Mr David Franks
Chief Executive Officer
Iarnród Éireann
Connolly Station
Dublin 1

21st July 2014

Re: Unilateral Implementation of non-agreed Cost Containment Measures

Dear Sir,

I refer to the above and your correspondence of the 18th July outlining your intention to reduce our members’ wages without agreement. I also note that you have directly written to our members at their homes.

I will in the first instance address your correspondence to this Union.

I find it somewhat ironic that you would suggest finding “ways to avoiding action which would cause disruption to our customers” given that you and you alone have made an arbitrary decision to force a reaction upon our members.

The maintenance of industrial peace is very much in your gift.

One of the disappointing features of the entire process, which has become one of the main planks of the Company’s rationale for pursuing the route you have chosen, is this notion that dividing the workforce by pitting worker against worker would somehow work the oracle.

Indeed, from our vantage point, it would appear that the stage was set for a grand coalition of the vote managers, those who assumed that a little tweak would get it past the line, leaving the pitch clear to castigate those of us who represent frontline staff. Indeed it is being alleged that some were even apologetic in not achieving this particular result.

The NBRU takes its role as a staff representative body very seriously; we take our guidance exclusively from what our members say. They have told us through three ballots that they are not prepared to prop up the railway by part-replacing the role of Government in funding what is a public service.

Our approach going into the most recent discussions was one which was geared towards achieving a material recognition for our members’ contribution to-date, along with constructing a mechanism which would provide a dividend to Company and staff alike.

In fact, indications from senior management prior to the commencement of those discussions led us to believe that this position would be given an equal status to that of the “tweaking” position advanced by others.

However, this was not to be the case, the vote management strategy being the only show in town.

With respect to your decision to correspond with our members directly to their homes, we find it regrettable that a semi-state Company would effectively choose to interfere with the conduct of a legitimate strike/industrial action ballot.

Ironically there are strict regulations on how trade unions should conduct ballots, a prohibition on interference being one such regulation.

Alas there are no such regulations applicable to the employer, though one would like to think that a moral barometer would ensure that such an intervention would not occur.

If the history of this Country has taught us anything, it is that bypassing or going around those mandated to represent us is futile and is counter conducive to achieving a sustainable settlement or agreement.

Yours Sincerely

——————-
DERMOT O’LEARY
General Secretary