handyDART info

Labour relations complications

MVT is currently courting the three unions who will compete to represent all of its employees, There is considerable information and speculation about how rich the deal will be for employees. The unions are currently supportive of MVT and have told their members that MVT seems to be a really good company from their point of view.

This approach has been echoed by TransLink which stated that “a review of MVT's union/management record reveals positive and constructive relationships that are lauded by all unions that deal with MVT.” This statement indicates that TransLink did not do its homework.

In an complaint brought by the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1005 against MV Transportation, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that MV Transportation had committed the following unfair labour practices during the ATU's organizing drive in Burnsville Minnesota:

“On the following dates, and by the following actions, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1):
A. Coercively interrogating its employees about their union activities on two occasions about September 12, 2005, and on February 20, 2006;
B. Threatening employees with loss of benefits, loss of jobs, and unspecified retaliation for their union activity, on two occasions about September 12, 2005 about late September or early October 2005, and December 8, 2005;
C. Promising employees money and overtime assignments about late September or early October 2005, if they discontinued union activities;
D. Creating the impression to employees that their union activities were under surveillance on two occasions about September 12, 2005, about late September or early October 2005, and on February 20, 2006;
E. Informing employees that selecting a union to represent them would be futile on three occasions about September 12, 2005, and about November, 2005;
F. Pushing an employee so that she stumbled against a wall on February, 21, 2006.” [full decision here]

In the Spring of this year, Local 256 of ATU conducted an organizing drive in Lodi, a small city south of Sacremento, California. The ATU alleged that MVT had coerced workers not to join the union, and engaged in “union busting.” The case went to the National Labor Relations Board and was decided in favour of the union [click here].

Local 1181 of ATU went on strike against MVT and three other paratransit contractors last December. The strike disrupted the transportation of disabled people in New York for ten days just before Christmas [click here]. Another local of ATU currently represents handyDART employees in the City of Vancouver employed by Pacific Transit Cooperative.

What is the situation likely to be in Greater Vancouver next year? The prospects are dim regardless of MVT's track record. That is due to uncertainty as to which union will represent its employees and the fact that it will have to negotiate a collective agreement from scratch. Worse yet, that collective agreement will be for groups employees coming from a variety of prior collective agreements with greatly different provisions, each group unwilling to give up anything it currently has.

Current labour relations situation

The current situation is a mosaic of different union contracts among the different contractors. Some are health sector agreements because the contracting agency is (by legislation) bound by an agreement negotiated for health care workers. Other employees have contracts negotiated directly by their union with their private sector employer. Wages and benefits vary widely among these contracts and this has led to considerable friction and dissatisfaction among employees. Private sector wages tend to be higher. Health sector benefits (including vacation entitlements) tend to be much richer.

There is also the issue of the Municipal Pension Plan. This desirable plan currently covers handyDART employees under health sector agreements and also some Pacific Transit Cooperative employees. However, the plan is not available to convential private sector companies such as MVT or Farwest.

The shifting of a contract for an area from one company to another is not a "succession" under the Labour Code. In other words, the new contractor is under no legal obligation to hire the employees of the previous contractor (although this is largely necessary for practical reasons), and does not inherit the union or its collective agreement. Despite vigorous lobbying by the unions [click here], TransLink has not made it a condition of its contracts with new operators that they accept a form of "voluntary succession." Consequently, the RFP and re-contracting process is accompanied by intense interest and activity among the unions. This year was no exception.

First encounters

ATU and CAW presently seem to be pleased that MVT was selected for all three areas. MVT sent a letter to the unions and employees indicating its intention to hire current employees [click here]. This letter seems to have been misinterpreted to indicate an intention to raise all wages [click here] supported by assurances the unions believe they received in a meeting with MVT representatives. ATU in particular has issued glowing bulletins about the promises they say have been made by MVT to level wages up to the highest rates (those of PTC) without layoffs [click here]. MVT is reported to have claimed that it has enough money in its bid to accomplish this.

On the other hand, there have been indications that MVT does not have an adequate understanding of the situation it faces. It has no experience with the labour scene in BC or the complex labour situation that has afflicted the handyDART system. It may have good intentions, but has blundering into circumstances it does not understand and will find far more difficult to deal with than it could have imagined. This is a transition unlike any MVT has previously encountered.

Moreover, the unions appear to be either overly optimistic or deliberately strategic in their interpretation of the assurances they claim to have received. In light of the problems with MVT services in the USA that have been reported, the claims made by local unions regarding MVT assurances should be viewed skeptically. It it is likely that the unions are building up the expectations of their members in order to put greater pressure on MVT in bargaining which they expect to start early in 2009 [click here].

The approaching storm

On one side there are employees who will not want to give up anything they currently have, but want everything better that employees of other current contractors have. For example, Pacific Transit Cooperative (PTC) employees will want a wage increase because their collective agreement also ends at the end of this year. But if other employees get a wage boost to their (currently the highest) level, the PTC employees will want as good or better benefits. Employees of Greater Vancouver Community Services Society (GVCSS) have the lowest wages but enjoy the rich benefit package under the community health subsector agreement. This includes vacation entitlements as high as seven weeks, comparatively generous paid sick leave allowances, and the Municipal Pension Plan. GVCSS employees will want PTC wages but will not want to have their benefits reduced. The Municipal Pension Plan is likely to be a major issue [click here]. CAW (which represents GVCSS employees) is intent on its continuation. But MVT is a private for-profit corporation which, unlike GVCSS and its subsidiary Crosstown, does not qualify for participation.

The union that ultimately wins the representation contest will have to deal with this situation. The usual position for a union when bargaining in this kind of situation is to demand “levelling up” of both wages and benefits, in other words, the “best of all worlds.” The cost of such demands over the current cost of delivering service in all areas is phenomenal. In addition, the union will demand recognition and credit for past handyDART service and seniority.

On the other side, there is a new contractor who must hire all or most of these employees if it is to maintain continuity of service. MVT will be faced with impossible negotiations. It will be expected to accept credit for service and seniority, the large liability of outstanding sick leave accumulations, the large liability of high accumulated vacation entitlements and other benefits. In addition, it will find that the cost of meeting anything near the union's demands for wages and benefits exceed its worst nightmare. It will not be able to afford to agree unless it is willing to absorb significant and increasing losses throughout the contract period.

Another issue is also likely to be on the bargaining table, and it one that is almost certainly unknown to MVT. One of the recurrent themes sounded by handyDART unions is parity with Coast Mountain Bus drivers. Coast Mountain Bus is a TransLink subsidiary. Its drivers are paid rates that are substantially higher than the highest paid handyDART drivers. While this issue has simmered for a long time, the multiplicity of contractors and unions has prevented it from becoming a major bargaining issue. With one union representing all handyDART drivers in Greater Vancouver, the time will be ripe for this issue to rise to the top of that union's bargaining agenda. MVT will not be able to build those wage increases into its business plan so it is very likely that this will become a strike issue on both sides.

MVT intends to consolidate the current eight areas into one integrated operation in order to deliver the service TransLink wants, and also to achieve operational efficiencies to offset some of the costs. This means eliminating jobs over time. Recognition of blended seniority, posting of vacancies and layoffs each will bring seniority based job changes across the system. Senior drivers will bid on jobs in what were other areas, in order to shorten commuting or get easier routes. In the event of layoffs, there will be cascade bumping. Both of these will take drivers away from areas and clients they know. This is bound to create delays, problems and client dissatisfaction. But the needs of MVT and those of the union are irresolvably opposed on such issues.

All of this strongly suggests the likelihood of a major labour dispute across the entirety of TransLink's handyDART system early in 2009. And one of TransLink's statements, provided no doubt by MVT, refers to the New York paratransit strike last Christmas is particularly troubling. TransLink stated: “In fact, MVT was the only provider that continued paratransit services during this strike.” Does this mean that MVT continued operating with strike replacements, something that unions in this province consider to be strike breaking and a serious escalation of a dispute?

The future prospects are not good for users or employees. Both will lose. And when a collective agreement is finally reached, who will pay for the cost overruns? Will TransLink (ie. the public) pick up the bill again as it did with PTC, or will the employees pay through layoffs and the users pay through poorer service that is more “efficient?” Perhaps both.