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 Deans
City Councillor and Chair of lnterim Transit Commission
110 LaurierAve. W.
Ottawa, ON
K1P 1J1

Dear Councillor Deans:

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

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

lnterest Arbitration Award October 9, 2009

As you are aware, an lnterest Arbitration Board chaired by Arbitrator Keller issued an
award back in the fall of 2009 resolving many issues and directed the parties to develop
language within 30 days of the Award to reflect a Day Booking system consistent with
the 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 system
which is to be consistent with the majority of transit operators across North
America. The parties are to draft the appropriate scheduling provisions within 30
days of receipt of this award. lf no agreement is reached, the matter may be
remitted 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 scheduling
provisions but instead presented to the Union without prior consultation a draft Booking
which ignored two significant features of the Keller Award but which at that time
respected 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 the
12 hour Spread and minimum daily guarantee to weekend work and to Spare
Operators.

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

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

lnstead, the Employer once again acted unilaterally and put forward a Booking for April
2O1O without any discussion with the Union. This Booking for the first time purported to
alter many of the "longstanding mutually agreed upon scheduling practices" which the
parties had bargained in past Collective Agreements and which are consistent with the
majority 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 and
longstanding fundamental scheduling rules which had never been called into question
or 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 Relations

Board 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. The
Employer 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 the
parties to draft the appropriate scheduling provisions, the Keller Board reiterated that it
was 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 stated
as follows:

lf it has not already done so, the employer is hereby ordered to develop a Day
Booking system consistent with what is done elsewhere but as limited by the
above. 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
practices may
scheduling rules or practices but that it was "possible" that some such
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
*iy compliant wittr Ainitrator Keller's Awards or, alternatively, is in any fashion
"ny
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
precisely
this Commission rrbs opeiated for decades. Yet in this latest Booking that is
what management is attempting to do. lt is hard to imagine how any member of
possibly
managem",it *ho has been'involved in this issue since the 2008 strike could
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
Collective Agreement language to refle.ct the scheduling practices which are
"ppropii"te
consistent with the majority of transit operators in North America'
Management's proposed Booking is not consistent with the maiority of transit
operations

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. lt
would 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 is
consisteniwith 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 Labour
pract'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 to
aspects of the April 2010 Booking to which the Union objected last year.

Management for OC Transpo has moved fonruard and completely ignored any of the
past 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 with

whether 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 it
did 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 scheduling
provisions are mutually agreed upon and resolved

lf if we do not receive a written response from you with respect to the enclosed
proposed Collective Agreement changes, then this matter will be referred directly to
Arbitrator 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 respect
to 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 this
latest abuse of the scheduling provisions by the employer will not take effect in April
2011.

Furthermore, this will serve as notice that ATU Local 279 will not begin negotiations for
a renewal Collective Agreement until all scheduling provisions from the past Collective
Agreement 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 subsequent
appointment 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 many
fronts. While the Union and its members have been prepared to put the acrimony from
the 2008 strike behind them, this continued unilateral attack by management on the
Operators and Mechanics scheduling and Booking system which is at the heart of their
daily work life leads us to no other conclusion but that this management like the
previous management and administration is not interested at all in improving labour
relations but rather is testing and provoking and punishing the members of Local 279 for
exercising 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 new
Collective Agreement. As noted earlier, no such negotiations will take place until the
scheduling provisions have been agreed upon from the last Collective Agreement.

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

As always, ATU Local 279 remains open to discussing and negotiating these matters in
the interests of its members, OC Transpo and the citizens of Ottawa. lt is impossible
however to conduct any negotiations if management continually acts unilaterally despite
clear directions from the Keller lnterest Board to meet and negotiate the appropriate
scheduling provisions. There is a narrow window of opportunity within which some
meaningful discussions may take place. We are open to any suggestions you may
have but are firm in our resolve against this latest high handed unilateral act of
management.
xss
Yours truly,

Mike Aldrich
Acting President, ATU, Local279

Encl.

cc. Randy Graham, via email

David Jewitt, Jewitt Mcluckie & Associates, via email
Joanne Venditti, Program Manager Transit Operations Support Services, via email
Laurie Blackstone, Manager Transit Operations, via email
Jim Watson, Mayor, City of Ottawa, via email
Allan Mercier, General Manager, Transit Services, via email