Mr David Franks
Chief Executive
Iarnród Éireann
Connolly Station
Dublin 1

28th July 2014

Re; Cost Containment Implementation

Dear Sir,

I refer to the above and your correspondence dated the 17th July and received by my office today the 28th July.

Your correspondence was apparently in response to mine dated the 17th June 2014.

In the first instance let me assure you that any statements made by me in the area of managerial appointments are rooted in fact.

For the record a number of Unions (at the Labour Court) commented on the high level of appointments made to the managerial structure throughout the period 2008-2014.

I think the point being missed here is that a significant number of staff across the organisation have departed on V.S. since the Cost Containment agreement of 2012.

Quite a number of those who left would of course have been from the managerial/executive pool. You may remember that there was considerable debate and no little media commentary around the issue of alleged enhanced V.S. packages for that particular cohort of staff.

You then go on to contend that my comments on the cost management were “unfortunate”.

You appear to attach a considerable weight to the fact that you yourself are now chairing this committee, and while I appreciate your bona fides in this matter, it is important that you would understand the thrust of this Trade Union’s criticism.

The reasoning behind the formation of the committee was to unearth and eliminate waste, investigate the overreliance on contractors/consultants, look at the whole area of procurement and conduct an audit of staff numbers, including those in management.

It was also intended that all cost saving initiatives being undertaken by the Company would be incorporated under this committee. This would have ensured a shared ownership of the commitment to reduce the non-payroll cost base along with assuring staff that the process was open and transparent.

The one fundamental and consequential decision which has emanated from the committee? Blocking frontline colleagues being promoted, along with it would appear, regularising appointments and placing restrictions on the payment of monies to staff who have been successful at tribunals (binding) and/or through internal fora.

You then go on to reference a meeting we had prior to the discussions at Wynn’s hotel. Let me in the first instance assure you of one thing, my senior representatives were fully briefed in advance of the meeting with regard to what was to be discussed.

However, for the record, what was advanced was that a material recognition of what staff had contributed to-date along with dedicated discussions on a group by group basis, i.e. Infrastructure Department, Loco Drivers, Signalpersons, R.P.U./TTC’s, Train Hosts, Station Staff, etc. was required as a first step towards addressing the trust and confidence issue.

As previously outlined Loco drivers had already been involved in discussions/negotiations at which a figure of e65.00 (weekly) was tabled, albeit after a series of incremental additions to driver responsibilities, of which one was to incorporate safety standards (payment of e15.60) inclusive of downloads. Incidentally the use of downloads remains unagreed.

With regard to your assertion that “the SIPTU ballot is not something I control”, my criticism revolved around the vote management strategy that was pursued, both at the discussions and subsequent to the 13th June.

In fact your communications strategy was almost exclusively designed to match the expected result that the tweaking of the document was designed to deliver.

Finally, the irony with regard to you quoting clause 10 of the agreed procedures at a time when you are about to breach one of our fundamental agreements, i.e. interfering with workers’ wages, has not been lost on our members.

Yours Sincerely

____________
DERMOT O’LEARY
General Secretary