NBRU Statement to CEO David Franks at Top Participation Group

Re: Cost Containment Implementation

The NBRU membership has consistently rejected the proposals, no matter their hue, over three ballots.

Those rejections were as high as 92% and no lower than 75%. The last round of discussions were prefaced by you as being intensive.

We in the NBRU, naively perhaps, took that to mean that they were going to be different, going to be imaginative even.

Alas all we got was an exercise in futility, orchestrated it would appear by a coalition of those only interested in vote building.

The intent it would appear was for you to build on previous statements or communications and shout it loud and clear from the rooftops that the majority of staff had accepted the proposals.

What perhaps you did not bargain for was the groundswell of opposition that had been building over our three previous ballots. That groundswell came almost certainly from frontline staff.

It is perhaps an unfortunate circumstance of the current regime, which you preside over, that those who possess the institutional knowledge to be able to throw up red flags or at least some of the amber variety, throughout the varying processes were either silenced, side-lined or perhaps they were even in survival mode. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

We will return to this subject presently.

Just for the record, we, as a responsible Trade Union and drawing our current membership predominantly from the frontline, undertook at the very commencement of the talks process, to cooperate as much as was practicable. However, and despite our willingness to engage, we at all times cautioned that the circumstances that pertained would make the discussions difficult and we never held out any semblance of a possibility of our members accepting any retrenchment measures.

Those circumstances included, among others, the fact that the Company had committed to not returning to staff for further retrenchment measures following what has now become known as Cost Containment 1.
The drop-off in revenue, along with fuel price increases, also played a role in damaging the finances of the Company. However it is the dramatic reduction in subvention which we contend has had one of the most significant impacts on the Company’s bottom line.

Now, we have heard the attempts to make a direct comparison between our colleagues in both Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann and how they ultimately agreed to put their shoulder to the wheel as it were, for the greater good.

Those feeble attempts have now floundered on one fundamental and, to us, glaringly obvious difference.

Staff at both Bus Companies were told that if they took the so-called pain, it would contribute to putting the companies back on a sound footing and return them to profit. It now appears that this has transpired to be the case.

Staff at Irish Rail, at least our members at the Company, do not believe that the contribution being asked of here will not in any way go towards achieving a similar result.

They base this belief on a number of factors:

• Unlike the Bus Companies, no services have been curtailed in Irish Rail
• The amount of managerial/executive positions filled in the last six years belies the fact that the Company are in serious difficulty
• The amount of waste at the Company is nothing short of phenomenal
These three issues alone feed directly into the distinct and palpable lack of trust in the Company.

The reduction in subvention should automatically have led to a comprehensive review of service levels. This review should have been focused on curtailments rather than line closures, though we have been observing the commentary on certain lines and their non-viability for some time.

In terms of management/executive positions: what else were staff to think when they watched all those positions being advertised and filled? The Company must be in good if not reasonable financial health if it can sustain this type of promotional activity.

The waste at the Company is something we in the NBRU have long been highlighting as a major issue. We even advocated the formation of a Cost Management Committee with robust terms of reference.

This Committee was stymied and frustrated from day one. It was never going to be easy for Trade Union reps to be able to question or even challenge some senior managers in their little fiefdoms as regards to how they were spending money.

In fact, as is now known, the Committee took over eight months to get off the ground and when it eventually did, it was paid lip service, to the point where our representatives, seeing the futility of sitting on a Committee with no real influence, decided to resign.

We now have the farcical situation, despite the best efforts of those who currently sit on the Committee, whereby the biggest decision made to-date is the blocking of all promotions and, it appears, appointments.

This would be funny if it was not so serious: talk about closing the stable door!! It has resulted in genuine promotions and appointments being blocked.

Now we have the situation where the Company are moving ahead with the implementation of cuts to our members’ terms and conditions without agreement.

Such a provocative move can only be met with resistance, resistance which will inevitably manifest into a situation where both the Company and its staff will be brought into disrepute.

The responsibility for such a scenario will fully rest with the Company.

For the record, just so as people, internal and external, will understand, we attended the last set of discussions with an agenda that was designed, not to frustrate, not to impede, but to seriously look at the overall picture.
The intention was to build on previous productivity negotiations, ostensibly with two distinct groups, namely the Permanent Way and Loco Drivers, but we went to great lengths to explain that those two groups were to be a template for others.

We even defined a number of those groups: Station staff, RPU/Ticket Checkers, Signalpersons, Clerical staff etc.

We wanted the Company to accept, not with hollow words, but an actual commitment to materially recognise for example that Loco drivers have cooperated with a massive increase in safety standards. In fact, in previous negotiations, the Company had earmarked €15.50 as a part payment toward such cooperation.

There was in previous discussions a template whereby a number of V.S. exits from the Loco grade along with other issues to be agreed would attract varying incremental payments up to €65.

Incidentally, and again for the record, this Trade Union does not to-date have any agreement with the Company on the use of downloads.

We have a situation where there are a large number of patrol ganger vacancies in the Permanent Way, why? Because again this particular group were involved in previous productivity discussions.

It should be clearly noted that these discussions did not take place pre the economic crash, or during the halcyon days of the now mystical Celtic Tiger era, no they took place as recently as 2011.

Productivity discussions and ultimately negotiations by their nature produce a dividend for both sides.

However it became apparent that those in attendance at the talks at Wynns were only interested in pick hole or pouring cold water on our proposals, the pity is that such behaviour was not exclusive to the Company side.

But as mentioned earlier, vote management and vote building was the order of the day.

It is not as if the Company lacked the required knowledge or experience to engage in what would undoubtedly be complex discussions/negotiations.

In fact the Company delegation was led by the Director of Human Resources who he himself is often heard to remark that has been around this Company for a long time and has been involved in several and various negotiations down through the years.

However, it would appear that the dye is now cast and you, on behalf of the Company are determined to pursue a route which will ultimately lead to confrontation.

So be it, we will now move to immediately ballot
our members for Industrial Action up to and including all out strike in the face of this unilateral attack on our members terms and conditions.