Ac Transit Collective Bargaining Agreement

For a time, ATU 192 also represented workers in the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). Public employers were not covered by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which upheld the legal right of most American workers to create unions and was set up by the National Labor Relations Board to monitor union elections and settle disputes and complaints. At the time of BART`s creation, Section 13 (C) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 required the local transit union to agree to state-funded transit projects and guaranteed collective bargaining for workers in systems such as BART. ATU 192 advocated for its members to “follow” their work, while keeping intact their union representation, seniority, wage and pension benefits, and in 1968 they negotiated such an agreement with BART and other Bay Area unions. Manuel Williams (Williams) was employed as a bus carrier by Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit) and was a member of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192 (Local 192), the exclusive representative of AC Transit workers. Faced with dismissal for alleged misconduct, Williams reached a last-chance agreement, which required him to finalizing a counselling program, provided that non-compliance results in termination (arrangement). The failure to comply with Williams` agreement led to an expedited arbitration process and his termination of employment. Williams sued Local 192, accusing him of breaching his duty of fair representation by not informing him of the arbitration and by not explaining his non-compliance to the arbitrator. Local 192 filed an application for a summary decision, which was accepted. Williams seeks to turn around and asserts that there are a series of material questions of fact as to the appropriateness of the oral hearing disclosure and that the Tribunal ignored evidence that a local representative ordered his employer to dismiss him in 192. We reject these assertions and confirm the verdict.

Williams did not appear at the July 26 expedited arbitration hearing. Marshall appeared on Williams` behalf and objected without doing so, but the arbitrator raised the objection and justified the proper disclosure of the hearing in accordance with his order. During the hearing, AC Transit provided evidence that Williams had not met his last chance: the letter from the Director of the Claremont Employment Assistance Program, which stated that Williams had not signed a form for the publication of information – a precondition for participation in the AEP – and was therefore unable to provide further information. This letter was admitted as evidence as a result of Marshall`s opposition to hearsay, with the exception of commercial documents.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.