Agreement at Belgian National Railways satisfies union demands

In October 2006, a meeting between the trade unions and management of Belgian National Railways discussed the demands put forward by the unions. Dissatisfied with its outcome, the unions threatened a 24-hour strike, planned for 8 November 2006. However, on 30 October, agreement was reached between the company’s management and the trade unions in relation to union concerns around the issues of under-staffing, sub-contracting and profit-sharing.

There was a new wave of social unrest in the Belgian railway sector in October 2006. On 6 October, the two trade unions active in Belgian National Railways (Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Belges/Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen, SNCB/NMBS) held a press conference in order to highlight concerns of the railway workers. The two unions involved are the Transport and Communications Union (Transcom), affiliated to the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Confédération des Syndicats Chrétiens/Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond, CSC/ACV), and the General Confederation of Public Services – Railway workers (Centrale Générale des Services Publics – Cheminots/Algemene Centrale der Openbare Diensten – Spoor, CGSP/ACOD).

Concerns of trade unions

The main concerns of both trade unions are as follows:

• understaffing: this has resulted in a higher workload for rail workers. The trade unions pressed for statutory fast-track staff recruitment. The recruitment process should apply to all categories of workers and particularly to blue-collar, semi-skilled workers. On this subject, the President of the CGSP/ACOD – Railway workers, Gérard Gelmini, stated on 30 October 2006 in an article in the newspaper Le Soir: ‘Due to the lack of staff, the management has decided to increase the productivity of the railway workers. Some drivers, who have been operating two return journeys a day, must now operate three return journeys a day. They do not even have time to have lunch between two train journeys, let alone considering the risk in terms of safety’;

• subcontracting: this relates to management plans to subcontract some railway workers’ activities – such as cleaning – to private companies;

• job security: the trade unions sought guarantees with regard to the permanence and stability of the new group structure. The group is now divided into three companies: SNCB/NMBS Holding, Infrabel and SNCB/NMBS-Opérateur but maintains the principle of single social dialogue. For further information with regard to the new structure of SNCB/NMBS, see the Belgian contribution (72Kb MS Word doc) to the EIRO thematic feature on [industrial relations in the railway sector](/search/node/eiro OR thematicfeature13?oldIndex);

• Profit-sharing: the rail workers considered that they should benefit from the positive financial results of the group. SNCB/NMBS announced at the end of September that the group had generated positive operating revenue of €62.3 million for the first semester of 2006. According to the trade unions, this gain was a result of the increased productivity of rail workers and of the non-recruitment management strategy. In this context, the trade unions believed that part of the financial results should be redistributed to the workers.

Reaction to negotiations

On 23 October 2006, a meeting took place between the management of the company and the trade unions based on these demands. At the end of the meeting, the trade unions declared that they were disappointed by the negotiations, claiming that they had not obtained ‘sufficient progress’ in the fulfilment of their demands.

On the management side, the SNCB/NMBS spokesperson, Philippe Tomberg, stated: ‘We agree that the staff have contributed to the improved financial results of the group and, consequently, the staff have the right to a return for their effort. However, the payment must be reasonable. We cannot forget the target of achieving a break-even financial position in 2008. In other respects, the recruitment of low-skilled staff is one of our priorities and is currently underway.’

Following this meeting, the trade unions threatened the management with a 24-hour strike if the negotiations stalled. A first day of action was planned for 8 November 2006.

On 30 October 2006, a ‘last hope’ trade union meeting was organised, coinciding with limited strike action in several railway stations: Mons, Ath, Braine-Le-Comte, La Louvière and Charleroi all in the southwestern province of Hainaut, and Tournai in the Wallonia region in the south of Belgium. By the end of the day, the trade unions and management announced that an agreement had been reached. Therefore, the strike planned for 8 November was cancelled.

Content of agreement

The agreement provides for the recruitment of 600 staff by the end of 2006. It also proposes to give each member of staff two gift tokens, worth €35 each, as a form of remuneration for their participation in the financial results of the group. Moreover, the company management has abandoned plans to subcontract work.

At the end of this episode, CSC/ACV Transcom declared in a press release: ‘We have listened to the employees and the increase in productivity generated by the workers has been rewarded. Moreover, the group has reaffirmed the principle of a single company and of a single social dialogue’.

Delphine Rochet, Institut des Sciences du Travail (IST), Catholic University of Leuven