This week's bus and rail disruption caused a great deal of anguish for commuters and holidaymakers. But it has also prompted questions about the nature of the dispute itself and whether, for example, the law should have intervened to prevent some of the more extreme instances of disorder.
The dispute arose because of the refusal of members of the ILDA to accept, or to implement, the terms of an agreement reached between Iarnrod Eireann and the two recognised unions within the company, SIPTU and the NBRU. This is a comprehensive deal covering pay and conditions.
The ILDA repeatedly cited concerns over safety, and commissioned an independent report. However, it seems clear that its principal objective is to win recognition by the company for negotiating purposes.
The ILDA has been variously described as a breakaway union and as a maverick body. It has even been suggested that it is an illegal entity with no rights. This is inaccurate, as the ILDA is a registered trade union under the Trade Union Act, 1971, having been registered as such on July 29th, 1999.
However, the ILDA does not hold a negotiation licence, and will not be eligible even to apply to the Minister for a licence until the end of January next. This has a number of implications, not least the fact that the main immunities under the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, are not available to the ILDA or to its members.
These immunities are of crucial importance to trade unions generally. They operate as a legal shield, protecting unions and their members from being sued in relation to civil wrongs done "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute". Without the protection provided by the statutory immunities, striking workers and their unions run the risk of being sued.
Another difficulty for the ILDA is that Iarnrod Eireann obtained a High Court order to the effect that the ILDA cannot lawfully conduct negotiations.
This is because it does not have either a negotiation licence or the status of an "excepted body" within the meaning of the Trade Union Acts. An excepted body is a body which can have negotiating rights so long as all of its members are employed by the same employer.
It is important to remember that in the Republic there is no such thing as a trade union right to negotiate. No union, irrespective of its size or influence, has the right to be recognised by an employer. In something of an exception to this general rule, the Railways Act, 1924, requires pay and conditions on the railways to be regulated in accordance with agreements made with trade union representatives.
It was under this provision that the ILDA sought negotiating rights alongside SIPTU and the NBRU. When the matter came before the High Court earlier this year Mr Justice O'Neill upheld the legality of Iarnrod Eireann's refusal to deal with the ILDA.
However, now that the ILDA has signalled an alteration to its rules (presumably in order to confine membership to Iarnrod Eireann staff), this issue may well come back to court. Despite this, it is difficult to see how Iarnrod Eireann could ever be compelled to talk to the ILDA.
Because of the widespread disruption to services there have been calls for mass dismissals of the workers involved and, in some cases, also for the drivers to be jailed, though Iarnrod Eireann has so far declined to take any action of this kind.
The main weapon at the disposal of employers in industrial disputes is the option of seeking an injunction to restrain picketing or other related activity. This weapon was used very widely before the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, which restricted its use considerably.
Nowadays, if a union has conducted a ballot in accordance with certain basic rules and has given at least a week's notice of its intended action, an employer cannot normally obtain an injunction.
However, unless a ballot has been taken in accordance with the rules, protection is not available. Thus, it seems that in the current circumstances, the ILDA and its members cannot rely either on the immunities or on the protection against injunctions.
There has always been a reluctance to involve the courts in industrial relations disputes, and an understandable preference for using established institutions such as the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission. However, the fact remains that the ILDA and its members could be exposed to legal action, say, for loss of business by their employer owing to the activities of the union and its members.
In addition, were an injunction to be obtained (for example to restrain picketing) and were this injunction not observed, the offending parties would risk imprisonment, though this would depend on the willingness of the company to apply to the court for such a sanction.
As to the option of mass dismissals, advocated for example by the Chamber of Commerce in Ireland, this would represent a departure from our industrial relations culture.
Also, it is arguable that were the ILDA members to be dismissed, they would have a good defence under employment legislation, which outlaws dismissals on the grounds of membership of, or activities on behalf of, a trade union.
If members of SIPTU and the NBRU refuse to pass ILDA pickets, it seems reasonable to conclude that the mass dismissals of their colleagues would not be acceptable, and could escalate the dispute even further.
While there is no shortage of strictly legal devices and remedies which can be deployed in order to seek to break the dispute, the desirability of taking this approach is questionable, to say the least. Therefore, it seems that the Labour Court/LRC initiative, though less attractive to those who would like a quick fix, is in reality the only practicable option available.
Alex White is a practising barrister