Editorial from Labour Comment:—September 2004 OFF THE RAILS
Part Two the story of ILDA
by Brendan Ogle—Currach Press—2003 (18.99 Euros)
352 pp, Index."Today, after a generation of neglect in favour of the all-conquering motor car, the railways of the world are undergoing a revolution and are set for a triumphal return to favour. Their rebirth, like their original conquests, is global. It includes some of the most ambitious engineering projects ever undertaken, such as the Channel Tunnel between Britain and France and the combined bridge and tunnel link between Scandinavia and the European mainland. This regeneration has meant overcoming huge logistical problems, like laying tracks over the Gobi Desert in Mongolia… this line will provide a continuous rail link between London and Shanghai or Saigon, proving that railways can no longer be seen as merely a historical phenomenon.
"The railway revolution is under way. Who said that railway dreams belonged to the nineteenth century?"
(Locomotion: The Railway Revolution by Nicholas Faith, BBC, 1993).Transport
Transport is the greatest political football in this state. In no area of public service does the 'jobs for the boys' syndrome operate in a totally uninhibited fashion—and drastically so, at managerial level.
This is another positive aspect of Ogle's book. A printer could write an eloquent and precise book about the fundamentals of typography—but who would give a divel! With the railways its different—Ogle could be the driver on your next train journey—you are surely interested in standards and you and your family are most certainly interested in rail safety. In this book, he presents a fine introduction to the working of the railway system in Ireland.
In 2002, just over 55% of all workers drove a car to work, up from 46% six years previously.
More than half of primary school children were driven to school by car in 2002, compared with less than one in five some twenty years earlier. During the same period the proportion of primary school children walking to school declined from 47.3% to 26%.
Car ownership was higher in rural areas (86.2%) than in urban areas (73.3%). The trend in both areas has been sharply upwards since 1991 when the relevant percentages were 74.6% and 59.5%, respectively.
Freight Service
Iarnrod Eireann —
"tended to concentrate what drivers were available on passenger services as opposed to freight trains. This meant that freight customers had their services affected disproportionately to the number of drivers actually in dispute. While this prioritising of passenger services is mirrored in overall company policy regarding freight, it is perhaps sad that in a country with such an inadequate road infrastructure, freight traffic by rail is so far down the priority list of those controlling what passes for traffic policy in Ireland" (p195).1990 Industrial Relations Act
"I have already referred to the level of regulation accepted by trade unions in Ireland. It is such that we have more restrictions placed on the operation of unions here than apply in Britain despite almost twenty years of Thatcherism. All of the restrictions and legislation that are in place to restrict trade union activity are there despite the presence in those governments of the Labour Party as a coalition partner that was partly funded by the trade union movement. I believe that the entire labour movement has many questions to answer in this regard and that, for example, the failure of the movement to secure meaningful legislation dealing with trade union recognition, as is now in place in Britain, is an indictment of a movement which has lost its focus and which is, as I say, more interested in power for power's sake than in actually delivering for its natural constituency" (p37).
Below, is an educative insight to Ogle's leadership in 1996 on the proposed 'early bird' train from Galway.
"I had decided that I needed to educate myself in the intricacies of the 1990 Industrial Relations Act. Since I have been a SIPTU representative, I had often heard workers' demands for some action or other brushed aside by the union on the basis that the union had to be careful about 'the Act'. To me this legislation seemed to take on the character of a chain that had been permanently tied to our union's arms and legs to prevent it from fighting for members' interests. However, now the interests of my members in Athlone were to the fore, and I wasn't about to trust the interpretation of those I believed had screwed up in 1994. So I went off, bought the Act, and found it very enlightening indeed.
"My view of the 1990 Act is that it is a Thatcherite piece of industrial relations legislation of which the Iron Lady herself would have been very proud. However, it didn't appear to me to be the straitjacket that was presented to workers, by their own unions. It was obvious from it that anything workers might do in relation to industrial action was fraught with danger. However, I was satisfied that, within the Act, the basic civil and human rights to which all workers are entitled in relation to the withdrawal of labour were, of necessity, protected as long as the workers concerned did everything strictly by the book… the District Manager in Athlone at the time, John Mullin, had agreed to meet us the following morning to discuss our dissatisfaction with the fact that the work was going to Galway and to explain why that decision had been taken. We balloted for action in advance of the meeting. Unlike 1994, all drivers who would be affected by any dispute were offered a secret ballot on the proposed action and were required to sign to confirm that they had received an opportunity to vote in a secret ballot. We returned to the mess room to count the ballots and actually got the foreman on duty to witness the short count and verify that the count was accurate. The result was nine to one in favour of industrial action should the rosters be implemented as proposed, with two drivers deciding not to vote. This was the first ballot P.J. or I had conducted. We hadn't asked for permission from our unions as we knew that such a request, in the circumstances at that time, would be pointless. More importantly, we knew that we didn't need their permission and that we had done everything in accordance with the 1990 Act. We were ready to meet Mr. Mullins.
".…we 'held our whisht' while Mr. Mullin outlined his figures. We then told him that he was wrong, forcibly, but we didn't produce our own analysis yet. Instead we stated that we were dissatisfied, and the meeting broke up We went downstairs to discuss the situation. Five minutes later, we were back. P.J. handed the District Manager a white envelope.
"What's this?" was the predictable question… 'You'd better read it,' P.J. replied. We continued to stand while John Mullin read the seven days' notice of industrial action. He enquired whether our unions knew about this and we replied that they didn't but that we were sure it wouldn't take him long to advice them… We didn't have long to wait. As we sat in the mess room, discussing the morning's events, the parcel porter entered to advise me that Tony Tobin was on the phone in the parcels office and wanted to speak to me. I lifted the phone, knowing what to expect. Tony asked whether it was true that we had just presented John Mullins with strike notice. I said that it was. Tony stated that the 1990 Act required union sanction for such action and that we were required to ballot. As the union has not provided ballot papers, we were acting illegally. He told me to go upstairs and withdraw the notice immediately. I replied that we did not require union sanction and that we had conducted a secret, and proper, ballot. I then told Tony that if he repeated his accusation that I had acted illegally, he would be dealing with my solicitor and not with me at all. I could tell he was taken aback. Not alone were drivers defending themselves but Athlone drivers of all people! He acknowledged that what we had done wasn't illegal but said that it was a breach of union rules. I laughed to myself as I was reminded of Tony Kerr BL and his opinion in 1994. Matters such as SIPTU's behaviour in 1994 were not matters for the courts but were simply, at best, breaches of union rules. The circle had turned" (p47).
"I outline this incident in all its detail because for me it contained so many firsts—my first involvement in the independent use of industrial relations legislation, my first involvement in the issue of strike notice, my first involvement in the exposure of a serious management mistake, my first serious negotiation with Irish Rail, my first part in a successful outcome achieved by unity among drivers, and my first involvement in a direct tug of war with Tony Tobin as my union official. It was not to be the last" (p52).
These views certainly do not conform to the media interpretation of a rigid, inflexible hide-bound demagogue. They provoke more the idea of a thinking, innovative leader who, hemmed in by legal technicalities and a lot of legal guff, relies on his own common sense, adheres to the secret ballot process and takes his membership with him.
Spring 'Labour
"In due course, various elements of the media would expend much energy in speculating on the nature of my relations with Donal Spring, and subsequently Fergus Finlay and John Rogers. Whatever the feelings of these men on that speculation, I was always entertained and amused by it. As my own profile and that of ILDA increased over time, there seemed to be a suggestion by some in the media that we were a pawn being used by some kind of Rogers/Finlay/Spring triumvirate, in an effort to either embarrass or undermine the Labour Party or for some other unspecified reason. The reality is that all three are very committed member of the Labour Party, and any future contact with Fergus Finlay or former Attorney General John Rogers was brought about by our professional relationship with Daniel Spring & Company, Solicitors, who were, in turn, retained by *ASLEF in London, without any input from us and before ILDA was even formed" (p36, *ASLEF-Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen).
Pat Rabbitte
"In recent months, I finally joined the Labour Party when Pat Rabbitte became its leader. The reason for this change was twofold. Firstly, I agree with Pat Rabbitte that this country needs a new political dispensation and a break with the old Fianna Fail/Fine Gael politics of the civil war. Who cares any more? I certainly don't. However, I do care about corruption in our society; I care about the fact that well over 40 per cent of our electorate feel so disenfranchised from society that they won't vote and that, increasingly, our young people view all our political discourse and our politicians as a waste of time and space. That's what happens when you engage in decades of corruption at the very top and do nothing but obstruct tribunals and try to spin your way out of it. People aren't stupid. They will either rebel, or just switch off. The night Pat Rabbitte was elected Labour Party leader, he sat on the Late Late Show and repeated his pledge not to enter into coalition with Fianna Fail after the next election. I decided to join at that moment" (p37).
Emmet Stagg
Emmet Stagg does not emerge well in Off The Rails. The Kildare TD features prominently, and in particular his friendship with John Keenan, Iarnrod Eireann's Human Resource Director and the main company protagonist in the dispute with ILDA. In his review of the book, Gerald Flynn, Industrial Correspondent with the "Irish Independent" declares that: "The background roles of Dick Spring's Labour Party kitchen cabinet shows that this was no run-of-the-mill work stoppage" (23.11.2003).
"After that, the discussion mellowed somewhat, and turned to political corruption. I made some sweeping comment to the effect that there was no honesty left in Irish politics. John's reply was one that I was to have reason to recall some years later. He disagreed with my observation on the low ethical standards in Irish political life and evidenced his viewpoint with a tale about his 'close personal friendship' with Kildare TD Emmet Stagg, which he believed showed great principle on Deputy Stagg's part. What interested me was that Iarnrod Eireann's Human Resource Director was a member of the Irish Labour Party and had connections to Emmet Stagg" (p55).
Deputy Stagg again enters the stage at a Joint Oireachtas Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport, which was chaired by Sean Doherty, F.F. TD for Longford/Roscommon. This was just one of a number of all-party committees established to focus on specific issues of concern. Obviously a national rail dispute in its seventh week was of major concern:
"And so the big day arrived. The venue was Kildare House, a large committee room just across the road from the Dail, which housed most of the opposition TDs on higher floors. I was there ahead of the 11 o'clock starting time, and was advised of the 'running order'. Department officials would be first in the hot seats, followed by Iarnrod Eireann. Then it would be the turn of the unions, and finally Minister O'Rourke would arrive. We were a little put out that SIPTU and the NBRU would be there as they were not in dispute and I didn't see what they would have to offer. However, it was a small price to pay for finally getting our say in a proper forum" (p226).
"I scanned the TDs to see that everyone was there and was immediately struck by two factors. Firstly, I noticed Conor Lenihan, TD, nephew of Minister Mary O'Rourke, sitting in the middle of the row of elected representatives. As he was not a member of this committee, I was surprised to see him there. Deputy Doherty explained that Deputy Lenihan was, in fact, a proxy for another committee member who was unable to attend. I was immediately uneasy, though. However, worse was to come. We knew that Jim Higgins of Fine Gael was on top of his brief but the Labour party's transport spokesman, Emmet Stagg TD, was nowhere to be seen… As I sat at the back of the room, taking copious notes, I was looking forward to the upcoming opportunity finally to put ILDA's case across. I was sure that now that we finally had an even playing field, the true picture could emerge and the misleading advertisements in newspapers and all the public relations spin would be rendered useless by basic facts, commonsense and what I was sure the committee would see as our genuine, sincere and solo efforts to bring this dispute to an end.
"His timing was impeccable and it looked to me as if it had been planned with the precision of a military operation. Just as Iarnrod Eireann's 'quiet man', Joe Meagher, was ending his very personalised attack on my members and me, Emmet Stagg appeared over my shoulder—obviously a man on a mission—and addressed the Chair. He apologised for his late arrival, saying that he hadn't known that this special sitting of the Oireachtas committee of which he was a long-standing member had been convened. Had he known that this meeting was scheduled, he said, he would have objected. This major issue of national importance was not, according to the Deputy Stagg, a proper topic to be dealt with by this committee at all. He felt it should be dealt with by Iarnrod Eireann (of which his friend, John Keenan, was the 'Manager of Human Resources' and the 'recognised unions' (the largest and most powerful of which, SIPTU, included him in its membership). His late arrival to Kildare House had allowed Iarnrod Eireann, preceded by department officials, ample time to regale the committee and assembled media with their version of events. However, he had arrived just before ILDA had time to get out of our chairs and outline our view of events. To my horror, Deputy Stagg then demanded that the hearing be adjourned to consider a proposal he had that no further witnesses (like us) be called and that the rest of the hearing be abandoned. He was supported in this by Minister Mary O'Rourke's nephew, proxy committee member Conor Lenihan.
"Committee chairman, Sean Doherty, my local TD who had assured me that we would finally get our say at this hearing, agreed to the adjournment and ordered that everybody leave the room to allow the committee to decide how to move forward—or backwards. I felt that it was akin to any of the many tribunals we have in this country hearing evidence accusing people of all sorts and then just adjourning without giving the accused party any opportunity to respond.
"When I got home that evening, emotionally bruised and battered and very angry, I spoke to our legal representatives and wrote a news release, outlining what had just occurred. It was issued the following morning, and offered the opinion that the Joint Oireachtas Committee meeting had been 'a cynical and contrived propaganda exercise choreographed by Fianna Fail and Labour members of the committee' and that it has been 'designed to assist Iarnrod Eireann and the Department of Public Enterprise to further misinform the public about the dispute, its legalities and nuances.' The news release also detailed Deputy Stagg's interests in the matter, which I felt should have been declared 'in advance of his proposal to abort the meeting'—namely, his membership of SIPTU and his friendship with John Keenan, Iarnrod Eireann's Human Resources Manager" (p229).
The Lock-Out
Of the ten-week Lockout of ILDA in the summer of 2000, one single event graphically illustrated the much hackneyed terms of 'unity' and 'solidarity'. The Lockout began on Monday, June 19, 2000 and ended on August 27, 2000.
With their backs to the wall on the Seventh Week and little hope on the horizon these desperate men invoked the oldest and most lethal of all 'isms weapons : the picket and the ultimate appeal to fellow workers to withdraw their own labour in support of locked-out comrades.
"It must have been around 8 a.m. when I awoke and lifted the TV remote control in my room. I switched on the RTE teletext service as I had done on hundreds of occasions over the previous few weeks, but on this occasion, the headline hit me like a bolt from the blue. 'Dublin Bus services hit by wildcat pickets.' I jumped up in bed and read the page. It outlined how ILDA members in Dublin had mounted 'flying pickets' on Dublin Bus garages from early that morning, and how services had been 'decimated'. Apparently, Dublin Bus workers had supported our members and refused to take out their buses, leaving the capital city with little or no peak-hour bus service. From my perspective, this was sensational news. The despondency—which I now realised would have been partly fed by fatigue—that had washed over me as I went to sleep was now erased by the need to make phone calls and find out what was happening. I called John Courtney on his mobile. He was outside a bus garage and told me that they had been there since 5 a.m. They had received spectacular support from the Dublin Bus drivers and nothing was moving in or out of the garages. They planned to continue their protest until mid-morning" (p245).
"By mid-morning, however, John had called me back. Gardai had turned up and our members were fearful that they might be arrested. However, the Dublin Bus drivers were insisting that we should not withdraw our protests and that if arrests did take place, they would replace our members' protests with pickets of their own. As it was, many of them were accompanying ILDA members outside garage gates with—what I later saw to be be—spectacular success" (p246).
"To be honest, I was delighted with the turn of events. I could tell from the media reaction, that what had happened had completely changed the face of the dispute. Very few had given a damn about the sufferings in other parts of the country for weeks, but now that Dublin had been hit with a vengeance, the game had changed. I was beginning to feel for the first time that we could now build momentum to force an intervention, or an outright solution. I advised John to do whatever he felt was appropriate and that any statement I made would be to defend our members.
"For weeks, there had been speculation and rumour that we were about to hit Dublin Bus. Each new rumour was accompanied by information on how SIPTU and the NBRU were expecting this escalation and had their senior shop stewards prepared to face us down if we approached 'their' garages. We had our own information, and it indicated that we could expect some support from Dublin Bus workers who were as suspicious of their unions as we were. But we hadn't expected anything like this. This was a wipe-out, and it was a massive embarrassment to SIPTU and the NBRU.
"Just at the point where, for the first time in the dispute, I had become concerned about events and the impact that they were having on the morale of our members, happenings in Dublin and Westport had injected new life into our stand. I knew from other phone calls that our members in other parts of the country from Dundalk to Cork were euphoric at the day's events and were, in fact, planning their own escalation tactics" (p246).
"When we hit the outskirts of Dublin, it was slap bang in the middle of the evening rush hour. It was a beautiful sunny evening, which was just as well because as we approached Newlands Cross on the Naas Road, we had still not seen a single Dublin bus. We continued into Dublin to the top of Inchicore. Still no buses. In fact, we were near Rathmines—close to the middle of the city—before we met the first, single, Dublin Bus of the day. It was incredible.
"That evening was spent with Fergus Finlay. He had been speaking to an old friend of his, Phil Flynn. The name had popped up as a possible mediator in the dispute on many occasions since its onset. Although I had never met him personally, he was friendly with Martin King, and I had a good idea about how he operated. He had also worked with Fergus Finlay when they were both trade union officials years earlier and their friendship had been maintained since. I also know that Phil Flynn had the ear of Mary O'Rourke, the Transport Minister. It now transpired that both men believed it possible that CIE Chairman, John Lynch could be induced to send each ILDA member a letter, but not threatening the sack as had been hinted at days before. In fact, these letters would outline conditions, acceptable to all parties, under which our members could return to work" (p250).
Labour Court And The LRC
"I switched on the television and went to RTE's teletext. There it was—at last, news of an intervention in the dispute, a 'unique joint initiative' by the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission (L.R.C.). Immediate relief gave way to questions. The Labour Court and the LRC? How did it work? What would they do? How soon? What were the conditions? I answered the next call, and it was a journalist who wanted to know what our response was to the 'unique joint intervention' by the Labour Court and the LRC. I had no statement or terms of reference, so I told him we were considering the position and hung up Perhaps someone from the Court or Commission had been trying to call me. Perhaps there was a message from them on my phone. I listened to all my messages but they were all from the media or from our members looking for a reaction. I called one of our members. Had he been listening to the news and did he know anything I didn't? The answers were yes and no in that order. Fergus Finlay was my next call" (p250).
"Fergus simply told me to stay calm and say nothing until I knew all the facts. He told me not to get bounced by the media into giving an ill-thought-out or knee-jerk reaction. More calls with questions followed. I had to get a handle on this. I called the LRC but no one would talk to me. The Chairman of the Labour Court was not available. I already smelt rats—big, smelly, diseased ones, with long dragging tails.
"As Finbarr and I drove to Dublin, we discussed events and tried to get a handle on what exactly was contained in the initiative. One thing was obvious. This initiative had come as a direct result of the disruption of Dublin Bus services the previous day. No one gave a damn about Westport or Kerry, or even Cork. They had had few or no services for eight weeks and everyone had looked in another direction. One day of disruption in Dublin, however, and the Labour Court and the LRC were concocting what we were told was a 'unique joint initiative' to deal with the 'exceptional' circumstances. Lesson learned! Never again would our members around the country suffer while we went easy on Dublin.
"I was then shown, for the very first time, a copy of the joint Labour Court/LRC 'initiative'. It quickly told me a number of things. They wanted us back to work by the following Monday 'under protest if necessary' in return for a 'joint investigation' into all the issues in dispute. This joint initiative was presented as having a defined statutory basis, but the detail of its workings was unclear. I immediately made a few calls and convened an emergency meeting of our executive to consider these proposals and any clarification we might subsequently receive. The meeting was arranged for the following Sunday, August 13, 2000" (p252).
"Over the next few days, we needed to assess this joint Labour Court/LRC initiative carefully. As we did so, a number of issues arose. Firstly, the joint initiative had been made by both agencies 'under the powers vested in them under Section 26 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990'. This posed an immediate problem. Section 26 provides for an investigation of a matter in dispute by the Labour Court only. This may happen following an investigation by the Commission or a direct referral to the Labour Court. However, there is absolutely no provision for a 'joint' investigation involving both agencies in this section, or indeed in any other section, in industrial relations law. So why was the LRC added to this investigation? The answer to that was simple and clear to ILDA members. The LRC had, of course, facilitated the entire 'New Deal' from the outset and had even 'supervised' the ballot count. Now we were questioning whether this agreement, brokered by the state agency, contained safety concerns, breached our statutory entitlements regarding Sunday and public-holiday premium payment and was flawed in so many other respects… So the LRC was clearly a party to the agreement that provoked the dispute. However, section 26 of the Industrial Relations Act provided for the Labour Court to investigate these matters alone and, in all of the circumstances, this was, in fact, the only appropriate course.
"But what if the Labour Court were to find in our favour? Wouldn't that impugn the work of the LRC? Of course it would and that is why the LRC, without any statutory basis whatsoever, appended itself to this 'unique joint initiative'. That was bad enough. But to portray the investigation publicly as fully in line with 'the powers vested in them under the Industrial Relations Act 1990' was quite another matter when, in fact, the opposite was the case" (p255).
"The most remarkable thing about the joint statement is that the word ILDA, which was now a word familiar and known to practically every citizen in the state, was contained nowhere in the statement. We interpreted this as an example of how sensitive ever these two bodies had now become to the issue of 'recognition', to the extent that they felt unable to include in their statement the one word on everybody's lips… the most bizarre thing was that ILDA had as yet received no official notification of this 'unique joint initiative'. No phone calls; no faxes; no emails; nothing—just questions from the media who had been issued with it, and demands for responses to points being raised by the other parties who had been given the document. I first saw the document in RTE on the evening of August 10, 2000, almost eight hours after every significant reporter and news agency in Ireland had received it… Eventually, I had to write and formally seek a copy of this one-page document… I had a copy faxed to me that evening… twenty four hours since it had been issued" (p256).
"Iarnrod Eireann had moved into overdrive. Would we ask our members their views? Our members were portrayed as poor deluded souls sucked into the mire by our executive—me in particular—and with no minds of their own… the union members are portrayed as fools led down a path by 'evil people' like myself or some other easy target… There was never any question of not asking our members…" (p259).
The Train Drivers assembled in Tullamore, Co. Offaly on Sunday, August 13, 2000:
"Our executive discussed the initiative and the Saturday-night 'clarification'. We were at one. Working under protest would mean working an unsafe agreement. How could we take responsibility for our trains if we knew that they were being worked under unsafe conditions and with part-time drivers"
"Interestingly, if we had emerged from Tullamore and said that we accepted the initiative and would return to work at 9 o'clock the following morning, nobody would have given a damn whether or not we asked our members' views or how we had reached the decision. If, on the other hand, we had come out and rejected the proposal outright, without asking our members, we would have been pilloried. But as I said, there was never a question in our minds. What we actually said when we emerged from that meeting was that we were convening a Special General Meeting of ILDA members less than 24 hours later in Dublin" (p259).
"It was clear that the dispute had reached one of its defining moments. It was therefore important not alone to ascertain our members' views on new developments, but also to allow them to reconsider their position relating to the 'New Deal' itself. If—as Iarnrod Eireann had been loudly contending—they actually wanted to return to work the 'New Deal', we needed to know that. And so our members arrived to make some vital decisions. Seventy-four locked-out members came to this meeting. It was incredible. The dispute had been begun by 118 members, and 106 would finish it. And here—having had less than 24 hours notice of this Special General Meeting—seventy four of them had come from the three corners of Ireland in the middle of the holiday season. They didn't have one vote. They didn't even have one secret vote. They had three secret votes, independently verified by a solicitor present specifically for that purpose" (p261).
The Seventy-four train drivers voting in secret ballot gave 100 per cent endorsement to their union executive. When the results were announced, the room broke into spontaneous applause. "I felt vindicated and relieved. For weeks, we had been told by outsiders that our members felt differently from us, but here they were standing side by side with their executive. Again. As I went to announce the results to the waiting media, I was buoyant. Democracy had its day, and ILDA was as united as ever" The 'unique joint initiative' was rejected.
Final Days
As the dispute entered Week Nine, the issues—
"needing immediate resolution had now been distilled down to safety issues, with a forum now available for investigation of industrial relations issues following any return to work. As I suspected, the Labour Court/LRC initiative had not been withdrawn following our inability to meet their 'expectation' that we return to work by August 14. Nevertheless, we had still not thought up a manner of dealing with our safety issues in such a way as to enable a return to work to happen in the immediate term. Our members were hurting though. It now seemed that every day, another of our members was reaching financial breaking point. At this stage, I didn't mind when a handful of our members began, through sheer financial necessity, to drift back to work. This dispute was now about breaking ILDA and nothing else, and I knew that these men still felt very strong in their beliefs. Going back to work was harder for them than it was for those of us who could stick it out for another while. At this stage, I was determined that there would be no falling out with any member who was starved back. I wondered as the week went on without further intervention how long we could keep our members together. Whatever happened, we could not allow ourselves to be split. We began to assess every member on an almost daily basis and, for the first time, we began to contemplate how much more our members could take. But they had been so strong on the previous Monday, and when I spoke to them now by telephone, that strength was still there. A terrifying thought struck me. What if they were staying out beyond their breaking point, out of loyalty to me or to the executive?" (p263).
"Fergus Finlay and Phil Flynn were still working on possible letters from the CIE Chairman to our members. We had an executive meeting scheduled for the Monday, August 21, 2000 and Fergus asked if he could come to it. He wanted to speak to our executive. Normally Fergus would be happy to speak with me and allow me to pass on any views he had to the rest of the members. But by now, I had other ideas in my head. Although I didn't fully realise it then, I was coming to the conclusion that the dispute needed to end one way or the other. I didn't see how we could keep a large bulk of our members out past the end of the tenth week of the dispute. The lack of money was now the key issue for our members, and I felt that another week would break a big section of them. That couldn't be allowed to happen. We would finish this united, whatever that meant doing. If it meant going back to work, then it was much better that we do so together, with dignity, than through division and recrimination. But there were still some things we hadn't tried yet. I suspected that some of our members would secretly welcome a proposal from me that we go back. But I knew that others weren't ready for that and would see such a suggestion as something akin to heresy. I also thought we should do even more. The buses were hit again and, despite the predictions of SIPTU and the NBRU, once again we got super support from their members in Dublin Bus. But there was still no further breakthrough" (p264).
"I was also very concerned about just how blatant the scabbing operation mounted by SIPTU and the NBRU had become on the rail. A press release issued jointly by NBRU General Secretary at the time Peter Bunting—before he defected to ICTU—and SIPTU's Noel Dowling directed at their members on the buses, chides them for supporting our 'pickets'. It outlines that their support for workers 'on strike for seven weeks' is understandable but misplaced and it asks them not to support us any further. In the middle of the statement, a single-sentence paragraph reads: 'Our members totalling 245 out of a workforce of 350 [in their dreams] are passing ILDA pickets every day.' Some boast for Trade Unionists to make!
"Fergus Finlay attended his first ILDA Executive meeting. It was a tough meeting which began at 8 pm. and lasted for over five hours. Fergus Finlay still hadn't given up hope of producing a letter that would allow us to go back to work. I had. In my opinion, it had gone on too long and I suspected that Phil Flynn and Fergus Finlay—with all the best intentions in the world—were not going to get the CIE chairman to sign such a letter.
"I thought that we needed something new and I outlined to the meeting what I had in mind, at least in part. I wanted a sit-in protest. A group of our members would effectively take over a key Iarnrod Eireann or CIE building or office and maintain a peaceful sit-in protest for as long as it took… Fergus Finlay was opposed to my idea" (p266).
The Sit-In
A group of the men occupied the CIE boardroom in Heuston Station on Wednesday, 23rd August 2000. They were eventually arrested and taken to Kevin Street Garda Station. It was probably the only occasion in the history of transport in this country that the custodians of a boardroom could have wielded a positive influence on behalf of the travelling public—and the law was called in.
The Return
"I went up to the reception desk and asked for the Chairman of the Court and the Chief Executive of the Commission. I didn't even know if they would be present but suspected that, in the circumstances, they would be. In a very short period of time, they emerged, together. Finbarr Flood greeted us warmly, offering a firm handshake. Kieran Mulvey was less warm in his greeting.
"The statement that our members had agreed that morning was then read in full to both men and presented to them with safety documents. The statement began:
"'ILDA SGM PASSES RESPONSIBILITY FOR RAIL SAFETY TO LCR/LABOUR COURT
"'ILDA members met today, August 25, 2000, at the end of the tenth week of this most unnecessary dispute.
"'ILDA members have raised and carried the issue of rail safety at the cost of their own wages for the past ten weeks. We have invested 1,000 weeks' wages in trying to make safety the focus of rail transport in Ireland. We have tried consistently to raise safety issues of the 'New Deal' with our employer, Iarnrod Eireann, who has responded by locking us out unless we work an agreement that we believe to be inherently unsafe. We have protested, demonstrated, lobbied, and on numerous occasions tried to explain, in our own words and those of safety expert P.G. Rayner, the serious safety concerns that caused more than 100 train drivers to refuse to work an unsafe agreement""The statement went on to outline our attempts over the previous weeks to pursue the issue of the unsafe nature of aspects of the 'New Deal', and to criticise those who had apparently joined forces to oppose us, whether through condemnation or ignoring of means to resolve the dispute. It emphasised that ILDA had not been crushed by this opposition, but that we were 'united, determined and organised in such a manner that we will never be crushed. We have brought Trade Union principles to life again in the railway.'
"We stated that we had welcomed the LRC/Labour Court intervention despite concerns about its statutory basis, and that our members had voted unanimously in support of it, while restating their safety concerns, continuing: 'A further initiative intended to address the safety concerns and allow us return to work met with further silence. We protested and were arrested.'
"The statement laid the responsibility for safety firmly at the door of the shareholders and management, and said that we, the drivers, refused to carry the burden of it any longer. We would therefore: 'return to work on Monday next, August 28th, 2000 at 9 a.m. together. We will be staying together thereafter… ILDA members will report for work under the LRC/Labour Court expectation and jurisdiction. We will work the disputed agreement under protest and with some relief that rail safety responsibility now passes to the LRC/Labour Court'.
"Included with the statement were copies of the independent safety reports we had commissioned, and which had formed the basis for our safety position during the dispute, and the statement continued:
"'Each week we will provide the LRC/Labour Court with a detailed update of our safety concerns in operation as part of their investigation. We now call on the LRC/Labour Court to expedite their investigation of all issues which gave rise to this dispute. In view of their new and daily responsibility for rail safety, we urge the LRC/Labour Court to commence immediately their investigations into safety aspects of the 'New Deal' and, in the interests of the travelling public and Iarnrod Eireann, to report on all matters as quickly as possible.
"'ILDA note assurances from Iarnrod Eireann that no victimisation of any Driver will occur. Similar assurances from SIPTU and the NBRU do not interest us. The actions of their officials and some members have been quite disgraceful.'
"We were all dreading the return to work. However, in Athlone it wasn't so bad. The ILDA members met outside just before 9 a.m. on the fateful day and walked into work together. We were received politely although it wouldn't have taken much to spark off an argument with some of the SIPTU members present. John Keenan called me on my mobile phone to see how things had gone and we spoke affably at length as we had done throughout a lot of the dispute. I told him that I was concerned that I would be singled out or targeted for dismissal. He gave a verbal assurance that that would not happen. Elsewhere our members experiences were similar. The day passed largely without incident. In Cork, things went particularly well. Our members assembled outside the station and walked towards the door together, where the SIPTU members in Cork had assembled and formed a type of guard of honour. There the applauded our members back into work. SIPTU Cork members are unlike many of the SIPTU members elsewhere. It was they who had placed the first picket in this dispute way back in Week One, they who had ignored all the pressure to work out trains during the IFI charade, and they who were at the meeting from which Des Geraghty had fled back to Dublin, with his tail very much between his legs. And now it was they who went the extra mile to make the return to work of our members in Cork as painless as possible. Gentlemen, every one of them" (p283).
Ghost Writers
I have heard sniggers in relation to Brendan Ogle's authorship, but he has no need to apologise, there wouldn't be any book or story if it wasn't for ILDA, Ogle, Masterson, Christy Holbrook and the 118 members, these men wrote their own history—they acted when the call came, and even today, action still counts for more than all the words of all the hacks, and by god, we have an army of them.
One Of Our Own
A single request to the reader: it is important to preface this very limited review, with a plea to Trade Unionists and followers of the Labour movement to go out and buy the book, it may be one man's insight into a single dispute, but his story encompasses the entire industrial network, the courts, the civil service and the government—it is also a working man's insight, which is even more valuable.
The Future
"And what of his future? Ogle is currently studying for an MA in industrial relations and human resource management from Keele University in Britain, and he continues to work as a train driver. Although he joined the Labour Party when Pat Rabbitte became leader, he does not see himself going into politics.
"I've a big interest in trade unions and the representation of workers. If that can be allied to my role as a train driver, great. Or if it develops another way, that's equally great", he says. Either way, while the book may be the final chapter in the history of ILDA, a few more pages are likely to be written yet about Brendan Ogle" (Sunday Tribune, 2.11.2003).
On December 8, last year, the former ILDA, now members of the 3/57 branch of the ATGWU deferred plans for a series of one-day rail strikes.
Instead, the train drivers decided to take Iarnrod Eireann to court over its refusal to negotiate with them. ILDA lost a previous case in the Supreme Court concerning its status as a Trade Union.
3/57 branch argue that it is legally entitled to be recognised by the company now that it is part of the ATGWU.If you wish to subscribe to the Irish Political Review, Labour & Trade Union Review, Church & State or Problems Of Capitalism & Socialism please go to our secure sales area. Postal delivery is free within the European Union.