2010 Layoffs Arbitrators Decision

[cta_44499_FG]

http://www.atu241chicago.org/site/files/635/42087/328812/451620/CTA_2010_Layoffs_Award.pdf

The arbitrator's decision was recently posted. Have fun with the dissection of this document.

[Busjack]

Thanks.

I note that perhaps except for "the parties were unable to quietly conduct their discussions and have now resorted to posturing and bargaining in the media," parts IIIA-C are irrelevant to the merits of the dispute, but I guess the arbitrator had to get his view of the background out of the way. He did give the union the "mass execution" talking point, but it was conceded at the beginning that the issue was not whether the CTA had the legal right to order layoffs, but how they were conducted.

To get to busfan's prior comment about the arbitrator overriding the MTA Act, while I concluded that he did not, because that Act says that other than seniority not being based on schedule numbers, terms and conditions of employment, including seniority are in accordance with contract, the arbitrator took another--also legally correct--track, which was that an arbitrator only has jurisdiction to rule on the contract.* It also appears that the CTA was urging the MTA Act, not the union.

Back to the contract, it appears that most of this is based on the "past practice" clause of the contract. I suppose one can argue back and forth what the evidence of past practice proves, but since the arbitrator decided that, that's final.

To the extent that busfan argued that the union might not have done a good job in negotiating this contract, the references to "The CTA did not accept that proposal. ... t is fundamental that it is not for the Labor Arbitrator to grant a party that which it could not obtain in bargaining" would tend to support that. However, by the same token, Kruesi complained in 2006 about the outcome of that arbitration, so I guess no one is happy.**

__________

*Basically that means that the arbitrator did not have the legal authority to rule on the MTA Act issue, sort of like that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule on a purely state law point. I suppose that if whoever was relying on the MTA Act contended that the contract and the arbitrator's decision violated that Act, that party would have to bring a separate court action on that, which would also probably be unsuccessful. I would have argued that the CTA was wrong on the MTA point, but since that point wasn't reached, and CTA didn't lose the grievance, that is of no further consequence.

**Surprisingly, that seems to be the oldest President's Report still on the transitchicago.com site. Or, maybe it was the first one ever posted.

[Busjack]

Looks like there is an aftermath to this situation (also related to my question about overtime at the end of the Red Line project).

Channel 7 reports* that after the layoffs, the union filed a grievance that CTA was assigning more than 32 hours a week to part time workers, and the arbitrator ruled that that violated the contract, and $70 million has to be paid to laid off and full time bus drivers.

There is some drivel at the end that CTA intends to contest the award, but as I noted with regard to the arbitrator's decision in 2010, that is not going anywhere. Basically, the only way an arbitrator's decision can be overturned is lack of jurisdiction or a totally arbitrary award. The arbitrator's jurisdiction is beyond dispute, because it is conferred by the collective bargaining agreement. It isn't arbitrary if there is anything in the agreement to support the award. So, the union representative's statement at the end of the story is correct. If it goes to court, the odds are 99:1 that the court enforces the award on the union's counter demand.

_________

*Some real bad terminology used by Meincke: an arbitrator decided a greivance--there wasn't a lawsuit, and CTA didn't settle with anybody.