Transdev vs SIPTU - What are the options?

adocholiday

Apologies if this should be in the politics thread or someplace else but I thought it would be a good legal discussion.

Given that there are now 4 more days of Luas strikes threatened, what are Transdev's options at this point? If Transdev simply can't meet the driver's pay demands, and the drivers continue to strike up to and until an all out strike, what are Transdev's options? Seems unfair that the drivers can just hold the company to ransom like that

coylemj

The Luas drivers can strike until the cows come home but they will be losing a day's pay every time they do. They have to figure out if the union is leading them up the garden path. The fact that the Dublin Bus drivers have let it be known that they will be next in line if the Luas drivers' pay demands are met will only harden the Minister's attitude. Pascal O'Donohoe has already said that Transdev will not be getting any public money to settle the dispute.

While it may appear to be exclusively an industrial relations issue, there is a legal issue at play here and that is that if Transdev was given money to pay off the drivers, there would potentially be a problem with other companies who tendered to operate the system because the terms and conditions would have changed. This could lead to the Government being sued by companies who unsuccessfully bid for the original licence to operate the system.

adocholiday

OK that's very interesting I wasn't aware of the Dublin Bis interest here. Well seeing as how Transdev are a private company awarded a contract by the Government, rather than a state/semi state employer, what's to stop them just sacking the Luas drivers and replacing them? I know there are logistical reasons why this is a bad decision but I'm just trying to understand the legal position of both the drivers and the company here.

CIARAN_BOYLE

adocholiday wrote: »

OK that's very interesting I wasn't aware of the Dublin Bis interest here. Well seeing as how Transdev are a private company awarded a contract by the Government, rather than a state/semi state employer, what's to stop them just sacking the Luas drivers and replacing them? I know there are logistical reasons why this is a bad decision but I'm just trying to understand the legal position of both the drivers and the company here.

They can't be fired for going on strike. They can be replaced and made redundant (and therefore qualify for redundancy) but for this to be worth it for the company the replacements would have to earn sufficiently less than the current drivers. Transdev are assuming that the workers will come around eventually.

mdebets

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

They can't be fired for going on strike. They can be replaced and made redundant (and therefore qualify for redundancy) but for this to be worth it for the company the replacements would have to earn sufficiently less than the current drivers. Transdev are assuming that the workers will come around eventually.

They can't be made redundant. You can only make jobs redundant and then let the people who do these jobs go with redundancy payments. In case of LUAS drivers this would only be possible, if there were less trains on the street and that won't happen.

CIARAN_BOYLE

mdebets wrote: »

They can't be made redundant. You can only make jobs redundant and then let the people who do these jobs go with redundancy payments. In case of LUAS drivers this would only be possible, if there were less trains on the street and that won't happen.

If they hire more drivers the current drivers can be let go with redundancy.

adocholiday

I understood that they can't be made redundant because employment law states redundancy can only be used where a role is no longer required by the company. You can't replace a person in the same role that you've made redundant.

So basically what's being said here is that Transdev have to just put up with the strikes or give into the driver's demands. They have no other recourse. If they can't meet the driver's pay demands, and it's looking likely that they can't, then they have to continue to lose fare money on strike days, pay the government fine for non-operation, and suffer public backlash until such time that the drivers back down or the company close up.

I find it incredibly hard to stomach that a company can't take any legal action to prevent this from happening. Seems to be incredibly biased towards the employees.

I'm not trying to start a debate about unions here, just trying to understand the legalities behind the whole thing.

CIARAN_BOYLE

adocholiday wrote: »

I understood that they can't be made redundant because employment law states redundancy can only be used where a role is no longer required by the company. You can't replace a person in the same role that you've made redundant.

You can't replace someone, you can offer a new contract and tell them they are redundant if they don't accept it.

If due to reasons of economic necessity it was not possible to run a tram service paying drivers 40K a year you could offer a new contract at 20K a year and make anyone who refused redundant.

NUTLEY BOY

As I have understood it the employees' opening demand was a 53% increase over 5 years but it is now moderated

The employees are legitimately entitled to withdraw their labour (go on strike) in pursuance of a trade dispute provided that they follow the rules as they appear to be doing.

What I am wondering is if a 53% opening demand can actually form the basis of a legitimate trade dispute given that it is patently impossible to settle or negotiate at that figure.

I get the separate point that 53% might be an opening bid but it is patently absurd.

Would that attitude - demanding 53% - take the employees' demand outside the scope of a legitimate trade dispute and leave them and or their union open to an action for the economic damage that follows every lost day. Put another way, would grossly unreasonable demands lose the employees and or their union any legal protection from a suit for economic damage ?

BattleCorp

mdebets wrote: »

They can't be made redundant. You can only make jobs redundant and then let the people who do these jobs go with redundancy payments. In case of LUAS drivers this would only be possible, if there were less trains on the street and that won't happen.

Could Transdev do something like Cleary's did? Close up business but only after selling all assets to another company and selling the LUAS contract to that company also? Then they would be free to hire new drivers. That would leave the drivers fcuked, just like the Cleary's staff.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

coylemj

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not with that type of public service contract they couldn't. The deal with the DoT would say that the contract is dead if the company goes bust, they couldn't just close down one week, change the name of the company and do a 'phoenix' on it.

Even if they tried that stunt and it was somehow legal to sack the drivers and employ replacements and they managed to hold on to the Luas operating contract, SIPTU would blockade the tracks and depots with pickets.

Dermo

Since it's a private company, can't they all be sacked?
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/industrial_relations_and_trade_unions/trade_disputes.html
"Unfair dismissal
If you take part in industrial action such as a strike, there is a risk that you will be dismissed. However, under section 5 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 the dismissal of an employee for taking part in a strike or other industrial action is unfair if:

One or more of the other employees taking part in the action were not dismissed
Or

One or more of the other employees who were dismissed, were later reinstated or re-engaged and the employee was not."

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

rock22

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

If they hire more drivers the current drivers can be let go with redundancy.

No they can't!

AndyBoBandy

rock22 wrote: »

No they can't!

They could if new drivers were taken on under a new contract, and all current drivers refused to transfer to the new contract.

coylemj

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

They could if new drivers were taken on under a new contract, and all current drivers refused to transfer to the new contract.

What about the current drivers' existing contract of employment? Unfair dismissal legislation would be meaningless if an employer could, at the drop of a hat, offer workers a new contract on the basis that they sign up or be sacked.

syklops

coylemj wrote: »

What about the current drivers' existing contract of employment? Unfair dismissal legislation would be meaningless if an employer could, at the drop of a hat, offer workers a new contract on the basis that they sign up or be sacked.

Happens all the time.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

CIARAN_BOYLE

coylemj wrote: »

What about the current drivers' existing contract of employment? Unfair dismissal legislation would be meaningless if an employer could, at the drop of a hat, offer workers a new contract on the basis that they sign up or be sacked.

they wouldn't be sacked they would be redundant and the company would be liable for redundancy.

In the case of the luas it's a bit pie in the sky as Transfer would have to pay out redundancy to all the drivers.

Transfer may not have the training infastructure to quickly train Luas drivers and would be faced with fines from the RPA for not providing a service.

coylemj

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

they wouldn't be sacked they would be redundant and the company would be liable for redundancy.

In the case of the luas it's a bit pie in the sky as Transfer would have to pay out redundancy to all the drivers.

Transfer may not have the training infastructure to quickly train Luas drivers and would be faced with fines from the RPA for not providing a service.

Redundancy only applies when the job itself disappears, you can't sack/let go all your drivers under a 'redundancy' scheme and then replace them with people doing exactly the same jobs.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Victor

coylemj wrote: »

Redundancy only applies when the job itself disappears, you can't sack/let go all your drivers under a 'redundancy' scheme and then replace them with people doing exactly the same jobs.

Irish Ferries?

loyatemu

Victor wrote:

Irish Ferries?

Law of the sea, they re-registered the boats and the company abroad I think. Difficult for Transdev to do that.

Victor

But the Department of Social Protection recognised it as an Irish redundancy situation.

Paddy001

coylemj wrote: »

The Luas drivers can strike until the cows come home but they will be losing a day's pay every time they do. They have to figure out if the union is leading them up the garden path. The fact that the Dublin Bus drivers have let it be known that they will be next in line if the Luas drivers' pay demands are met will only harden the Minister's attitude. Pascal O'Donohoe has already said that Transdev will not be getting any public money to settle the dispute.

While it may appear to be exclusively an industrial relations issue, there is a legal issue at play here and that is that if Transdev was given money to pay off the drivers, there would potentially be a problem with other companies who tendered to operate the system because the terms and conditions would have changed. This could lead to the Government being sued by companies who unsuccessfully bid for the original licence to operate the system.

Just to clarify, as far as I am aware, the drivers won't be losing a day's pay as the union will pay them for this day.

L1011

Paddy001 wrote: »

Just to clarify, as far as I am aware, the drivers won't be losing a day's pay as the union will pay them for this day.

Strike pay is usually a fraction of normal pay

Caliden

TransDev are 'fined' 100k for every day the Luas doesn't run.

The union pay is roughly €40 per day of strike action.


Source: http://campus.ie/surviving-college/luas-firm-will-be-fined-%E2%82%AC100k-day-over-strike

TransDev could negate their losses by bringing in contractors to operate the trams. Would surely cost less than 100k per day to pay them.

Carawaystick

Where would the contractors be trained to drive the trams?

oppenheimer1

Carawaystick wrote: »

Where would the contractors be trained to drive the trams?

From any one of the other 10 cities that use the same trams?

AndyBoBandy

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

From any one of the other 10 cities that use the same trams?

So flights & accommodation would also be required.

And that's even if their home service could afford to lose them for the time, and I'm sure their contracts would say something about them swanning off to a foreign country to drive trams!

Also, different road rules here than most other places the trams are run.

Caliden

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

So flights & accommodation would also be required.

And that's even if their home service could afford to lose them for the time, and I'm sure their contracts would say something about them swanning off to a foreign country to drive trams!

Also, different road rules here than most other places the trams are run.

Trams don't use the roads, they use the rails and it would be safe to assume that traffic lights are the same in other countries.

Victor

Caliden wrote: »

Trams don't use the roads, they use the rails and it would be safe to assume that traffic lights are the same in other countries.

Trams don't use traffic lights. They use something like these, which seem to be British.

Carawaystick

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

From any one of the other 10 cities that use the same trams?

Is there no element of training on the actual route of the trams in Dublin?
i.e. where trams might have to stop suddenly to allow a pedestrian cross at a junction, or where there may be other differences in the law here?

AndyBoBandy

Caliden wrote: »

Trams don't use the roads, they use the rails and it would be safe to assume that traffic lights are the same in other countries.

But there are a lot more factors than the rails & lights, like cars coming from different directions at junctions etc... Unless of course you import your tram drivers from The U.K., Japan, Australia. Otherwise chances are they drive trams in places where cars come (at the tracks) from different directions than they do here.

LionelNashe

Zero pay on the strike days makes sense. Even the strikers accept this as normal.

Surely a unilateral pay cut on the work-to-rule days can't be legal. Work-to-rule as I understand it means that the drivers are fulfilling their contracts on these days, no less and no more. They're not doing the small extra things, above and beyond their contract, that keep things running smoothly. I don't see how the company can legally cut their wages for work-to-rule action.

Mr. Incognito

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/industrial_relations_and_trade_unions/trade_disputes.html

Other employment issues

Pay: Under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, deductions from your pay by your employer are allowed when they arise due to your being on strike.

I'm not an expert here but it appears to me that the Unions are playing a game here.

If Transdev withdraws the Government will have to move in to operate the Luas Lines. No private operator will touch it with the Union Issues.

The Unions will do what they have done in the Public Service for years. Make people unsackable on inflated wages for little or no productivity.

Transdev is losing millions for every strike. But they are a large company and even though the Irish operation is losing money they can cover it from their other operations.

Someone will have to break first and when the take home pay starts getting docked and the reality hits home that driving a Luas is not a transferrable skill I don't think the workers will to keen to keep jumping to the Unions agenda.

I really hope Transdev hold out. The unions have wrecked this country for years. The unions drove up wages in the Civil Service for years, where they are vastly overpaid, diligent bright people are not singled out and properly rewarded and payment is based on years served rather than productivity or ability.

Unions are not required these days in light of the vast employment legislation which protects workers. They are archic parasites on society.

If the Civil Service want equal pay then they should be subject to sacking for incompetency like everyone else.

LionelNashe

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/industrial_relations_and_trade_unions/trade_disputes.html

Quote:
Other employment issues

Pay: Under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, deductions from your pay by your employer are allowed when they arise due to your being on strike.

I'm not an expert here but it appears to me that the Unions are playing a game here.

If Transdev withdraws the Government will have to move in to operate the Luas Lines. No private operator will touch it with the Union Issues.

The Unions will do what they have done in the Public Service for years. Make people unsackable on inflated wages for little or no productivity.

Transdev is losing millions for every strike. But they are a large company and even though the Irish operation is losing money they can cover it from their other operations.

Someone will have to break first and when the take home pay starts getting docked and the reality hits home that driving a Luas is not a transferrable skill I don't think the workers will to keen to keep jumping to the Unions agenda.

I really hope Transdev hold out. The unions have wrecked this country for years. The unions drove up wages in the Civil Service for years, where they are vastly overpaid, diligent bright people are not singled out and properly rewarded and payment is based on years served rather than productivity or ability.

Unions are not required these days in light of the vast employment legislation which protects workers. They are archic parasites on society.

If the Civil Service want equal pay then they should be subject to sacking for incompetency like everyone else.

The first part of your post agrees with the first part of my post - pay can be deducted for the days that workers are on strike. I just don't see how the company can deduct for the work-to-rule action. I think they're skirting around the law, in the knowledge that it won't stand up in court, to try and break the strike, or to encourage an all-out strike so that they can just throw up their hands and withdraw from the country.

I agree that the unions might have a wider agenda. The initial pay claims and even the 24% they're looking for now don't seem reasonable. If there is something else that justifies these claims, they're not communicating it very well.

Wanderer78

tis all a game folks. both sides playing hard ball. be interesting to see how it ends but its getting nasty enough

CIARAN_BOYLE

LionelNashe wrote: »

The first part of your post agrees with the first part of my post - pay can be deducted for the days that workers are on strike. I just don't see how the company can deduct for the work-to-rule action. I think they're skirting around the law, in the knowledge that it won't stand up in court, to try and break the strike, or to encourage an all-out strike so that they can just throw up their hands and withdraw from the country.

I agree that the unions might have a wider agenda. The initial pay claims and even the 24% they're looking for now don't seem reasonable. If there is something else that justifies these claims, they're not communicating it very well.

I think transdev have legal advice saying that 30 minute bathroom breaks every time the tram reaches the terminus are not part of legitimate work to rule.