ESB strike postponed to allow last ditch talks
A meeting yesterday, between the ESB and the ATGWU, which was also attended by SIPTU and the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU), failed to resolve a row over external contractors.
When talks broke down, it appeared that Monday’s threatened strike would go ahead. However, the ATGWU said last night that it was postponing the planned action to allow further space for negotiations.
ESB spokesman Kevin McDermott said the company had been “dismayed” at the failure of yesterday’s talks and refuted the charge that the ESB had failed to engage with the union on the issues, citing a number of meetings which took place over the summer.
However, ATGWU official Brendan Ogle said ESB management had brought nothing new to the table.
While a work stoppage would not affect the generating of power from main stations, any escalation could result in loss of power as maintenance and repair work on the network would be left undone.
It is understood, however, that in the case of a threat to safety or life, crews will operate to repair any damage. The last power cut as a result of a work stoppage was in 1991.
The row is over the role of outside contractors in the completion of the €3.6 billion programme to revamp the network’s powerlines.
About 1,700 external contractors are employed by ESB Networks, in addition to the 2,200 staff technicians, 1,200 of whom are ATGWU members. The union has claimed that ESB apprentices are being squeezed out through the use of outside contractors.
In 2001, the ESB and unions formed an agreement, known as the PACT, in relation to the use of outside contractors, allowing temporary general workers to become apprentice electricians. More than half of such graduates have been offered a position at the company. However, the ATGWU has claimed that outside contractors are carrying out core work, against the terms of the PACT.
Mr McDermott said the ESB’s own internal labour court mechanism, the Industrial Council, had not been used in the course of the dispute, despite the fact that it was standard practice accepted by both unions and the company.
He also claimed that the ATGWU action was a result of a ballot held outside of accepted dispute resolution procedures.
