Luas dispute was only a matter of time

With economic recovery there was always likely to be a surge in expectations among workers anxious to regain what they lost in the crash.

This was likely to lead to a rise in strikes but, in the case of Luas, there are also circumstances which made industrial action more likely and a resolution more difficult.

The dispute which threatens to bring Dublin’s Luas tram system to an indefinite standstill stems from a relatively straightforward claim for improved terms and conditions.

But there are contributory factors - industrial, structural and political - which date back to the establishment of the tram service 12 years ago.

The existing arrangement whereby the infrastructure is owned essentially by the State but the service is operated by an external company – currently Transdev – on a contract basis was put in place to avoid problems experienced in the CIÉ transport group.

Exclusive negotiating rights were secured by Siptu, a move aimed at avoiding interunion rows while the private sector management role was designed to prevent appeals to ministers.

For a number of years after its establishment, there was a no-strike clause. However, this was removed.

Sources say there has for many years been a certain “awkwardness” between some Luas staff and Siptu.

The union has backed the stance taken by staff, even if it may have had misgivings about some tactics.

The initial argument of the staff was they could not accept pay increases based on the Consumer Price Index, as this is running at close to zero and, over a five-year contract, staff would receive little extra.

Siptu approval

Management subsequently said it would look at rises of 1 - 3 per cent, linked to productivity.

The claim by the staff for improvements in terms and conditions, initially set at up to 53 per cent over five years, was organic and came from the ground up.

However, it was backed by Siptu and the four days of strikes were authorised.

It is understood that at top levels in Siptu the view was that employers and the government had walked away from social partnership in 2009.

In the absence of a national agreement setting a pay framework, its members should be free to bargain for what they could secure.

Over recent days Luas staff have revised downwards their pay claim.

The union argues the revenue protection officers and supervisors are now seeking rises of about 3 per cent a year, traffic supervisors about 4 per cent and drivers 5-6 per cent.

It believes these are not exceptional where additional productivity would also be provided.

The union contends that what has now happened at Luas is the employer has walked away from talks and, as a result, industrial action could escalate.

On the other hand, some senior industrial relations figures maintain even the modified pay claim is larger than the rises Siptu has been securing in manufacturing and other sectors in the last couple of years – about 2 - 3 per cent.

The duration of any deal at Luas – running until 2019 with payments backdated to 2014 – is also longer than the norm.

Transdev has argued it cannot afford significant rises given it lost €700,000 last year.

There are also concerns in government and elsewhere at the potential knock-on effects of any Luas deal on the broader transport sector.

The National Bus and Railworkers Union has warned it is watching developments closely.

The Labour Court is already scheduled to deal with pay in Dublin Bus.

Separately, unions and management at Iarnród Éireann will be at the Workplace Relations Commission on Monday to try to avert potential industrial action.

The structure of the State’s contract with Transdev is also complex and the Government is very unwilling to unpick it.

Transdev receives a set fee every day the Luas operates. However, fare revenue goes essentially to the State.

Legal challenges

The Government has ruled out any use of these funds to finance higher salaries on the basis that any alterations could expose the State to legal challenges from companies that unsuccessfully sought the contract.

The row between Luas staff and management has now been before the Workplace Relations Commission on eight occasions.

A Labour Court recommendation was also rejected by workers last December.

This urged the parties to engage in realistic and meaningful negotiations without suggesting parameters.

Another visit to the Labour Court may be one of the few viable avenues left for solving the row.