Local 100 Sues To Force MTA To Honor Deal; Cites 3 Other Cases When Re-Vote Was Deemed Valid

Local 100 Sues To Force MTA To Honor Deal; Cites 3 Other Cases When Re-Vote Was Deemed Valid

By GINGER ADAMS OTIS

Transport Workers' Union Local 100 filed a lawsuit in State Supreme Court in Manhattan May 1 asking that the contract it reached with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in December be declared valid, despite assertions by the agency that its terms were nullified when union members rejected it by seven votes in January.

ROGER TOUSSAINT: Takes battle to court.

The union filed the lawsuit five days after the authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, refused to let MTA board members hold a ratification vote on the deal at their monthly meeting, even though union members had overwhelmingly approved the contract in a re-vote held April 18.

Claims They're Obliged

Local 100 President Roger Toussaint, who served 3-1/2 days in jail for leading the three-day December strike that preceded the contract deal, had insisted that the MTA had a "legal and moral obligation" to hold a ratification vote at the monthly meeting.

Local 100, in its lawsuit, repeated Mr. Toussaint's contention that the MTA wants to go to binding arbitration, or return to the bargaining table, in an attempt to renege on a contract that promised sizeable pension refunds to a large portion of the union membership.

If the contract were to be settled through binding arbitration, the pension refund would have to be taken off the table unless both sides agreed to include it in the final settlement.

Side Letter the Rub

If the union were to re-open negotiations with the MTA, it's likely the agency would try to bargain a contract similar to the one in existence, but without a crucial side letter offered by agency negotiators. That letter stipulated that if Albany refused to pass legislation allowing the pension payouts to be drawn from the New York City Employees' Retirement System, the MTA would come up with the necessary money.

GARY DELLAVERSON: More amenable in past.

Governor Pataki, who appoints half of the 14 voting members of the MTA board, claimed not to have known about the side letter when the deal was first made public, and expressed stern opposition to the pension refund. A staff member later commented to the press that the Governor would likely veto any legislation that sought to grant the pension refunds from NYCERS.

After refusing to hold a ratification vote at last month's meeting, Mr. Kalikow told board members that no party had the right to "unilaterally decide when they will vote on an agreement, which agreement they will vote on, and then say to the opposing party, 'You are required to accept it.'''

Union's Argument

But lawyers for Local 100 are challenging that statement in this latest lawsuit. They argued in court documents that the six-page Memorandum of Understanding memorializing the Dec. 27, 2005 contract terms stipulated only that the deal would be in effect until Jan. 15, 2009, and had to be ratified by the MTA board, the Local 100 executive board, and the union's members.

"The MOU does not address the procedure, method or timing of ratification in any way. No other agreement between the union and the defendants limits the procedure, method or timing of ratification in anyway," the lawsuit contended.

Local 100 lawyers offered no precedent demonstrating that the MTA was legally bound to a contract after it initially failed ratification, but they were able to cite several instances when the agency agreed to ratify contracts that had been subject to more than one union vote.

First Vote Ruled Out

The first example, in 1978, involved Local 100 and the MTA. The two parties agreed to a contract that was to begin April 1, subject to member and MTA board approval. Local 100 mailed ballots that month, but a group of members filed an action claiming that there were defects in the voting procedures. A Federal district judge enjoined the ballot count and ordered a second vote, which took place more than three months later.

LARRY HANLEY: It's all about Pataki's run.

After tabulating ballots from the re-vote, Local 100 declared the contract ratified, and the MTA subsequently ratified it as well, declining to argue that the delays nullified the deal.

The second case, Local 100 lawyers said in their legal brief, is directly analogous to the union's current situation.

'726' Vetoed Initial Deal

The case involved Amalgamated Transit Union Local 726, which represents Bus Operators and maintenance employees who work in New York City Transit depots on Staten Island.

In 1985, the local negotiated a contract with the MTA that offered health benefits to retirees - a first for Local 726.

Larry Hanley, currently a vice president for the ATU International, was Local 726's secretary-treasurer in 1985. He said the membership voted to reject the deal after some union leaders expressed fears that the funding levels weren't adequate to support the retiree benefit they'd been promised.

After the no vote was announced, he said, the union's leadership was summoned to a meeting with the MTA.

"I was there, and I remember the MTA was very rambunctious. They told us they wanted this deal, and that we had accepted this deal and couldn't renege on it and we had an obligation to get our members to accept it," Mr. Hanley recalled.

The authority never indicated to Local 726 that it had a problem with a re-vote, said Mr. Hanley, and members ratified the deal two months later.

'MTA Urged Re-Vote'

"In fact, they urged us to reconsider, and they even used some threatening language, although it was never really clear what the threat was," he said. "Ironically, we accepted the deal, and then a year-and-a-half later the retiree health benefit fund went broke, just as we had feared, but that was the contract we were stuck with."

The final example cited by Local 100 lawyers also involves Local 726 and Mr. Hanley.

In 1999, when he was president of the local, Mr. Hanley signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the MTA that was, according to court documents filed last week by lawyers for Local 100, identical to the ratification clause contained in the Dec. 27, 2005 agreement.

Local 726 held a vote on the deal in February 2000 that resulted in a tie, and the leadership decided that didn't equal ratification.

Second Time the Charm

The local held a second vote approximately two weeks later and the result was a clear yes. The contract was later ratified by both the local and the MTA.

Mr. Hanley said that after the first vote resulted in a tie, he reached out to Gary Dellaverson, the MTA's chief negotiator, who also oversaw the latest contract talks with Local 100.

"Gary told me to go ahead and do whatever I wanted to do, and I said well, I think I want to go back and take another vote. And he said, 'fine, go right ahead,''' Mr. Hanley stated.

Asked if he could recall any difference between Local 100's current position and the situation his local encountered in 1985 and again in 1999, Mr. Hanley responded, "I see one difference: Governor Pataki wasn't running for president in 1985."

MTA spokesman Tim O'Brien declined to answer detailed questions about the lawsuit, explaining that the agency can't comment on pending litigation.