Re: Shirley Block, et al v. ATU, Division 757
Case No. FR-001-15
Order to Show Cause Answer
Dear ALJ Kehoe:
Complainant received your letter dated April 10, 2015 in which
you stated that complainant did not allege any facts related to the ORS
cited in the initial complaint and ordered to Show Cause as to why the
complaint should not be dismissed.
Complainant wishes to amend the initial complaint to reflect an
alleged violation of ORS 243.672(2)(d) which in part makes it an unfair
labor practice for a public employee or for a labor organization to
violate any written contract with respect to employment relations.
Complainant inadvertently cited (2)(g), however, the description of the
complaint identified the alleged violation against the union president
for violating terms of the collective bargaining agreement .
Respondent Hansen claims that the contract language does not
provide any direction about whether operator runs are chosen on a
day-by-day or a weekly basis. Respondent Hansen’s claim is false. The
manner in which how work has been posted and bid in accordance with the
Collective Bargaining Agreement has remained unchanged for over 40
years. Changing that 40+ year practice has resulted in bus operators
being unable to bid the run and days off of their choice, and has had a
negative economic effect on some bus operators. TriMet has in the past,
both during collective bargaining for successor agreements and during
contract interims, tried unsuccessfully to get the Union to agree to
“block runs” and change the collective bargaining agreement in respect
to how work was bid.