Weary rail travellers were no doubt hard pressed to understand how a little more than 100 train drivers could shut down the railways this week in a dispute, not over pay and conditions, but because of inter-union rivalry. They are members of the Independent Locomotive Drivers Association (ILDA) branch of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union (ATGWU).

If the commuters are baffled, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) is becoming increasingly concerned that yet another row between its constituent members has shut down a public utility with all the attendant bad press for the trade union movement. Moreover, what is perceived as petty squabbling between unions over 100 already organised workers, completely undermines any efforts to recruit the 850,000 unorganised workers, the success of which is becoming critical to the long-term survival of trade unions.

A very public row between SIPTU and IMPACT about the right to represent cabin crew was a major factor in grounding Aer Lingus aircraft on several occasions last year. Inter-union rivalry again almost sparked a strike in the ESB earlier this year.

Though the ATGWU says this particular dispute hinges on its right to represent seven members on disciplinary hearings, it is really yet another power struggle between the 200,000-strong SIPTU, which supports partnership and the PPF, and the much smaller British-based ATGWU, which has consistently opposed national agreements. Stuck in the middle with the by now strike-hardened commuters, the company points out there are almost 40 negotiating groups in Iarnrod Eireann. Any further splintering could lead to what Iarnrod Eireann management described as industrial meltdown.

None of the parties, however, is blameless. The Government as owner is a reluctant investor. Unlike the other semiStates, which are being polished up for privatisation, there are no consortiums lining up to invest in Iarnrod Eireann or woo the employees to support their bid. Government inertia is then replaced by overzealous interference during times of crisis, which undermines senior management, creating a three-corner fight among the Government, management and the unions. This creates an industrial relations vacuum in the company, which the unions have been allowed to exploit.

It is the wider trade union movement which has most to lose from this dispute. It comes at a time when the unions are battling to retain the high standing they have built up painfully over the years through the partnership agreements.

What worries the unions is that, while they have gained certain kudos for their contribution to the economic recovery that partnership has helped to establish, this is not reflected in increasing membership at factory or shop-floor level.

OVERALL membership has increased, but it has not kept pace with the significant rise in employment and, accordingly, union strength has declined. Unions have maintained their strong base in the public sector with over 90 per cent representation. However, in the private sector it has dropped to below one in four, and unions are in danger of becoming irrelevant in a sector that has seen such dramatic jobs growth.

Union efforts at recruitment have been, at best, patchy with no concerted effort to go after the 55 per cent of the workforce which remains unorganised. The disputes in Iarnrod Eireann and Aer Lingus are about two unions squabbling over workers already highly organised.

The relative decline in union membership has increased the number of interunion rows, as they battle with each other to grab an increasing share of a shrinking market, often at the expense of "colleague' unions. While trade unions are at heart a political and social movement, from a business perspective they need new members to boost finances and negotiating strength.

The strategy at the moment, however, appears to be that rather than combine and chase new members, unions are battling each other for dominance in the existing market. Also, those inter-union battles are mostly taking place in the public sector, where the unions have no recruitment problems.

Not only does this leave the trade unions with little energy to confront the tougher task of recruitment in a predominantly anti-union private sector, but infighting which can close a rail network sends out all the wrong signals to potential recruits.

Many of the rail passengers left stranded this week are the types of people the trade union movement should be targeting. Younger workers in the new service-based industries would simply be bemused by the explanations offered by the unions as to why they are being left on the platform. Mention of the ICTU Disputes Between Unions Committee and rule 47(d) would only convince such people that they really are dealing with an alien culture that is best left to its own devices.

Employers, suspicious of trade unions from the start, will have their worst fears confirmed by the situation that was allowed to develop in such a key public service as Iarnrod Eireann. Already the employers' body IBEC has called for a ban on strikes in essential services. While the employers usually respond to an essential service strike in this manner, if there are further inter-union squabbles such calls may find more than a sympathetic ear among the legislators.

Even worse for the unions is the picture this paints of Ireland abroad. State agencies in countries that compete with Ireland for mainly US investment lose no time in directly informing such companies of the latest industrial strife to hit Ireland.

In a small open economy, inward investment is critical. A key plank of the partnership agreements has been that, in return for modest pay rises boosted by tax breaks from the Government, the trade unions are to deliver stability.

By and large, the unions have delivered such stability, which has formed the backbone of our current economic success. However, in the last year or so the partnership structure has come under intense pressure, largely as a result of the economic success it has nurtured. The Taoiseach, one of the original architects of partnership and a firm believer in it, has been on his feet in the Dail more frequently of late defending the national agreement.

Mick O'Reilly, general secretary of the ATGWU, who has been at the centre of the rail dispute, is a vociferous opponent of national agreements. The trade union movement is still about two to one in favour of national agreements. This was the dark cloud which hovered over this week's rail dispute, as the opposing forces within the trade union movement squared up to each other yet again.

In the context of the pending settlement last Thursday, Mr O'Reilly said unions should not be fighting over existing members but should combine to tackle the issue of the 85,000 workers who are still unorganised.

If that is a genuine peace offering, a united trade union recruitment campaign should yield the membership and influence at shop-floor level that the unions believe their contribution to the economy deserves.

However, in the same interview, Mr O'Reilly did not say he would give up on his efforts to secure negotiating rights for his train drivers. A few hours later, Noel Dowling, national industrial secretary of SIPTU, was similarly reluctant to say that SIPTU would make any room for the ATGWU at the negotiating table.

Martin Frawley is assistant editor of Industrial Relations News