Proposition 54K1889

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière ferroviaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 15, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

business management transport and mobility public service social dialogue rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

LE DéFI PP

Party dissidents ¶

• Meryame Kitir (Vooruit) abstained from voting.

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 20, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report. I will speak later in the discussion.

I am told that the Ministry of Mobility is on the way. The government is represented.

The Minister will come immediately. The meeting should not be suspended.

Mr. Speaker, I thought we had explicitly discussed this scenario at the Conference of Presidents: Philippe De Backer would represent the government as Secretary of State. The other parties stated that a certain degree of flexibility would be ⁇ ined.

So I think we can continue the work.

I think so too, especially because I am informed that the Minister is nearby.

I need to correct it somewhat, as it would be an attempt to have the competent ministers present at the discussion of the relevant draft laws. (The Minister is coming in)

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Colleagues, Mr. Cheron, the title of the bill that is submitted to us this morning is rather anodine since it contains various provisions on mobility. Nevertheless, behind this title is a profound reorganization of the social consultation within the SNCB Group that will be implemented when the said project has been adopted.

I think there are three major issues related to this bill, issues that I will develop later. First, we have the feeling that once again you are not keeping your promise. This is about your promise regarding the depolitization of the organs of social consultation. Secondly, you risk organizing, in some way, the “chaos” in the upcoming social elections. Third, you use the Constitution in a rather dubious way to justify the imposition of the minimum service.

As I just said, your promise of depolitization has not been kept. The government, however, cries out that it wants to depolitize the organs of social consultation within the railways and that, in order to do so, it will organize social elections soon. But at the same time, without waiting for the holding of the aforementioned elections, he imposes the SLFP, the liberal trade union for those who would ignore it, in the various organs of social concertation.

This decision is all the more appealing since this trade union represents only 3% of the railroads. Therefore, we have the feeling that ⁇ the government thus seeks to impose an ideological ally in the various organs of social dialogue of the SNCB group by pretexting this depolitization and the implementation of social elections. This feeling is further reinforced by the fact that through the new rules that will be implemented, autonomous or driver-independent unions (SIC & SACT) are excluded from future social elections.

We have in mind what happened at the time of the strikes in prisons, where Minister Koen Geens used the liberal trade union to somehow break the strike movement. We might wonder if you have not been inspired by your colleague for writing this bill. In any case, the question deserves to be asked. Unfortunately, by imposing this way of doing, you play a little with fire and you risk causing more wild strikes than is currently the case.

The second problem point is the risk of seeing these social elections organized in a form of chaos. Indeed, the timetable you anticipate in the bill that is submitted to us today is simply unavailable. I think this project is primarily dictated by political and electoral considerations. These elections must be held before those of 2019.

Per ⁇ this is the reason why we are not able to make you hear right. My colleague submitted excellent amendments to postpone the date of holding these social elections, but it was impossible to dialogue with you on this point. Nevertheless, all trade union organizations point out to us that it will be very difficult to organize in the best conditions these social elections within the time limit you have chosen to impose. Per ⁇ you have had the opportunity to reflect after our discussions in committee? I invite you to review your position and postpone the holding of these elections from 2018 to 2020.

Chaos is also likely to be present, because there is a whole series of questions left unanswered. For example, what about social elections in the subsidiaries of the SNCB or Infrabel? We do not have a clear answer on this. We also do not have a clear answer regarding the protection of future candidates in these social elections, protection against possible sanctions, retaliation or revocation, especially for railroads who are contractual today.

The third problematic point concerns the reinterpretation, somewhat intellectual doubtful, that you make of the Constitution, aiming only to justify the imposition of a minimum service within the SNCB group. During the committee debates, you wanted to reassure yourself about the right to strike, but when reading this bill we can only be worried.

Thus, you speak of a new constitutional right, which would be that right to mobility that one would attempt to oppose to the right to strike. At the limit, if it was a right to sustainable, sustainable, quality, and accessible mobility for each of our fellow citizens, why not? But it is nothing. Here, as a watermark, behind what you are building as a new constitutional right to mobility, is actually hidden this obsession for minimum service and the end of the right to strike.

I will not be much longer, Mr. Minister, but I still want to draw your attention to the fact that this a priori anodin text could really have important consequences. I am not sure that it will improve social dialogue, a peaceful and quality social dialogue, within the Belgian railways. And yet, as we both said, this social dialogue, today, exists and works. It has been operating for many years. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be modernized and improved, but I’m not sure that by doing so, you’ll ⁇ that goal. In fact, you impose a trade union that represents only itself, but which has as its main asset to love blue a lot. You do not accept any amendment that would allow these social elections to be held within a sustainable timeframe. At the end of the day, we ask ourselves what the real goal is.

Above all, Mr. Minister, we have the feeling that the general interest and depolitization of which you talk so much are ultimately secondary, and that your real will is above all to weaken the unions, which are considered too crowded, and to facilitate the establishment of the minimum service. This is a shame, and we regret it, because in this little game no one will win, neither the government, nor the railroads, nor the users who, in the end, will be the main victims of the government’s insolvency.

Therefore, Mr. Minister, we will vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it is an honor for me to be here at the tribune in this beautiful late morning of July 20th.

The bill, which we have debated in committee twice, although in a shorter manner the second time, and which we will undoubtedly vote right now, is fully part of the modernization of the railway, undertaken two years ago. This modernization includes that of human resources, the material and financial management of the SNCB and Infrabel. It took place, as always, in the sole interest of customers, staff and taxpayers.

This direction has been set, and you keep it, Mr. Minister. On behalf of the Group, I would like to congratulate you on the realisation of this project. This first step is crucial for the future and sustainability of the SNCB, in a European environment that, as you recalled, is in full change and requires effective responses. We aim for the performance we all seek.

I will highlight the added values contained in this bill, because I have not heard of them in the previous speech. First of all, there is the investment cell, which holds you at heart, Mr. Cheron. You know very well that it will be instituted soon and that it will finally allow to concrete these choices in the prioritization of investments.

Mr. Foret makes me the honour to appeal to me, I cannot let this pass.

I imagine that this constitutes an important moment for him to come here to defend a preliminary project of Mrs. Galant, which is taken word for word by Mr. Bellot. This is called inheritance.

Continuity Mr Cheron!

and yes. Often, when it comes to inheritance, the real problems are in succession rights. But I didn’t want to talk about taxation, I wanted to talk about this famous cell.

It has been a long time since the successive ministers, to very many oral questions in the Infrastructure Committee, answer that "the cell will cut." It was time to create it! I would like to avoid forgetting that there is a whole series of sheets and decisions made by the cell, while it has not yet been created. This is just restoring a situation of fact that has existed for too long.

Thank you for your brilliant intervention, which allows me to continue to say that this investment cell is a priority of this government.

Today, we will finally be able to establish it. This is not why it could not start and move forward. You would have made other criticisms if she had not started her work. It is important that this cell can work and that it is established today. This is the first added value of this bill, which we will vote soon.

Let us now go back to the representation of trade unions. I think it will indeed be improved through these social elections that will enable to objectivize the representativity of the trade unions. The social dialogue will also be strengthened, whatever you say, because, by reorganizing these different committees, we will be able to go to the essence and make sure that this dialogue is readable and effective for the users but also for the staff of the SNCB.

The last, and not the least, added value of this bill is the improvement of good governance within these infrastructures including the appointment of independent administrators and a letter of mission that will allow to put the rules on the table with HR Rail as part of a social dialogue but also effective human resource management within the SNCB.

For these various reasons, Mr. Minister, we will of course vote in favour of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, for us, the trade union elections are of course the core of the case in this bill containing various provisions.

We are in favor of trade union elections. However, we have submitted an amendment to make the trade union elections coincide with those in the companies affiliated with the NAR. For us, that was more logical. We still do not see the added value and the usefulness of an advance. Furthermore, the trade union elections only apply to five regional parity committees, which actually have to be created. So we fear that you will be in need of time, hence our amendments, but as said in the committee, we support the principle of trade union elections.

I requested a second reading last week, as well as the advice of the legal service on the distinction between the adopted and the recognized organizations. I saw – I also read the report – that you want to accept only the technical improvements and not the amendments of the legal service. You would solve those issues later. I hope that the comments of the legal service will then be effectively incorporated into another legislation containing various provisions, in order to further support the legal validity of this draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, Mrs. Grovonius, I hope that you are doing well – in any case, your speech was impressive.

Mr. Minister, here is a text whose preliminary draft was submitted in January by Ms. Galant. He then continued his journey to the Council of State. It has the peculiarity of constituting what Mr. Geens would call a “pot-pourri”. Some of the measures it involves do not, in my opinion, pose any problem. I will give two or three examples. Mr. Foret will acknowledge that, in his brilliant intervention, he supported this text, which, however, contains chapters of very variable quality.

I had the pleasure of recalling, regarding the creation of the investment cell, that it was being discussed for so long that we had the impression that it was a chimera or a long-standing business of which we did not even perceive the beginning. This cell is now established by the bill in question. The two ministers drove this matter for a very long time in order to postpone the complicated debate regarding the choice of investments and the establishment of a new PPI (Multiannual Investment Plan). What was created in 2012 no longer exists.

This morning we talked about capacity retention and investment choices. We also talked about my colleague Geerts’ excellent resolution proposal on the electrification of a certain line. These issues are very important. I am delighted that this investment cell is finally established. It will receive the desires of the Regions – and that is probably preferable. Previously, each presented a sort of list of races so long that the real priorities were no longer distinguished.

Therefore, we have the investment cell.

To take a second example, there is the question of independent managers.

Mr. Minister, the problem of governance at the SNCB and at Infrabel is a very important issue, as we were able to see this morning by reading the press articles relating to the succession of Mr. Cornu.

In the past, a lot has been talked about subsidiaries, their control and their number. It is well known that the composition of the boards of administration, the presence of the Regions within them, the partisan presence – it must be said – in the said boards will probably occupy much of this government during the summer. Unfortunately, this will also be your case.

Will we revive 2013, with quite peculiar circumstances, with heavily paid head hunters to recruit potential successors to the CEO of the time who were about to leave? In 2013, the government had made a first choice, and then had to make a second choice because the person who had been appointed did not stay in office for a long time. This is how it happened, coming out of a hat – if I can say –, Mr. Cornu who, by the way, hardly masks himself with a hat. That is the case to say it!

How will we live this summer? How will you solve the issue of choosing the CEO? How will you solve each other’s problems? I talked about the N-VA this morning, without naming it, but I can do it now as we are approaching noon. How will you resist the partisan pressure to occupy strategic positions in the board of directors such as the chairman? Your summer will, I think, be very disturbed by these questions.

I would like to add here that the chairmanship of the board of directors of the SNCB will primarily occupy the MR. You will therefore likely be forced to make travel between Liège, the Brabant Wallon, the south of France, etc. You will, in any case, have to solve ego issues, within the MR, between two well-known groups that I will not cite because if I did, I would contribute to their reputation, which would be a bad choice on my part.

Mr. Minister, I wish you good luck.

Regarding the independent directors, in the second reading you acknowledged that, as it was written in the first text of which you were not the author, one could not both say that they will be designated by the general assembly – the Code of Companies – and say that they will be designated by royal decree. Even if they are the same, even though the government is very present in the decision that will be taken at the general assembly. I have seen that you have progressed in your reasoning and that, in the future, the designation body will be the general assembly, which is correct in relation to the Company Code.

We have well understood that the HR-Rail mission letter, given its evolution, is not a management contract; it is a management subcontract. In the future, what will happen to HR-Rail?

The most important element in this text is the organization or not of social elections. I will not go into too many details. But as my colleague Mrs. Grovonius said, and on this point we are quite agreed, the timetable is important.

I’m not sure if we’re entirely in agreement on social elections. We, Ecolo-Groen, are in favor of this. Counting affiliates within trade union organizations is not a good system. The right system in social democracy is elections. This is the case in trade unions and in democratic matters.

We are totally in favour of these elections. We can see the difference between the places where elections can be held. I was noticed that there are two important bodies with regard to social democracy: the committees for protection and prevention at work and the business councils. On the one hand, we are in technology and well-being at work. In the other, we are in economic and financial information and working hours. It must be understood that, tomorrow, your text will not organize social elections everywhere. But this is understood because even in the private, where there are social elections, not all organs are subject to elections. In bodies such as the SNCB, the National Paritarian Commission will remain a commission as it is today with a representation in connection with the National Labour Council. The real important element you induce here is the a priori representation of the SLFP, not on the basis of social elections but on the basis of its presence in the CNT.

There is a political-syndical link that seems obvious to me and which is challenged by the trade union organisations that are now more representative of workers within the SNCB. I emphasize, the social elections in the planned bodies and the reduction to five of the regional parity committees compared to the much too high number in the past, it is positive.

But what makes me worried, Mr. Minister, is the question of the timetable. Your calendar forecasts social elections in 2018 and not in 2020 as is the case in the private, while you will then make sure that the elections coincide. On the one hand, the text says that we need to go quickly because we need to set up the system. Article 18 sets out the rules. But the terms, it’s not just how we’re going to vote, in what place, with what urns or what ballots. Behind this, there is the question of the protection of delegates as well as a whole series of other modalities of which we know the practice and usage in the private sector with regard to trade union democracy. How will these modalities be organized? Article 18 tells us that the electoral procedure, the preliminary procedure to it and the number of mandates available will be the subject of a negotiation procedure within the national parity commission, in accordance with article 75 of the law. If within this Commission the two-thirds majority is not reached by the end of 2016, the King, by decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers, shall determine the preliminary electoral procedure for it and the number of mandates available. In other words, if this text is voted and after its publication in the Moniteur, it will remain in the national parity committee for two or three months to reach an agreement with the two-thirds. Do you take the commitment today, beyond the text, that if this two-thirds agreement is not reached by the end of the year, will you activate Article 18 and take a decision?

You, the government, will therefore become the national parity super commission of the SNCB and you will write the modalities for the implementation of social elections within the SNCB group.

Or, will you, with flexibility and wisdom, give a little more time if the two-thirds were not reached? Even better if they are before, but the deadlines you impose, with this article 18, are obviously far too short to implement harmoniously what will constitute a first since the law of 1926, namely the organization of social elections within the SNCB group.

So here, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, enough remarks that put at risk what is a priori a good idea, namely the organization of social elections within the SNCB group. It is for these reasons that my group, which, however, fully supports social elections, will vote against your text because of these terms, this institutionalized blur, the representativity assured only by the text of the SLFP. Amendments on more harmonious implementation have been rejected in committee and unless reversed by you, although supporting social elections, we will not be able to support this text.

This bill contains a number of provisions that you have listed. Of these, two or three may attract more attention. First of all, as regards the investment cell, Mr. Cheron, it is the confirmation that it has already been set up for several months and that it is already operational to this day. It works; it advances and, on several occasions, two-level technical meetings have been held to examine the different projects. A legislative vehicle was needed to confirm an announcement that had already been broadcast. This is done by this provision.

One of the provisions that attract attention is that of the organization of social elections within the SNCB Group. I will answer a few questions without returning to the debate that took place in the committee. Does this apply to subsidiaries? and no! It is only HR, Infrabel and SNCB. For subsidiaries, this falls within the usual private law concertation, as they are private private law commercial undertakings.

If it is only in large part, it is railroads that are directly dispatched in these subsidiaries. It is a little special to look at them differently.

I tell you what it is. I see only that.

As for the very principle of organizing social elections, I think we live in a democratic state. We all recognize it. And we are here because political democracy has expressed itself. I think that in social representation, social democracy must also be organized. It must be said that the counting system currently in place no longer corresponds sociologically to the aspirations of those and those who must designate their representatives.

Ms. Grovonius and others mentioned the fact that the liberal trade union now enters the organs with a consultative and not representative disposition. He had already been appointed by the previous government, in 2013, within the National Parity Committee. And today, it will enter the set of paritary bodies that have been simplified, rationalized, but where all missions are taken over within the regional paritary committees. Let things be very clear: skills are merged and organs are merged! This is a very important element.

Why did you do it now and why didn’t you wait for the election? Because, at the time of the elections, the representatives of the three major organizations back in the National Labour Council will present themselves as future delegates. It seems to me desirable, like everything that happens in political democracy, that all actors can also organize the way social elections will be organized.

The government leaves to the negotiation the care, for 5-6 months, to organize the arrangements and measures to be implemented, in particular - the field of negotiation is very open - the protection of workers who will themselves be candidates. We leave to the negotiation the care to define all the modalities of calling for voting, of making lists, of the method of election and of the type of protection that workers should be able to enjoy. If this is not a sign of willingness to coordinate, I don’t think there are others.

Let’s talk about the political link between the liberal trade union and the party! I hear everywhere that trade unions, whether it be the FGTB or the CSC, have no connection with brother political parties. The same goes for the Liberal Party. I have no special connection with representatives, even though they each have their own flag color. You will never find a picture of me parading in a liberal demonstration. I suppose this is the case for all the elected here. They never took part in any general strike or demonstration.

Is this an act of politicization? and no. It is an act of democracy to associate large representative organizations that are members of the National Labour Council. They are associated with the discussions today, as a consultative. We will see in 2018, when the first elections will take place within the company, knowing that the duration of the first term is set to six years, and that there will then be participation in the general elections of 2024.

Now on to independent managers. It should be understood to mean “independent” within the meaning of the Company Code. The General Assembly must designate them and remove them if necessary. The appointed directors must meet the criteria set out in the Company Code.

Mr. Cheron, I am not ⁇ committed to Article 18 by promising tolerance. I let the trade unions do it. In political democracy, we are able to hold elections in 40 days; I hope it will be possible to hold elections in 200 days. Of course, we need to put the process in place at the beginning, but at the end of 2016, despite the holidays, we are still there. Some appeal to reason to say that such texts should not be presented now. Everybody knew the schedule. We must participate in all debates until July 21. That is why we are present today.

I will now address the appointment of the CEO, Mr. Cheron. The procedure is ongoing. We want to have the right man in the right place, or the right woman in the right place. The procedure is carried out according to the usual method. The goal is to try to find the rare pearl and to objectivize the qualifications and qualities of the different candidates. When it comes, the government will make its choice. We know all the deadlines that await us, whether it is market opening, new governance, management contracts, PPI, etc.

There have been few moments in the history of the SNCB where one has had to simultaneously choose the political directions, make choices in investment plans, management contracts and the people who will have to carry out the boat with these new directions, which are coordinated.

I call on both of them to make their choice at the time of the vote. I think this is a significant advance in a law of 1926, which was probably very good, since we are only correcting some elements of it now.

In 90 years, many things have evolved, as well as the evolution of social law, into a reality that is the object of an aspiration of all citizens. At all levels of power, and even outside the political aspect, people want to be involved in the choice of those and those who represent them. This project goes in this direction, but not only.