Railway unions' appeal rejected by Council of State, judge dismisses urgent request and upholds strike ban.
The railway unions' attempt to have the Council of State overturn the rejection of their strike notice for February 5, 10, and 12 was unsuccessful. The court considered the request in summary proceedings but ruled that the requirement of urgency had not been met. This means that a substantive ruling on whether the refusal of the strike notice constitutes an infringement of the right to strike has been postponed for the time being.
The proceedings were initiated after HR Rail, the personnel department of NMBS and Infrabel, rejected a new strike request from the Christian railway union AVC Transcom and the socialist union ACOD Spoor. This request followed a strike the week before. With the summary proceedings, the unions hoped to still get the green light for the announced days of action in early February.
urgent procedure
However, the Council of State made it clear that, in its opinion, the applicants' arguments were insufficiently concrete. The formal judgment states: "The applicants have not set out in concrete terms the factual elements demonstrating that they are unable to exercise their right to strike." The court thus indicated that it was not convinced of the urgency required to intervene in summary proceedings.
The Council of State also addressed the risk cited by the trade unions. It was critical on this point as well. "The Council of State notes that the only risk cited by the applicants, namely disciplinary penalties and administrative measures if the employees were to participate in the three days of strike action despite the refusal of the strike notice, is not specifically explained or elaborated on in the petition." According to the court, this was insufficient to conclude that there was an immediate and serious threat justifying urgent intervention.
This reasoning meant that the core of the debate, namely whether the refusal to accept the strike notice constituted an attack on the right to strike, was left out of consideration. The Council of State did not rule on this issue at this stage. For the trade unions, this means that the current situation remains unchanged and that the refusal remains in force.
ACOD Spoor is still thoroughly reviewing the ruling. Tony Fonteyne, speaking on behalf of the union, is disappointed but not surprised. "Of course we are not satisfied, that goes without saying. The ban on strikes remains in place," he says. His words underscore the frustration among the unions, which see their options for action limited by the decision.
HR Rail has confirmed that internal rules will continue to apply in full. The personnel department has made it clear: "If the strike goes ahead tomorrow/Thursday, the internal regulations will be applied." In concrete terms, this means that railway personnel who refuse to work despite the ban may be considered unlawfully absent. This could lead to disciplinary measures or administrative sanctions, as was the case after previous industrial action.
The case illustrates the tense relations within the railway sector and the complex legal framework in which social actions take place. While the unions point to their fundamental right to strike, the railway companies emphasize the importance of procedures and regulations. The ruling of the Council of State does not provide a definitive answer to this fundamental tension, but emphasizes the formal requirements that an urgent procedure must meet.
labor actions
For the time being, it remains to be seen what steps the unions will take next. The investigation into the ruling is still ongoing and further legal or union action cannot be ruled out. In the meantime, the threat of sanctions hangs over the heads of railway staff who decide to go ahead with the announced strike days, while passengers are once again faced with uncertainty about the impact of the social conflict.
At the end of this legal battle, what remains is mainly an image of deadlocked negotiations and hardened positions, with each party insisting that it is right and the court intervening only on procedural grounds for the time being.
