10% of CIE bus routes to be privatised

munchkin_utd wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/transport-authority-proposes-to-improve-competition-on-bus-routes-606554.html

its a fair bit down the road before anything will happen on the ground, but the only way to sharpen Bus Eireann + Dublin Buses sense of professionalism and customer service is to have the threat of loosing routes hanging over them if they dont get their act together.
Bus Eireann Route 109 would be one candidate.

EDIT: the Dublin suburban routes under consideration for removal are-
100 Drogheda - Dunleer Castlebellingham - Dundalk - Newry
101 Dublin - Airport - Balbriggan - Drogheda - Termon Abbey
101X Wilton Tce - Balbriggan -Drogheda - Termon Abbey
133 Dublin Airport - Dublin -Bray -Kilmacanogue -Newtownmountkennedy - Ashford - Wicklow

which actually makes sense as there's already a substantial private operation on the routes (well, to Dundalk/ Drogheda anyhow) so this might simplify things if anything for the consumer.

Transfer of Undertakings

A transfer of undertakings occurs when a business or part of a business is taken over by another employer as a result of a merger or transfer.

When a transfer takes place there is a legal obligation on the new employer to take on the existing staff of the business or the part of the business concerned. The employee's accrued service with his or her original employer is deemed to have been with the new employer. The employee is entitled to terms and conditions of employment with the new employer which are no less favourable than those he or she enjoyed with the previous employer immediately prior to the transfer.

currins_02 wrote: »

But is this not the polar opposite of a "Transfer of undertakings". The routes, due not to local policy but EU law, must be put to a public tender rather than the current "direct award" system. At present all existing PSO routes are given to CIE group (i.e. BE/DB) by default. There is no tender process or anything like it, they just get it.

The EU has decried this and ruled quite a while ago that the system was to be overhauled by 2014 and public tendering of routes must be introduced. If you care to read the details on the NTA website my understanding would be that the NTA proposes (correct "proposes" - open to a consultation until October) to continue with direct award until 2016, then to begin by opening 10% of PSO routes to tender. BE & DB would have as much right (and correctly so) to tender as any private operator. The most competitive package (be that price, service, whatever or a combination of all) would win the route for a defined period of time. As such I don't believe "Transfer of Undertakings" would apply as it would simply be a Loss of contract situation, employees would remian BE/DB employees, may be reallocated within thata company or may be offered redunancy or some such. It would be like any other contracted service anywhere else in the world or in any other industry. For instance, when a large Irish haulier lost the Tesco contract to Eddie Stobart there was no obligation on Stobart to employ any of the previous contractors employees and any that did migrate had no entitlement to previous conditions. I don't beleive it will be a condition of any new contractor (for that is all CIE are on NTA PSO routes) to employ a previous contractors staff who had lost the contract by way of a public competitve tender.

Are the staff of private operators who lose CIE/BE school contracts by way of a tender after prolonged periods (school contracts 5 years at a time, some held for 20-30 years) entitled to automatic employment on the same conditions with the new contractor. Absolutely not.

The tone of the posts to date would solidify my long held beleif that tendered services, which, in theory should provide the best value for tax payers money, will be the start of a slow death for CIE group companies. Will they be able to compete against many of the private companies? There seems to be some sort oof implication that incumbant priavte operators will just be given the listed licences - not so - they can tender same as DB/Be or any other company. the route licences for the PSO route's are the NTA's I beleive and not CIE's. As a crude example we could see JJ Kavanagh winning some of the M1 contracts, running against the incumbant Matthews in BE's place, we could see Matthew's winning the N11 contract (133) and running against Wexford Bus etc etc.

Every post so far implies BE/CIE are guaranteed to lose the routes. Not so, if they can competitively tender they can win them and continue to run them. Question is, can they competitively tender?

currins_02 wrote: »

I am no legal eagle for a start but if that is the case why did the 300 odd unionised drivers with the previous Tesco contractor not get the benefit of it? Why have many many school bus drivers lost out (I know one who lost out after oding a run for 19 years)?

If you read article 3 of your statute it refers to a transfer and implies, to me anyway that it would apply if they ramdonly said right, BE from tomorrow we're giving your work to operator Y. This is neither a "Merger" nor a "Lease Transfer" which are both the specified situations in your statute. That is not the case, BE (and DB in their own case) are operating on fixed term contracts that are neither permanent nor rolling. They have enjoyed the renewal of said contracts by default. Now the NTA must open the contracts to competition (BE & DB may still tender). When the current contract ends, if a new entity wins it, a new contract will start then (so one ends at 00:00 on day X and new one starts probably at 00:01 on day X+1). A Fixed contract is completely different to a merger or any such.

This would be no different to the company supplying tyres to CIE loosing their contract at the end of the term to a more competitive bidder, the new tyre company does not have any legal or moral requirement to reemploy displaced staff from the previous contract holder on any terms never mind their previous ones.

CIE in this case are a contractor to the NTA, they have no divine right to this work and have been protected since the NTA's foundation by the "direct award" of the contract - i.e. without a tender process. The EU has ruled quite a while ago that this protection is illegal and that any contract worth over a certain value (I beleive it is €100,000 but I stand to be corrected) must be offered to public tender. As such the closing date for the NTA to tender was 2014, they are now PROPOSING to defer that again to 2016 and at that PROPOSING to only offer 10% of contracts to tender initially. It is currently merely a consultation (which closes in October) and many things could change between now and then. For instance our EU mandarins may shoot down the deferral to 2016 for example or may say 10% is not enough, they may ask for a longer plan to show when all routes will be tendered (which is the EU's ultimate aim).

I'm personally very worried for CIE and the implications of this. Also the tenders will be open to any EU company and barring the tender puts in protections for Irish operators (e.g. must be established here etc) they could in the main be won by non Irish companies such as Veolia, RATP, Arriva etc.

Unless a solictor says different I don't for a minute accept a fixed term contract expiring to be taken over by a new, more competitive contractor is the same as a merger or lease transfer which is what is trying to be implied. If so the unions would have scuppered Stobart's Tesco work in seconds as one high profile example.

murphaph wrote: »

It is absolute rubbish to suggest that if Firm A loses a contract to Firm B to haul for Retailer X, and in the prcess Firm A goes bust, that Firm B will be in any way shape or form obliged to employ the now REDUNDANT staff from Firm A. You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that's how such contracts work.

markpb wrote: »

I'm at a loss as to why this is a problem. If the NTA think sharing depots is desirable, couldn't they have a word with the sole shareholder of Dublin Bus and have him direct DB to sell the depots to the NTA for a reasonable price.

I wonder if fear of the unions being awkward is the actual problem?

Peppa Pig wrote: »

These solicitors would disagree with you

If Matthews or JJ Kavanagh, for example won one of the routes they do not have to use DB/BE buses. They can use their own and their own drivers. No need for DB/BE drivers to tupe across.

Happy to be corrected though, if there is some other arrangement.

Peppa Pig wrote: »

I've had a look at the NTA document, I cannot see how they accept TUPE - they say it may apply, but not necessarily so.
If the DB staff have to transfer, then it's tupe, if they don't then it's not.

It's actually poorly written. The "either" only appears to state one option, then the other one is in a new sentence on the next page. I read it as a company taking all the routes has to take the staff, but a company taking some routes will not have to.

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

no bus operator can be called efficent when it has the dwell time dublin bus.has. some of the routes would be at.least a third quicker with a proper.multi door system and fare system with better spaced stops if.not.more. some routes the dwell time end.to end.is.more.than.the.driving time

but as one driver said less dwell rime equals less time to complete a route. Equals less vehicles to run a timetable equals need.for less drivers. so it is.not.in.his.intrest.to use.his.middle.doors since he believes it.could affect his.job security

of course the fact.that a faster more direct.less.waiting around.service would attract.more.demand.is.lost.on such people

currins_02 wrote: »

It should be noted, I am not fully convinced this is a good move and I'm merely trying to stay objective on my views. If I'm proved wrong then so be it.

I would love if someone could obtain a transcript of Leo V's speach last October in which he categorically stated that Fine Gael's Election Manifesto and prevailing view is that bus service provision should be broken up and privatised, I think the words he used where that it was now a "compromise" of their coalition with Labour that they were backing off on that position. That said he accepted they are currently in breach of EU law and as such they had to ultimately move to a fully tendered model for PSO bus route provision for both bus and coach services. He also said that they were looking an incremental introduction over a period of time due to inevitable issues which will occur with such a change. One of his major issues was that private operators would not equal the packages nor absorb the pensions of existing CIE group staff and hence he openly stated that he expected major issues with unions during the changeover. Maybe a faux pax for him to make such a statement but, in fairness, and I'm no fan, he's usually fairly calculated in his statements. He highlighted that international best practise would prefer a tendered model for providing cost benefits and other efficiencies.

Regarding the Deloitte report, I would give it very little credence, it was comissioned by CIE/the state and as such is not independent and favours those who were paying for it. Likewise the Mazars report comissioned by the CTTC shortly thereafter tore apart the CIE group companies, but again that report was comissioned by the private operators and favoured their position. Both reports need to be taken in the context of who was paying for them.

The existing NTA parameters are a joke and most are based on figures provided by CIE. Should CIE or the private sector be awarded the contracts in future the NTA should be more active in policing them, the limits should be much tighter. CIE scored basically 100% in all but a few. Included are
such things as "punctuality" and "cleanliness". Now on the punctuality in the UK not alone can the operator be penalised by the local authority but also risks losing their licence if a bus/coach runs through any stop over 1 min early or over 5 mins late. I know of 1 PSO BE route where I regularly stand for up to 15 mins after the scheduled time waiting on my bus. I'm happy enough with the delay (as I can now account for it) but that said how can the operator score 100% for punctuality when the vehicle regularly is a quarter of an hour late? On the cleanliness one of the requirements is that vehicles are vacuumed inside before use - whatever about DB I can assure you that it is not happening in the majority of the BE PSO routes, there is no mention of external cleaning, floor mopping, glass polishing etc just vacuuming. The NTA get a report from CIE each year reporting on how they have met the targets and low and behold they are excellent and score top marks in all the categories.

The NTA consultation document (for that's all it is at present - many suspect the EU will veto any delay of tendering until 2016 as is proposed as it was agreed in 2009 that tendering would be underway by 2014) specifically mentions that the process is desigend to give cost and operational efficiencies. The consultation doesn't close until 11th October. But the buses will cost broadly the same, diesel will cost broadly the same, stationary, tickets etc will cost broadly the same, the only place I can see cost savings coming from is the wage bill and admin/management structure. There will be much bigger fish than any of us looking at this and while the quotes you provide suggest TUPE may (or may not) apply I would expect all kinds of legal challenges to that from, especially some of the international players based on it being a new fixed term contract after the expiration of the the previous one. As I say the biggest unions in Ireland were involved in the Keelings/Tesco/Stobart situation and if they couldn't make TUPE stick I doubt it will here given the full operation of Tesco's outsourced transport including the RDC in Ballymun was included.

I'm going to sit on my hands from here and just want to be clear that I do not endorse the tendering, I do not accept that CIE group are as efficient as they should be by any means and I don not beleive TUPE will apply. I could be wrong on some or all of the above but we'll wait and see.

lxflyer wrote: »

There are some bust stop issues, but frankly the vast majority of the time drivers just don't bother with the centre doors - that has to start changing, and non-operation become the exception rather than the rule.