in working arrangements include: an increase in the maximum daily mileage from 360 to 420; the removal of special weekend and holiday premia; a guarantee of 96 rest days per year; an increase in the maximum working day from nine to 10 hours; and substantial increases in pension benefits and sick pay.

ILDA has criticised aspects of the "new deal" and refused to work the new rosters because of the perceived implications for safety. In particular, it has stated that the deal would involve: an increase in the working day from nine to 11 hours; an increase in the maximum daily mileage from 360 to 420; the introduction of part-time drivers without adequate training; and the elimination of Sunday and public holiday premia.

Irish Rail management, as well as SIPTU and NBRU, reject ILDA's claims that the "new deal" will jeopardise safety. Rather, these parties suggest that the deal will do much to improve safety, particularly though provisions for substantial cuts in working time. Both management and the two unions suggest that the dispute is really centred round ILDA's fight for negotiation rights and recognition. Both sides are strictly opposed to any renegotiation of the deal after spending several years negotiating it. A major difficulty is that, even if the company were prepared to negotiate with ILDA over the terms of the "new deal", any renegotiation would be likely to damage severely relations with SIPTU and NBRU, and provoke industrial relations chaos. Indeed, ILDA's stance has heightened inter-union rivalry in the company. The government, meanwhile, appears to be growing increasingly impatient with industrial relations on the railways. At this juncture, however, the Minister of Public Enterprise has been unwilling directly to intervene in the dispute because this would undermine the authority of company management. Ultimately, though, the dispute may potentially serve to encourage moves to deregulate the railways.

Attempts to resolve the dispute through third-party intervention have, thus far at least, met with little success. The most recent attempt was an unprecedented joint initiative by the Labour Court (LC) and the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) to broker a solution. The two bodies offered to "undertake a joint investigation of the current claims and counter-claims in the locomotive drivers' dispute". All parties involved in the dispute were asked to make a written submission outlining their position, which would then be investigated. Prior to the investigation commencing, all drivers were expected to return to work, if necessary "under protest", to work the new rosters, while their concerns were examined by LC/LRC. However, ILDA rejected the offer. It basically reiterated that its members would not work the new rosters because they were perceived to be unsafe. Instead, the ILDA executive distributed a position paper outlining the conditions under which its members would be prepared to return to work.

Commentary

The current dispute between ILDA and Irish Rail is a by-product of the adversarialism and antagonism that has historically blighted the company. As stated above, train drivers in the company have historically been low paid and trust levels between management and workers have traditionally been very low, while there has also been a history of bad management as well as inter-union rivalry. The "new deal" that was recently agreed between company management and the two recognised train drivers' unions, SIPTU and NBRU, was seen as a means of improving industrial relations. It is undoubtedly the case that the deal significantly improves drivers' basic pay and reduces the hours that they have to work in order to earn a decent wage.

A crucial issue that has not often been mentioned in commentary on the dispute is that even though two-thirds of drivers are currently working to the terms of the "new deal", the agreement was originally accepted only by approximately one-third of all train drivers (114 out of a total of around 300). The agreement was narrowly accepted in a secret ballot of SIPTU and NBRU members (114 votes to 89). ILDA, which claims to represent 130 train drivers, was excluded from negotiations because it is not a recognised union. This meant that its members could not participate in the ballot unless they left ILDA and rejoined SIPTU or NBRU. It is arguable, then, that because nearly two-thirds of drivers did not originally accept the terms of the "new deal", there was bound to be trouble.

In the event, ILDA members refused to work the new rosters, suggesting that they were unsafe. It would appear, however, as various commentators have suggested, that the real issue is not about safety, but about gaining recognition and negotiation rights for a "locomotive drivers-only" union. The ILDA executive's position on safety does not really stand up to scrutiny. If anything, the "new deal" will potentially do much to improve safety by significantly improving basic pay, reducing working hours and the working week, and guaranteeing 96 rest days. It may be the case that ILDA is using the safety issue as a defence against any potential legal sanctions for engaging in the dispute. ILDA is not immune from damages because it is not a recognised union under the terms of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.

It is arguable that some of the actions and comments of both the ILDA executive and Irish Rail spokespersons have served to exacerbate the dispute. Again, this is a reflection of the confrontational industrial relations climate at the company. Irish Rail spokespersons have made various comments in the press that, far from solving the dispute, may merely have served to inflame it. The ILDA executive, meanwhile, has displayed little inclination to be accommodating during the dispute. In particular, it rejected the terms of the recent unprecedented joint Labour Court and Labour Relations Commission initiative to attempt to solve the impasse. The initiative provided the only practicable and realistic way forward. Instead, the ILDA executive put forward a position paper outlining the conditions under which its members would be prepared to return to work. However, the LRC has indicated that the initiative is non-negotiable, while Irish Rail management, along with SIPTU and NBRU, will not countenance any renegotiation of the "new deal". At this juncture, then, the situation would appear to be one of deadlock and stalemate. Irish Rail management seems to be resigned to the fact that the dispute may last for some time yet, while the ILDA executive seems to have obdurately backed itself into a corner. If a solution is not found soon to break the impasse, it may be that the train drivers will eventually be forced to return to work because of the financial hardship facing them and their families. (Tony Dobbins, UCD)