The current page is not translated to the selected language.
Download article in original language : BE0412305FFR.DOC
During the last months of 2004, a number of one-day strikes were held at the Brussels Inter-Municipal Transport Company (STIB/MIVB) in a dispute over staffing levels and journey times. A collective agreement to resolve the dispute was signed by two of the three trade unions at the company in November, but the socialist-oriented union, CGSP/ACOD, called on its members to continue the industrial action.
An industrial dispute punctuated with strikes began at the Brussels Inter-Municipal Transport Company (Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles/Maatschappij voor Intercommunaal Vervoer van Brussel, STIB/MIVB) at the end of October 2004. STIB/MIVB has been improving its position over recent years thanks to increases in revenue and in the number of passengers carried, while managing to reduce its deficit. At the same time, traffic in Brussels has been getting heavier and increasingly congested. The operating speed of overground public transport (buses and trams) has been profoundly affected, and this reduced operating speed will be exacerbated by the need for the supply of transport to increase, which will in turn require the recruitment of additional staff. Trade unions claim that drivers’ working conditions are deteriorating, particularly as a result of stress brought about by the delays that occur during journeys, and a review of journey times has been one of the key bargaining issues between STIB/MIVB and the unions.
On 22 October, the first strike in the current dispute was called jointly by three unions (coincidentally only a few days after two accidents occurred on the tram network, injuring a total of almost 80 people). The unions were: the Public Services Christian Union (Centrale Chrétienne des Services Publics/Christelijke Centrale van de Openbare Diensten, CCSP/CCOD) affiliated to the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Confédération des Syndicats Chrétiens/Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond, CSC/ACV); the General Confederation of Public Services (Centrale Générale des Services Publics/Algemene Centrale der Openbare Diensten, CGSP/ACOD) affiliated to the Belgian General Federation of Labour (Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique/Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond, FGTB/ABVV); and the Federation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (Centrale Générale des Syndicats Libéraux de Belgique/Algemene Centrale der Liberale Vakbonden van België, CGSLB/ACLVB). When challenged, the STIB/MIVB director-general, Alain Flaush, acknowledged that total recruitment of bus drivers was down by 3%. The Minister-President of the Brussels-Capital regional government, who chairs the regional institution that funds STIB/MIVB, also came under pressure.
The following week, CCSP/CCOD and CGSLB/ACLVB, but not CGSP/ACOD, submitted a joint list of demands to the STIB/MIVB director-general, and the same day a number of work stoppages were organised, not only to support the demands, but also to protest against attacks on members of staff while performing their duties. Mr Flaush responded promptly, offering adjustments to journey times (mainly resulting from the large number of civil engineering sites in Brussels), an assurance on (good-quality) breaks away from the bus, a block on the recruitment of temporary staff until the next consultation exercise takes place, and an increase in the number of drivers.
This reply did not prevent a second one-day strike on 29 October, and STIB/MIVB staff also demonstrated outside the Brussels regional parliament. Pascal Smet, the Brussels-Capital region Minister of Transport, stated that local authorities in the capital, which are responsible for many thoroughfares although independent from the regional government, do not always carry out appropriate repairs needed to guarantee the continuing mobility of traffic. This situation also partly explains the stress that drivers experience as a result of the constant bottlenecks. He stressed that the 2005 budget presented by the Brussels-Capital regional government provides for substantial investment in STIB/MIVB; this will include EUR 10 million for the development of sections of roads exclusively dedicated to public transport, such as tramlines and bus lanes.
On 3 November, a meeting of the sectoral joint committee was called at the request of CGSP/ACOD to examine management’s proposals, but CGSP/ACOD still did not want to take part in direct negotiations with management, and insisted that the official conciliator (in this case the president of the joint committee) should intervene. After this meeting, the trade unions embarked on an analysis of the situation.
While talks continued, another day of joint strike action was called for 5 November, and on 8 November the joint committee set to work on drawing up a protocol of agreement. On 9 November, after this discussion had taken place, the three trade unions called general meetings of their respective members to determine their positions on the draft agreement: the members of CCSP/CCOD and CGSLB/ACLVB agreed to the proposal, but those of CGSP/ACOD did not. According to the socliaist-oriented union, a commitment to recruit 50 drivers by the end of the year did not go far enough, and there had not been sufficient discussion on journey times (CGSP/ACOD had put forward a proposal to scrap all current timetables). Some commentators suggest that CGSP/ACOD’s more radical position is largely explained by the fact that it did relatively poorly in the last 'social elections' (BE0406301N) of workers' representatives at the company, while others have alleged internal power struggles within the union.
However, CGSP/ACOD's opposition did not prevent CGSLB/ACLVB, CCSP/CCOD and management from signing the protocol agreement in the joint committee on 16 November. This deal has the force of a company agreement applicable to all STIB/MIVB workers. This was the first time for 36 years that the STIB/MVIB unions had not signed an agreement together. On the day after the agreement was concluded, the CGSP/ACOD decided to organise another one-day strike on 29 November. This action was well supported by its own members, and also by some members of the other unions. On 24 November, a meeting took place between Mr Flaush and CGSP/ACOD, at which the two camps stressed that the climate had improved; however, they were unable to head off the 29 November strike. Another general meeting of CGSP/ACOD members of staff was fixed for 7 December with a view to deciding if fresh action needed to be taken. The union accordingly asked for 'clarifications with regard to the recruitment not only of drivers, but also of workers in technical services and of white-collar staff. As for improvements in journey times, we do not think they are sufficient.'
The CGSP/ACOD general meeting on 7 December voted for another strike on 24 December, on the grounds that 'the general meeting felt that management had not made enough effort'. This fresh strike call was very coolly received by STIB/MIVB management, which categorically refused to renegotiate the collective agreement that it had concluded with the other two trade unions. These unions’ responses were that 'we obtained 100% of what we asked for, and management is scrupulously abiding by the terms of the agreement' (CCSP/CCOD) and 'why are they going on strike again?' (CGSLB/ACLVB). CGSP/ACOD was to assess the 24 December action after the Christmas holidays. Some see this stiffening of resolve as an expression of the unease felt by some workers at organisational changes being carried out within STIB/MIVB.
The level of mutual incomprehension between CCSP/CCOD and STIB/MIVB management grew unremittingly in late 2004, and increasingly fierce protests from users, and from political and economic actors in Brussels, have also intensified the pressure on the socialist trade union. The question is what future strategy the CGSP/ACOD will adopt in response to this widespread discontent. How will the union resist, and for how long? It may be that growing intervention on the part of politicians will bring the dispute to a close. (Alexandre Chaidron, IST, Catholic University of Leuven, Louvain-la-Neuve)