Proposition 54K1565

Proposition de résolution visant à améliorer le dialogue social au sein du groupe SNCB.

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Egbert Lachaert, Sabien Lahaye-Battheu

Submission date

Jan. 11, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

working conditions resolution of parliament social dialogue strike right to strike

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 7, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, at our committee meeting on 22 June, we discussed and approved the proposal for a resolution on improved social dialogue in the NMBS Group.

What is the proposal for a resolution, colleagues? With the proposal we call on the government to work on social elections in the NMBS Group and on a guaranteed service provision. In addition, we advocate a tougher approach in the occupation of signal houses and railway installations. Finally, we insist that an increase in employee productivity would go hand in hand with the improvement of working conditions.

The first part of this proposal concerns social elections. First and foremost, I would like to thank the colleagues of Ecolo-Groen for their support for these points in the committee.

Unfortunately, colleagues, together with me, you have also this year again encountered the power of the trade unions on the liver. Too often strikes were called for and travelers were taken hostage after a finger cut by the trade unions. Today it is not at all clear who represents the unions, because staff members of the railway company cannot now elect their representatives. Deputies are appointed internally by the association itself. They should also not in any way hold accountable to the backbone for their position names.

I would like to give here some examples of the extent to which staff responds to calls for strikes. I refer, among other things, to the period of wild strikes between 25 May and 3 June. The NMBS recorded the highest percentage of strikes. On 26 May, 28% of the French-speaking employees and 10% of the Dutch-speaking employees went on strike. On 30 May, the differences were even greater: 24% versus 3%. In Infrabel, 15 % of the French-speaking staff went out on 26 May and 14 % on 27 May. The percentage among the Dutch-speaking employees was around 1% on those days.

This shows that today more than ever there is a need to regulate the representation of the trade unions through social elections. In the meantime, we discussed in the committee the bill containing various provisions on mobility and approved it in part. A second reading will be held on Thursday morning. That bill actually already answers our question in our proposal for a resolution to organize social elections in the NMBS Group. According to the draft, these elections will be held from 2018.

The second part of the proposed text concerns guaranteed services.

A lot has been said about this in the room. On 31 May, we received an interesting explanation from the NMBS and Infrabel in the committee and we were explained that four scenarios could be developed on strike days. In those scenarios, trains may operate on strike days, provided that the staff notify at least 72 hours before the strike day whether or not it will operate. Based on the staff available on the day of the strike, an à la carte transport plan can then be rolled out. So it is possible. We therefore call on the Government to implement the guaranteed service.

The preliminary point of the proposal for a resolution concerns the conclusion that strikes are unfortunately still being tracked and signhouses are being occupied.

Infrabel has for some time proceeded preventively to the courts throughout the country to obtain, on a unilateral petition, a decision from the court in order to be able to demand a penalty by a court executor or to remove persons on track. The figures indicate that Infrabel in the 39 districts in which it applied for such decisions on a one-sided appeal, was settled by the judge. That’s right, because walking on the tracks and occupying tracks or signal houses are very dangerous for safety and completely confuse train traffic. We believe that this harsh approach should be ⁇ ined.

Finally, colleagues, we believe that the 4 % increase in the productivity of the railway undertaking, as determined by this Government, must be associated with the improvement of the working conditions for the staff.

We find that the statute is hopelessly obsolete, that the internal regulation and the paper shop are unnecessarily complex — of which the staff is also the victim — and that there is a staff problem, in the sense that holidays and holidays often cannot be taken. I think this is an en-en-story. Productivity needs to be improved, but in the interests of the staff it also needs to be improved working conditions and their modernization.

Finally, I thank my colleagues for the constructive dialogue and the support in the committee, and I can tell you that our group will vote in favour in any case.

As we have already said in the committee, our group fully agrees with the resolution of the colleagues of the Open Vld. The content of this resolution is in line with the government agreement and the strategic vision of the railway, which was elaborated and explained here by the former Minister of Mobility, Ms. Galant.

This resolution and the requests it accompanies are urgently needed, we want to secure the future of our railway companies. Studies confirm this and I have also referred to it in the committee when dealing with this point. There is a study by the Boston Consulting Group showing that our railway companies are down to the bottom in terms of performance. We pay a very high price for a rather limited service. That it can be better, that is absolutely a fact.

As already explained by the applicant, the resolution contains six requests to the government.

First, the social elections.

I have already talked about this during the questionnaire in the plenary session. Now it is the case that the staff members at the NMBS cannot choose their delegates. I wonder if they still feel represented by their trade union. In addition, the trade unions at the NMBS currently have 73 exemptions. That is, 73 people are paid full-time by the company, by the taxpayer in fact, to do trade union work.

The cost is very high, namely 11 million euros a year. This has already been discussed extensively. What trade union work do they do? We find, for example, that they have principled objections to proposals for guaranteed service, which, however, is one of the tasks. They do not object substantially to the four scenarios that have been explained, but rather are objective in principle. With regard to the productivity-enhancing measures outlined in the social consultation, the same answer came, namely a principled objection resulting in strikes. So I think that this system must stop, to evolve into a democratic system in which trade unions are elected by their employees.

The second requirement is to hold elections within a reasonable time. I think that seems logical.

The third request concerns the irregular occupation of sign houses and railway installations.

As the applicant already explained, the occupation of seins and railways is a criminal offence. Therefore, Infrabel was granted the right from the judge after a unilateral petition to take action against it. Colleagues, the occupation of tracks and sign houses entails a huge risk; it endangers the safety of all rail traffic. I look forward to the intervention of my colleagues from the opposition, because they did not accept this request. I am looking forward to their explanation.

The fourth requirement concerns the guaranteed service.

I think you all know the views of our group on this. It is immensely important. The NMBS still has the monopoly on domestic passenger transport. There is no alternative to a strike day. We have also seen in the scenarios explained by the companies themselves that it is perfectly possible to roll out such a system. The legislation we have proposed is quite ambitious. The scenarios described are actually based on a voluntary basis and are also realistic if one takes into account the strike numbers and the strike readiness recorded in the last strikes. This request was approved by a majority in Parliament. So I think this is a huge signal to the government to do this urgently. The Minister is no longer present, but we will say it to him at committee meetings.

The fifth and sixth requests relate to productivity gains and the improvement of employee working conditions.

The study was conducted by the Boston Consulting Group. That study shows that we actually offer poor service at a high price, with all the consequences for the working conditions of the staff. Mr Lahaye-Battheu has already mentioned this. I think these two requests should be joined together. It may not be the intention to offer a superroyal status with many holidays, which, however, cannot be included.

The conclusion is that our group will approve this resolution, as in the committee. Our starting point in this file, and in the whole rail file, is, as colleague Flahaux just said, that we do the minimum, we do more with less. A better service for the traveler, for less money, for that we do it.

We will not approve this resolution.

What really disturbs me is the gonfler la poitrine, the muscle ball show of the N-VA and the Open Vld, in which they permanently bash the staff of the NMBS and of Infrabel, as if they are companies where only imbeciles work. That is your starting point to approach these companies. Therefore, you are always making suggestions to complicate the efficiency and operation of these companies.

Let me look at the resolution myself.

For example, in your introduction, in the memory of explanation, it is stated that social elections must be held. And as a motivation, Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu, you say that there are no social elections and that the parity committees are actually not representative enough. Well, it is precisely your liberal party, and also the MR, that has moved heaven and earth to allow the VSOA in the national paritary committee. The representativity? 900 members on 36 000 employees! So don’t get rid of representativity in your explanatory memory if you’re trying to realize it elsewhere.

Again, I think your resolution doesn’t really matter much to the body. We are talking about trade union elections. Again, our group is in favour of this. But when I read your arguments, I find them poorly formulated. I also think you have a different agenda, which you should have pushed forward in all honesty.

You both refer to the guaranteed service, It is true, we have heard a statement with four different scenarios, but you forget to tell telkenmale what has been clearly said by the people of HR Rail and the various companies, namely that such systems can only work if they are developed with the support of and in accordance with the trade union organizations. If this is not the case, it cannot be implemented. It is essential that this premise is followed.

In terms of timing, there were positive proposals in the committee, for example from CD&V colleagues Yüksel and Van den Bergh on diversity policy at the NMBS, but that could not be dealt with and this had to be dealt with at all costs. That is occupational therapy for me, because a week later the minister came up with a bill containing various provisions on mobility and that was the whole discussion about those trade union elections. Did it mean to be the most punishable? With excuses for the colleagues of CD&V, but CD&V was there, looked at it and let pass.

That is why we voted against this resolution in the committee and we will repeat it here in the plenary session today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Geerts, you say that this resolution is meant to bash the staff, I think you used that word. That is not correct at all. What can you have against the fact that the staff of the railway company will now be able to determine their representatives through elections? Today, there is no possibility of elections, so it is just a step forward for the staff to be able to designate in a democratic way who they want as representatives in the company.

You have different opinions with colleagues from Ecolo-Groen. I thanked them during my presentation. I look at Mr. Cheron, who has voted in the area of social elections. Mr Cheron, you said that you voted in favour of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the resolution because you are in favour of elections. You will probably say that later.

Mr. Geerts, you should not seek a double division in the majority. I simply point to the fact that during the discussion in the committee a vast majority was won in favour of the obvious principle that one must be able to designate his representatives in the trade union in a democratic way.

You also forget to mention that our resolution clearly advocates for the improvement of the working conditions for the staff, with the problem of leave days that cannot be included, the statute that is often outdated, useless administrative procedures and the like. We also want to work on this, in order to improve the working conditions for staff. It is in the text, but you forget to mention it. I would like to emphasize this, however, because the present resolution is not at all a personal exploitation. On the contrary, it is about the future of the company.

Mr. Geerts, if there is no company anymore, there is absolutely no future for the staff. It is up to us to save and improve the company.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu, if you read the report of my present presentation and the report of my presentation to the draft various provisions on mobility, in which I would have said that our group is against social elections. I have clearly stated here that our group ...

( ... ... )

You say I am against it.

The (...)

No, I will not approve the resolution because it gives little added value to the debate.

Ms. De Coninck later stated that there would be so many exempt persons. I only point out that you now want force par force that the national paritary commission be expanded to allow, for example, the VSOA with 900 members, which for me is not a problem. Do not use two sizes and two weights. That is what we are bringing forward.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we have to discuss a proposal from my excellent colleague, sometimes Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu.

The title of this article is very sympathetic. I would even say that the title is kind, since it invites us to improve the social dialogue within the SNCB Group. Dear colleagues, I suppose you can imagine the exceptional ambition described in the title and in the resolution.

Obviously, this is a resolution, and we will be "resolutors", dear friends of the PTB, voting a large resolution text. We will make a good resolution.

The paradox of the text submitted by Ms. Lahaye-Battheu is that it contains a little of everything. I doubt between the formula “the Belgian cheeses” and that of Mr. Geens, “The Pots-Pourris” Pot-pourri is another version of the melting pot. It is “a little of everything.” There are things you like well and others you don’t like, like in the menus. You’re almost forced to take the dessert you don’t like if you really like the entrance.

The problem is that this text actually contains elements that interest us. Madame De Coninck and Madame Lahaye-Battheu, this has not escaped you. Yes, the Ecolo-Groen group believes that in the SNCB Group, social elections would be needed. It is important, it is a revolution. What a big word! In the previous centuries, many have fought for social democracy and social elections in ⁇ , including in public enterprises.

So, when we like an element in a text, we support it. This may surprise some, but we say yes to social elections within the SNCB group.

Should this be done within a reasonable time? and yes! What is a reasonable time limit? We did not know this when we were discussing the resolution in the committee. But since then, Minister Bellot has defended in a committee the preliminary draft submitted by Ms. Galant. This already scares. The preliminary draft that was submitted by Ms. Galant is a bill, now under consideration in commission. It will come to second reading in the committee next Thursday, if the Conference of Presidents so decides on Wednesday. This project also touches on various elements of the railway code.

There is the organization of social elections to the SNCB, at separate dates from other social elections. This surprised us a little bit, because we think it might be better to make all social elections coincide. The text of mr. Bellot distinguishes the dates. But we will discuss this text in due time.

I add, for all those who are concerned with social elections in the SNCB Group, that we are now discussing a resolution, but that we already know the following text. Mr. Geerts, I think that is what you wanted to express. This next text provides that there will be social elections only in the regional parity committees. Unless I have not well understood, Mrs. De Coninck, I have the impression that the way to do will remain unchanged at the level of the National Parity Commission. The number of members of the trade union organizations will be counted and there will be no social elections at this level.

I have already attracted attention to this. I hope that the majority will not be disappointed. I suppose you knew the project when you submitted it. I can’t imagine for a second that you didn’t know him. I’m not going to restrain your enthusiasm, which is interesting. I am always excited when the N-VA is passionate about a subject. This is really important. In the text of Mr. Bellot will be discussed in committee and here, I will still show the difference with the "resolutionary" resolution proposal.

You will understand that the Ecolo-Groen group absolutely supports social elections. We believe that it is in the interest of the SNCB Group that there is a true social democracy. Social elections are capital, founding, so that there is a new start for the SNCB group. We would have wanted these social elections to be properly prepared.

We will discuss this during the discussion of the project. But the draft as it is drafted will force the current social partners within the SNCB Group – not those who could be designated on the basis of future social elections – to define very quickly, within three months, all the modalities for organizing the social elections. This is important because, according to the text of Mr. Bellot – which I can translate to you if you have not well understood it – if, between September and December, the required two-thirds majority is not reached and if no agreement occurs within the National Paritarian Commission of the SNCB, the modalities will be defined by the government. That is what worries me!

As for the resolution, unfortunately, there are not only points 1 and 2. There is also the question of guaranteed service. There is no question of minimum service. In any case, no precision is given.

In the Infrastructure Committee, we were able to hear the different scenarios that have been developed. You don’t say how you think you can do that. You also don’t say what you want. Do you want to have trains crowded every two hours? Do you want a system in French, Italian, Swiss or a system in N-VA? I do not know.

In addition, you talked about productivity gains. What will these gains be based on? Only for workers? Only on those who, within the SNCB Group, are manoeuvring in the trains as drivers, accompanyers who repair the catenaires?

Yesterday, we talked about ⁇ ining capacity in the committee. And you have swept through the good resolutions of the opposition, which is regrettable. Please also note that this kind of behavior can only excite me.

It is still that, as I said a moment ago, the question that arises is whether you want to bring the gains in productivity or efficiency only to the railway workers. If yes, this would be unacceptable.

Do you not think that we are facing a small governance problem within the SNCB and Infrabel? The question of the subsidiaries, of TUC RAIL, which your group condemns, is asked in different cases.

Finally, cherry on the cake – I did some culinary comparisons, just recently – you urge the SNCB Group to assemble these reforms with measures aimed at improving working conditions. In other words, the improvement of working conditions goes after everything else, after imposing unacceptable conditions.

In the face of such a text, it is impossible to make a statement. I will therefore, Mr. Speaker, ask you for a split vote, so that we can vote on each of the points and express very clearly on the conditions provided for in this text.

You will understand that the Ecolo-Groen group will vote yes to the first two points relating to social elections, but we will not be able to support the other points, considerations and too radical measures, insofar as we want to improve the social dialogue within the SNCB.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first to the two authors that I am asking about the usefulness of this proposed resolution because, ultimately, what they are asking the government is to do what the government is doing. This is quite surprising.

Personally, I would have added that it is requested that the minister be called François. This would have added to the relevance of this draft resolution. What is the utility of this resolution? This is a first point.

I think you really deserve the Oscar for Surrealism. Indeed, you are aiming at such a resolution proposal to improve the social dialogue within the SNCB, while the government is breaking this social dialogue and making the social breakdown. It is crazy! You really deserve the Oscar for Surrealism. In any case, you dare!

Then, in point 5, you indicate that productivity gains must be achieved and, in the next point, that the working conditions of the staff must be improved. It deserves a second Oscar for Surrealism! It is quite incredible.

What is the government’s policy towards the SNCB? There is no strategic vision. We are talking about a strategic vision, but it does not exist. There is a budget vision. It is clear! There is no strategic vision. We have 3 billion euros less for the SNCB in the legislature. This is clearly to break business and mobility in public transport. It is also a policy that leads to deficiencies in the field of security. This was the case in Saint-Georges-sur-Meuse. Tickets are more expensive every year. It is a RER that no one knows when it will be put in place. It is also a project of unaccompanied trains. The Minister confirmed this, while we saw the importance of the accompanying in the accident of Saint-Georges-sur-Meuse. These are hundreds of kilometers of roads that are no longer ⁇ ined or almost and that are at risk of being removed. These are stations that are left to be abandoned and transformed into stops. These are trains that, every day, are late because they are not repaired. I suffer it almost daily. And these are working conditions that, contrary to what you indicate in your proposal, actually deteriorate and affect the quality of service and safety.

I understand that the railroads are angry. By reading your text, the SNCB staff would include a small minority of strikers who would impose their views on all staff. I will submit you a proposal. Because you say that the staff must vote to elect delegates. Since, in your opinion, it is a minority that disputes the policy of the government, I will propose to organize an internal referendum on government plans with regard to the SNCB. We will then see the results and we will be able to check whether a majority of railroads agree with the government policy.

I also understand that users are angry. Have you ever heard of travel associations? Do you think they are happy with the Galant-Bellot plan and its strategic vision? Do you listen to them sometimes?

We, members of the PTB, we want social peace, but who does not want it? It is clearly the government, who has decided of a bras de fer with the staff of the SNCB. C'est pourquoi nous ne pourrons évidemment pas soutenir this proposition of resolution.