@!AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 279

2212GLADWIN CRESCENT, UNIT C9, OTTAWA, ONTARIO K1B 5N1(613) 738-3177 FAX (613) 526-1696

February 17,2011

VIA Facsimile and E-mail

Diane DeansCity Councillor and Chair of lnterim Transit Commission110 LaurierAve. W.Ottawa, ONK1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Deans:

Re: Scheduling Language: Keller's Latest Award and the Employer's ProposedApril 2011 Booking

Further to our recent meetings and discussions regarding the labour relations generallyat OC Transpo and the scheduling problems specifically, this letter will set out for youthe Union's position on the April 2011 Booking proposed by Management in a letterdated February 15th.

lnterest Arbitration Award October 9, 2009

As you are aware, an lnterest Arbitration Board chaired by Arbitrator Keller issued anaward back in the fall of 2009 resolving many issues and directed the parties to developlanguage within 30 days of the Award to reflect a Day Booking system consistent withthe majority of transit operators across North America.

Specifically, at page 11 of this Award, the Arbitration Board stated as follows:

.... The Board, as proposed by the Employer, Awards a Day Booking systemwhich is to be consistent with the majority of transit operators across NorthAmerica. The parties are to draft the appropriate scheduling provisions within 30days of receipt of this award. lf no agreement is reached, the matter may beremitted to the Board for determination.

Employer puts forward no scheduling language but instead acts unilaterally

In fact, the Employer did not make any proposal regarding the appropriate schedulingprovisions but instead presented to the Union without prior consultation a draft Bookingwhich ignored two significant features of the Keller Award but which at that timerespected the longstanding scheduling provisions which had applied at OC Transpo for

o@if@oc

For your information, the issues at that time were that management refused to apply the12 hour Spread and minimum daily guarantee to weekend work and to SpareOperators.

As a result, the Union brought the matter back to the Keller lnterest Arbitration Boardwho then ordered the Employer to apply the 12 hour Spread and daily guarantee toweekend and Spare work.

After the Award, the Union still did not receive any proposed scheduling language fromthe Employer as was originally directed by Arbitrator Keller.

lnstead, the Employer once again acted unilaterally and put forward a Booking for April2O1O without any discussion with the Union. This Booking for the first time purported toalter many of the "longstanding mutually agreed upon scheduling practices" which theparties had bargained in past Collective Agreements and which are consistent with themajority of transit operators in North America.

Rights Arbitration in front of Burkett leads to Third Keller Award

The Union believed at this point that the Employer was acting in bad faith with anti-union animus in altering both Transit Operations and Equipment Booking rules andlongstanding fundamental scheduling rules which had never been called into questionor raised by the Employer when it asked the lnterest Board for the right to put all pieces

of work together in accordance with those rules.

As a result of an unfair labour practice complaint to the Canada lndustrial RelationsBoard expedited arbitrations were agreed upon to try and resolve this dispute.

Arbitrator Burkett, upon examining the April 2010 changes the Employer was proposing

to what were mutually agreed as longstanding past scheduling practices and rules,

directed the matter back to the Keller lnterest Arbitration Board. There were still no

scheduling provisions put forward by the Employer for the Union to consider. TheEmployer was now advancing a position for the first time that all such past practices had

been "extinguished".

Keller's Third Award

On January 28,2011, over fourteen (14) months after the Keller Board had directed theparties to draft the appropriate scheduling provisions, the Keller Board reiterated that itwas essential that such language be drafted and, if the parties were unable to agree,the Board would resolve the dispute and continue to remain seized. The Board statedas follows:

lf it has not already done so, the employer is hereby ordered to develop a DayBooking system consistent with what is done elsewhere but as limited by theabove. Should the union be of the view that what is developed by the employer

is not consistent with the majority of transit operators and/or does not respect the

limitations ordered by the Board, the matter may be remitted to us for

consideration as to whether or not the requirements have been met. Should the

parties be unable to agree on the appropriate collective agreement language, we

continue to remain seized.

The Board further clarified that it had not at any time "extinguished" any of the past

scheduling rules or practices but that it was "possible" that some such practices may

have to be amended or modified which is precisely why the parties were directed to

meet and agree upon the appropriate scheduling provisions.

Employer acts unilaterally again and refuses to comply with Keller's Awards

On February 15,2011, Joanna Venditti, Program Manager, Transit Operations Support

Services, advised the Union that the Employer had now unilaterally without any

discussion whatsoever with the Union, put together a new April 2011 Run Cut and

indicated that it wanted to "post it immediately" on the internal email system to bring it to

the attention of all OPerators.

Frankly, it is a 'joke' to suggest that this latest Run Cut put fonruard by OC Transpo is in

"ny *iy compliant wittr Ainitrator Keller's Awards or, alternatively, is in any fashion

consistent with the majority of transit operators in North America'

We hear from management that the scheduling issue for both Transit Operators and

Equipment is the onii..u" holding up any movement towards positive labour relations

between the Union and the Employer'

This latest April 2011 Run Cut continues to exacerbate the reasons why there is not

likely any hopeful sign whatsoever for positive labour relations in 2011 or the

foreseeable future.

The Booking ignores the clear direction given by Arbitrator Keller that the Board never

intended to direcly 'extinguish' the long standing past scheduling practices by which

this Commission rrbs opeiated for decades. Yet in this latest Booking that is precisely

what management is attempting to do. lt is hard to imagine how any member of

managem",it *ho has been'involved in this issue since the 2008 strike could possibly

imagiie how continuing to refuse to meet with the Union to discuss and agree upon the

appiopriate scheduling-provisions with the Union would in any way assist in improving

laboui relations between ATU Local279 and OC Transpo.

This is precisely why Arbitrator Keller directed the parties to sit down and work out the

"ppropii"te Collective Agreement language to refle.ct the scheduling practices which are

consistent with the majority of transit operators in North America'

Management's proposed Booking is not consistent with the maiority of transitoperations

As the Keller Board has ordered from the beginning, the Day Booking system which the

Employer is to put together must be "consistent with the majority of transit operators

across North America;. The Union has examined comparable transit authorities across

the country and can assure you that the latest Booking and the proposed changes are

in no way lonsistent or reflective of the majority of comparable transit operations.

We note that management does not even pretend to suggest that any of the "new" rules

which it is now trying to "shove down the Operators' throats" in the latest Booking are

consistent with otheitransit authorities, for example, creating work that would require an

Operator to work from Sam to Spm on 3 different routes and 3 different buses neither

starting or finishing at the same garage and receiving pay for only 7.5 hours of such a

days'work.

The Union would ask you to inquire of your managers which other major transit

authorities have rules such as these that they are asking ATU Local2T9lo accept.

Arbitrator Keller made it absolutely clear in his second Supplementary Award that the

Day Booking system must be "consistent with the majority of transit operators" and

accordingry irris'information will have to be produced to Arbitrator Keller in any event. ltwould bj helpful for us to understand what, if any, other transit authorities the City has

examined or compared to our existing system so that we can examine these in this

process and in front of Arbitrator Keller.

There is limited time to resolve these matters in an amicable fashion

ln our recent meetings and discussions you have asked what can be done to improve

labour relations and help put the past acrimony surrounding the 2008 strike behind us.

ln the Union's view, the direction is clear. Since October 2009, the lnterest Board has

directed the parties to draft and agree upon appropriate scheduling provisions to reflect

a Day Booking system consistent with the majority of transit operators across North

America.

As already noted, OC Transpo management has steadfastly refused to engage in any

such discussions with the Union but instead has acted unilaterally and continues to do

so in this latest insulting Booking proposal for April 2011'

Proposed Gollective Agreement Language

The Union, following Keller's latest Award, has followed the Board's direction and has

put together amendhents to the Collective Agreement language with the appropriate

scheduling provisions which reflect that the Employer's Day Booking system isconsisteniwith tfre majority of transit operators across North America.

please find enclosed (to follow electronically) with this letter the Union's proposed

amendments to the 2008-2011 Collective Agreement which still remains outstanding

because of the City's refusal to meet and discuss what the scheduling language should

be for this Collective Agreement.

you will note that we have made revisions to Section (9) of the Collective Agreement by

incorporating the former Appendix C which dealt with Operator Booking rules together

with ihe Splreboard Rules, relevant aspects of Section 4 and the former Letter of

Understanding regarding Maximizing Straight Runs. All of this language apart from the

bolded sections in tfre ievised Section (9) is old (existing) language in the Collective

Agreement.

At this stage, given the alleged 'urgency' with which Ms. Venditti has indicated

managem"nt ir intent upon publishing or putting out this Booking to the membership,

this will serve as notice to the City that, if we do not hear back from you within 5 days

with a response to the proposed language we have enclosed with this letter, then this

matter wili be directed back to Arbitrator Keller to complete the Collective Agreement

with the rules as stipulated and set out in our document.

you will note from our document that we have referenced all of the major comparators

across Canada that have rules that are identical if not more restrictive than the ones

that we have set out in the enclosed amendments to the Collective Agreement.

Ganada lndustrial Relations Board Proceedings

Last year, the parties resolved a Canada lndustrial Relations Board Unfair Labourpract'rce complaint by referring concerns about both the Operators' and Mechanics'

Bookings back to righis arbitration. Specifically, Arbitrator Burkett was appointed to deal

with the Transit Booking as a result of that resolution and Arbitrator Stephens was

appointed with respect to the Equipment Booking process.

These arbitrations proceeded on an expedited basis so that these matters could be

resolved in some iashion prior to the next round of bargaining which is now being

stalled even further as a result of this latest attempt by management to interfere and

undermine the interest arbitration awards of Arbitrator Keller'

It is clear that management is again ignoring Arbitrator Keller's direction and refusing to

have any discussions or negotiations with the Union regarding these central issues

arising fiom the lnterest Arbitration Awards. The Collective Agreement provisions

continue to remain unresolved as a result of the City's unreasonable, intransigent and

anti-union attitude towards the Union. Accordingly, this letter will serve as notice that

the Union is examining the anti-union animus which is apparent and clear from this

latest Run Cut and letter put forward by OC Transpo management and reserves its right

to proceed to the CIRB with an unfair labour practice complaint.

Burkeft Proceedings

At the present time, there is a rights Arbitration relating to the April 2010 booking where

many of the issues that management has again put fonruard in the April 2011 Booking

are still awaiting a decision by Arbitrator Burkett. While Arbitrator Burkett referred

matters back to Arbitrator Keller in terms of determining the underlying intent regarding

the extinguishment of long standing past practices, he remains seized with respect toaspects of the April 2010 Booking to which the Union objected last year.

Management for OC Transpo has moved fonruard and completely ignored any of thepast practices and the Union's objections including those that are currently before

Arbitrator Burkett. Specifically, the Run Cut that you are proposing contains the

following breaches of which Arbitrator Burkett remained seized:

. lntroduction of Straight Runs up to 11 hours (Arbitrator Burkett is seized withwhether or not Day (Straight) Runs from Monday to Friday are permitted to

extend beyond 9:29);. All spares will have a spread of 12 hours (Arbitrator Burkett is seized with

changes to the Spare SPread); and. Some Relief Runs will be two pieces (Arbitrator Burkett is seized with whether or

not Relief Work is permitted to comprise more than 1 Run on 1 bus).

Failing agreement as to the appropriate scheduling provisions this will serve as notice

that the Union also intends to proceed back to Arbitrator Burkett to receive rulings on

these matters. Until these rights issues are resolved it is not open for the Employer to

move unilaterally. The Union will be claiming "punitive" and "aggravated" damages if

the City goes forward with its proposed April 2011 Booking.

It is shocking to think that management would continue to put forward in this latest Run

Cut matters which it knows are the subject matter of a rights arbitration which has been

adjourned pending direction by the Keller lnterest Board as to whether or not the Keller

Board intended to extinguish such practices. The Keller Board expressly stated that itdid not intend to extinguish such practices in its Award. Yet management has

proceeded contemptuously and, we believe with anti-union animus, to attempt to

extinguish those longstanding practices in this latest Booking.

ATU 279 will not negotiate for a renewal Gollective Agreement until all schedulingprovisions are mutually agreed upon and resolved

lf if we do not receive a written response from you with respect to the enclosedproposed Collective Agreement changes, then this matter will be referred directly toArbitrator Keller on an expedited basis so that the rules that he has directed the

Employer to come up with as Collective Agreement language are included in the

Collective Agreement before any April 2011 Run Cut can be put forward.

Accordingly, I look forward to receiving a response from you within 5 days with respectto the proposed language that the Union has put forward. Failing a response within 5

days, please be assured that the Union will take every legal step to ensure that thislatest abuse of the scheduling provisions by the employer will not take effect in April2011.

Furthermore, this will serve as notice that ATU Local 279 will not begin negotiations fora renewal Collective Agreement until all scheduling provisions from the past CollectiveAgreement are mutually agreed upon or awarded by the Keller lnterest Board.

Summary

Ms. Deans, with the election of a new Mayor in November 2010 and the subsequentappointment of yourself as lnterim Chair of a restructured OC Transpo Commission,Local 279 had cautiously hoped that this would signal a new direction and change in

labour relations.

Unfortunately, there has been no positive change but instead it appears to ATU Local

279 that senior management continues to proceed with anti-union animus on manyfronts. While the Union and its members have been prepared to put the acrimony fromthe 2008 strike behind them, this continued unilateral attack by management on theOperators and Mechanics scheduling and Booking system which is at the heart of theirdaily work life leads us to no other conclusion but that this management like theprevious management and administration is not interested at all in improving labourrelations but rather is testing and provoking and punishing the members of Local 279 forexercising their legal right to strike in 2008. A strike, I might add, which was caused by

management's negotiating team.

ATU Local 279 is aware that the City is anxious to begin negotiations for a newCollective Agreement. As noted earlier, no such negotiations will take place until thescheduling provisions have been agreed upon from the last Collective Agreement.

The latest proposal by management for the April 2011 Booking sends a signal thatdespite public statements of goodwill this next round of negotiations is going to beprotracted, difficult and even more contentious than the last round.

As always, ATU Local 279 remains open to discussing and negotiating these matters inthe interests of its members, OC Transpo and the citizens of Ottawa. lt is impossiblehowever to conduct any negotiations if management continually acts unilaterally despiteclear directions from the Keller lnterest Board to meet and negotiate the appropriatescheduling provisions. There is a narrow window of opportunity within which somemeaningful discussions may take place. We are open to any suggestions you mayhave but are firm in our resolve against this latest high handed unilateral act ofmanagement.

Yours truly,

xssMike AldrichActing President, ATU, Local279

Encl.

cc. Randy Graham, via emailDavid Jewitt, Jewitt Mcluckie & Associates, via emailJoanne Venditti, Program Manager Transit Operations Support Services, via emailLaurie Blackstone, Manager Transit Operations, via emailJim Watson, Mayor, City of Ottawa, via emailAllan Mercier, General Manager, Transit Services, via email