 |
 |
 |
|
|||||
|
Still Plan Pact Re-Vote: PERB: Arbitrate; TWU: No Thanks Still Plan Pact Re-Vote
MTA Not Off Hook It also said that "nothing herein relieves the Authorities from any legal obligation it may have with respect to the MOU." The MTA, while not disputing Local 100's right to call a re-vote, has argued that it can't legally be held to the terms of the contract rejected by seven votes Jan. 23. Local 100 President Roger Toussaint has indicated he is moving forward with plans for a second vote. Union officials wouldn't comment on a timeline, but it's likely to happen before the next MTA board meeting during the last week of April. The MTA requested arbitration after the Local 100 membership's rejection of the contract negotiated following a three-day strike by transit workers. Local 100 has adamantly opposed arbitration, saying it denies its members the right to vote on contract terms.
Mr. Toussaint issued a statement shortly after PERB made its ruling public. 'Serves Nobody' "Today's PERB ruling serves neither transit workers nor the riding public," he said. "We will continue with our plans to resubmit this contract to our members. It is far past time to put this trying time behind New Yorkers - it is too bad the MTA disagrees." MTA spokesman Tom Kelly said that "the ruling speaks for itself." Mediator's Ambivalence PERB's decision came a week after its Director of Conciliation, Richard Curreri, told the panel he felt "constrained" to recommend arbitration even though he didn't believe it was in the best interests of either party, or the public. The crux of Mr. Curreri's decision rested on the union's contention that it could take a re-vote on the contract offer spurned in January, and the MTA's rebuttal argument that the terms of that contract are no longer on the table. PERB, in its decision in favor of arbitration, agreed with Mr. Curreri's assessment that the issue of the contract's legality will have to be settled in the courts. The arbitration process can take several months, and negotiations can proceed on the side, PERB noted. Both sides have an interest in avoiding a settlement through binding arbitration, which can only resolve issues related to salary, benefits (other than pensions) and work rules. The MTA would have to drop demands that employees contribute more toward their pensions, while the union would have to forfeit a pension payment reimbursement. Dissidents Gear Up The union's re-vote bid has stirred up some resistance within Local 100's ranks, with the "Vote No" coalition that campaigned against the contract deal vowing to work even harder the second time around. But among area elected officials, the idea of a do-over has been met with enthusiasm. Mr. Toussaint has gotten backing from several city and state officials, including Democratic gubernatorial contender Eliot Spitzer, even as Mr. Spitzer, in his role as State Attorney General, pursues Taylor Law fines against the union leader. The rejected wage deal contained 10.5-percent raises over three years, maternity stipends, an additional paid holiday, increased assault pay for Conductor and Operator titles and a sizeable pension refund for nearly two-thirds of the union's membership. Deals the MTA reached with two Amalgamated Transit Union locals after Local 100 rejected the contract contained all of those elements, making it likely they would be part of any final Local 100 contract reached through bargaining. Side Letter Question The ATU accords, however, did not have a side letter guaranteeing that the MTA would provide the money for a pension refund if a bill on that matter was not approved in Albany. Union officials have insisted that the MTA's chief negotiator, Gary
Dellaverson, verbally promised the ATU locals that money for the refund would be
found if necessary. It is not clear, however, whether that pledge, which was
meant to give the ATU locals the same protection as Local 100 without committing
it to writing, remained binding after the latter union's contract was voted
down. |
      |
||||
