LIGHT RAIL FEEDER SERVICE REMEDY
As you may remember on February 17, 2005, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) notified the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 265 (ATU) of its intention to subcontract out newly created Lines 48 and 49 as Light Rail Feeder Service, effective July 2005. Even though the newly created Lines modified our existing work on Lines 27, 38, 60, and 62, VTA believed it had the contractual right to do so, based on the language found in Part A, Section 2.1 (Jurisdiction) of our Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
ATU disagreed with VTA’s interpretation of the contractual provisions, and filed a grievance, which ultimately went before Arbitrator R. Douglas Collins on July 28, 2005. In his Opinion and Award, Arbitrator Collins ruled that the CBA did prohibit VTA from subcontracting the operations and maintenance of the Light Rail Feeder Shuttle Lines 48 and 49, and that VTA violated the CBA by doing so. Further, Arbitrator Collins remanded the appropriate remedy to the parties, retaining jurisdiction should the parties’ have a dispute or reach an impasse.
The Local’s leadership, in its wisdom, began discussions that eventually led to our Community Bus Program (Program). Discussions were contentious at first, with VTA taking the position that they would only agree to the restoration of the impacted Lines, and intended to continue to subcontract out Lines 48 and 49 as Light Rail Feeder Service. After fifteen (15) months of discussions, ATU’s patience and perseverance paid off. The negotiated Program, which our Membership ratified on March 30, 2006, and VTA’s Board of Directors approved on April 6, 2006, brought all shuttle operations directly contracted by VTA In-House. This included the DASH, the Great-America Shuttle, the River Oaks Shuttle, Lines 48 and 49, and all other directly contracted bus service, “community” or otherwise. Please visit our website at atu265.com to review and download the Addendum to the CBA regarding the Program’s terms and conditions, along with the Informational Packet documents distributed at the Divisions and at the Informational Meetings held prior to the ratification vote (CBA Agreement Changes Regarding Community Bus Agreement; Summary of Terms of the Community Bus Agreement; Summary of the Community Bus Agreement; and Community Bus Operator Wage Table). Informational Packets are also available at the Union Office.
All parties understood that the Program did not resolve the Light Rail Feeder Service remedy. Once the Program was ratified and approved, VTA and ATU entered into discussions regarding remedy flowing from Arbitrator Collin’s Opinion and Award. The parties quickly impassed. VTA took the position that the negotiated Program was adequate remedy for their contractual violation. VTA opined that any further remedy would be unwarranted, particularly since no ATU-represented employee was laid-off, and employees did not suffer a loss of wages as a result of the disputed subcontracting.
ATU took the position that regardless of the type and size of the vehicle, all the hours of work contracted by the private carrier, including any and all maintenance and cleaning of the equipment is and was ATU work. We provided a detailed calculation of the economic remedy, which totaled $905,740.05, including interest. We also asked for compensation for each day after July 1, 2006 that ATU-represented employees were not performing the work in question.
On August 9, 2006, Arbitrator Collins ruled on the
Remedy. Arbitrator Collins agreed with
VTA, stating, in part “….that the remedies negotiated by the parties are
sufficient to correct the contractual violation found in this arbitration. Indeed, the modification of the Agreement
described above (referring to the terms of the Program) go far beyond
what the District was required to do, which at a minimum would have been to
cancel the subcontract and restore the status quo ante. The changes outlined above not only correct
the specific violation at issue here, but they will presumably minimize future
disputes of a similar nature, and at the same time provide additional work
opportunities for ATU-represented employees and strengthen the Union
itself. No further remedy can be
justified on the facts in this record.”
Although we would like to have received some economic remedy, we remain the victors in this dispute. Arbitrator Collin’s Award validated the wisdom of the leadership in negotiating the Community Bus Program, the wisdom of the Membership in ratifying the Program, and acknowledges the tremendous benefit and future safeguards the Program affords this Local and its Membership.
LORETTA A. SPRINGER
President and Business Agent