Contract Updates

February 18 & 19, 2010:  A fact-finding hearing was held.  The International subsequently reimbursed Local 268 $19,000.00 for the cost of this fact-finding.

March 18, 2010:  The fact-finder issued his report, which recommended among other things the implementation of health care deductibles and co-insurance.

March 24, 2010:  The Local 268 Membership rejected the fact-finders report, with 1181 out of 1296 voting against the fact-finder's report.

April 1, 2010:  The RTA wrote to ATU Local 268 acknowledging receipt of Local 268's rejection of the fact-finding report, and requesting a return to negotiations

August 9, 2010:  After further negotiations, a Tentative Agreement ("TA") was brought to the ATU Local 268 members to vote on.  The members voted to reject the TA and push forward.

August 18, 2010:  NewsNet5 runs a story headlined, "Workers reject recent RTA contract proposal"

October 29, 2010:  ATU Local 268 and the RTA reached a stalemate, with the RTA continuing to insist on restricting longevity, increasing health care premiums, and refusing to reasonably address mechanics' shifts.

November 4, 2010:  ATU Local 268 gave a presentation regarding the current proposals to its membership, who responded by overwhelmingly voting to proceed to arbitrate the contract.

November 15, 2010:  ATU Local 268 demanded arbitration, pursuant to paragraph 9 of the 13(c) Employee Protection Agreement between the RTA and ATU Local 268.

November 22, 2010:  The RTA had outside council respond, refusing to proceed to arbitration.

December 7, 2010:  The Cleveland Plain Dealer runs a story: "RTA says no service cuts or fare increases for 2011"

January 4, 2011:  The Cleveland Plain Dealer runs a story:  "RTA managers receive a 3 percent pay hike in 2011, restoring a previous pay cut"

January 8, 2011:  The Cleveland Plain Dealer runs a story: "Cleveland RTA lands $2.2 million for new trolley and bus service"

January 12, 2011:  After consulting with the International, attempting to address the RTA's refusal to arbitrate through the Department of Labor, and receiving the International's approval to move forward with arbitration, ATU Local 268 responded in writing to the RTA again demanding arbitration.

January 24, 2011:  The RTA responded, simply asking for more time to respond to ATU Local 268's demands.

February 4, 2011:  The RTA responded after almost a month's time, arrogantly stating that it just would not debate the issue of arbitration.

February 23, 2011:  ATU Local 268 responded to the RTA, informing that Local 268 was willing to continue further negotiations, however Local 268 would continue to pursue all legal avenues to enforce arbitration.

March 17, 2011:  Amalgamated Transit Union Local 268 Filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-11-751247.  The ATU International has agreed to cover the costs of compelling this arbitration.

April 27, 2011:  The Cleveland Plain Dealer runs a story: "HealthLine sees a healthy climb in riders; 10 millionth to be honored this week"

May 6, 2011:  The RTA attempted to dismiss the case.

May 18, 2011:  ATU Local 268 responded to the RTA's attempt to dismiss.

May 25, 2011:  ATU Local 268 and the RTA met for a negotiation session, where the RTA merely updated its prior proposal with some items from the FOP contract.

May 25, 2011:  The RTA filed a reply brief in the court case to compel arbitration.

June 7, 2011:  ATU Local 268 filed a sur-reply brief to respond to the RTA's reply brief in the case to compel arbitration.

June 10, 2011:  ATU Local 268 and the RTA meet for another negotiation session.  The RTA presented a proposal almost identical to their last.  After much consideration, ATU Local 268 presented the RTA with a comprehensive counter-proposal.  When ATU Local 268 returned to the room, the RTA seemed to be having a temper tantrum, and without much review or consideration at all of Local 268's counter, the RTA passed the same proposal back across the table with a single handwritten change - changing a 1.5% wage increase in August 2011 to a 1.75%.  ATU Local 268 responded by rejecting the RTA's insincere proposal.

June 16, 2011:  The RTA requested further negotiations with ATU Local 268.

June 16, 2011:  ATU Local 268 responded, reiterating its demand for arbitration and its willingness to meet to negotiate pending arbitration.

June 20, 2011:  The RTA offered further dates for negotiations, though it continued to refuse to arbitrate.

June 21, 2011:  The Cleveland Plain Dealer runs a story: "RTA delivering more rides by rail; revenue from fares on the rise"

July 8, 2011:  ATU Local 268 and the RTA met for another negotiation session.  The RTA demanded that ATU Local 268 respond to its last counter, explaining that it had just about reached its bottom line.  ATU Local 268 reminded the RTA that it had responded by rejecting the RTA's last offer and  ATU Local 268 reiterated what it had told the RTA before the negotiation session - that it had given the RTA a comprehensive counter proposal, ATU Local 268 and its members were not willing to give more, and that it was time to move forward with arbitration. The RTA insisted that it would not give another proposal.  ATU Local 268 demanded to know whether the RTA had reached its firm and final offer.  The RTA responded by saying that the RTA committee would need to discuss that, and that it would get back to ATU Local 268 later.

July 11, 2011:  In the court case to compel arbitration, the Court of its own volition canceled a case management conference.

July 18, 2011:  ATU Local 268 sent correspondence to the RTA, demanding to know whether the RTA had reached its firm and final offer, whether it had a counter-proposal, or whether it would proceed with arbitration.  ATU Local 268 also sent a letter to its members, updating them with regard to the status of negotiations.

August 2, 2011:  The Cleveland Plain Dealer runs a story: "RTA's top execs, non-union staff to see pay raise"

August 5, 2011:  The RTA responded that it was waiting on a response to its last offer, but that it did not believe arbitration was necessary or appropriate.

August 8, 2011:  ATU Local 268 wrote back to the RTA, reminding that it had responded to the RTA's last offer - ATU Local 268 rejected it.  Among other things, ATU Local 268 demanded that it receive the RTA's response to a critical question:  Had the RTA reached its firm and final offer, did it have a counter, or would it be moving forward with arbitration?  The RTA has yet to respond to this letter.

August 10, 2011:  ATU Local 268 filed a motion to expedite the case in the court case to compel arbitration.

August 22, 2011:  The RTA responded to ATU Local 268's motion to expedite - attempting to delay the matter further.

August 24, 2011:  The Court scheduled another case management conference.

September 14, 2011:  ATU Local 268 sent another formal demand for arbitration to the GCRTA, after the RTA froze negotiations and refused to respond to the Local's August 8 letter nor provide any counter offers.

September 16, 2011:  The RTA responded, refusing arbitration because it claimed the "Section 13(c) Agreements are wholly inapplicable to the present negotiations and do not provide for interest arbitration," which is curious since the RTA with its lawyer that negotiated the 13(c) Agreements has itself demanded arbitration before.

September 21, 2011:  ATU Local 268, tired of waiting for the court to resolve this matter, and in light of new conduct by the RTA refusing to bargain in good faith, and with the RTA's September 16 refusal to arbitrate, filed an Unfair Labor Practice Charge ("ULP") against the RTA with the State Employee Relations Board ("SERB").

September 26, 2011:  The Cleveland Plain Dealer runs a story: "RTA chief Joe Calabrese gets $20,000 bonus, pay hike for job well done, board says"  Shame shame shame on each and every member of the GCRTA Board.  Here are the people who thought this was a good idea: George F. Dixon, III (Restaurateur; President), Dennis M. Clough (Mayor, City of Westlake; Vice President), Jesse O. Anderson (President, Disabled Rights Task Force, Inc.), Bill Cervenik (Mayor, City of Euclid), Mark J. Elliott (Mayor, City of Brook Park), Valarie J. McCall (Chief of Government Affairs, City of Cleveland), Karen Gabriel Moss (Cleveland immigration attorney), Nick "Sonny" Nardi (Veteran Labor Leader), Gary A. Norton, Jr. (Mayor, City of East Cleveland), Leo Serrano (Executive Director, Office of Institutional Advancement Cleveland Metropolitan School District).  WEWS Chanel 5 ABC News also ran a story regarding this on September 29, 2011.

September 27, 2011:  SERB notes receipt of the ULP and declares that the ULP has been classified by SERB as a priority and it will not it will NOT grant any extensions of time.

October 18, 2011:  Local 268 sent its response to SERB's information request in timely.  At this stage in SERB's investigation, it would not be appropriate to share the response publicly.  Local 268 looks forward to SERB processing this case quickly and getting the RTA into arbitration.

November 2, 2011:  The Plain Dealer runs a story headlined, "RTA in Cleveland wants to expand service as budget picture brightens."

November 9, 2011:  Scott Ferraro asked the ATU if it would agree to negotiation dates in November and December, 2011.  The ATU responded that it had not agreed to any such dates.

November 14, 2011:  ATU Local 268 sent correspondence to Scott Ferraro, reminding Scott that the ATU had demanded arbitration, the negotiations had become unproductive, the Union had no more to offer, and the RTA had given no indication that it was going to make any movement.  Therefore, this Contract needed to be resolved through arbitration.

November 17, 2011:  SERB dismissed ATU's ULP charges because the SERB investigator told the BOARD that the ATU and RTA had agreed to return to negotiations.  Local 268 immediately filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining to SERB that the investigator had failed to complete her investigation, that there was no agreement to return to negotiations, and that the RTA had lied if it suggested there was such an agreement.  Therefore, the SERB Board should reverse its erroneous decision to dismiss the ULP.  The SERB Board is expected to vote on this motion for reconsideration on December 1, 2011.  Local 268 also distributed a letter to the members regarding this.

SERB did, however, rule that the common pleas court did have jurisdiction to determine whether the RTA breached the 13(c) Agreements by refusing to arbitrate.

November 18, 2011:  ATU Local 268 filed a motion with the Common Pleas Court to lift the stay on the motion to compel arbitration.

November 19, 2011:  The Common Pleas Court lifted the stay and ordered the RTA to respond by December 2, 2011.

December 2, 2011:  The RTA renewed its motion to dismiss in the Common Pleas case, claiming SERB had jurisdiction - even though SERB already ruled that it did not.

February 10, 2012:  The Local 268 Negotiating Committee met with the GCRTA on February 10 to receive a proposal from them.  After further discussions, it was agreed that we will meet again on February 28th.  Further details will be provided during Local 268's membership meeting on February 14th.