Friday, March 18, 2016

Trimet sues ATU757 because they don't want operators to take decent breaks

Trimet made a 'deal' with past president that offers operators very little time for sufficient breaks. Shirley Block says that agreement is void but Trimet (Mcfarlane and Stedmen) say that they are entitled to continue screwing its employees out of decent breaks.


Al M said...

Christopher Day

9:56 AM (11 minutes ago)

to me, Al

Attached is a copy of the Meal and Break Side Letter that is currently being talked about. Here is what our contract says about scheduling “recovery or layover” time (our break time).

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 9 (f) States:

All District schedules will have built into them a recovery or layover time of five (5) minutes within each one (1) hour of running time. Because of traffic conditions, mechanical failures, and other related reasons, a five (5) minute recovery time cannot be guaranteed. All Operators will endeavor to maintain their schedules at all times.

The very last part of the above article is very important to pay attention to. This is clearly stating that TriMet Bus and Rail Operators are not guaranteed any Meal or Break period at all. The side letter releases TriMet from being required by Federal Law to provide required Meal and Break times. How it is doing so it by saying they schedule it but because the operator was not able to stay on time they forfeited that meal or break period and that all Operators must maintain their schedules at all times.

That is how much TriMet cares about their Operators!

Oh to add to this it was signed by Albert Zullo President of ATU757 June 14, 2005. Jon Hunt was Vice President at that time. The side letter was supposed to be reviewed after 12 months’ time. Jon Hunt took office as President July 1, 2006, the side letter 12 month period had just ended and I am not able to locate any documents that support if any review took place.

Bob Cummings said...

Why doesn't Mr. Day stick to the facts? And totally support operators? But no, instead he wants to make it a campaign piece about how Jon may not have done his job and do so without facts. Once again Mr. Day shows the details elude him and uses innuendo instead of facts.

Unknown said...

Looks like Mr Day is sticking to the facts- why would Shirley start an unresearched battle over a topic that can be addressed in 8 months? This is what happens without top notch legal advice and the Union will be liable for whatever TriMet says their legal fees are... Wasted Union funds for political points - "we're fighting for your breaks" on a poster?
Tell TriMet the side letter will not be moved forward this time but filing a grievance and Labor complaint? Inept.

No argument that operators don't get all the break/lunch they deserve but be right or it costs us.

While on liabilities, anyone have an update on the lawsuit from the lawyer Shirley fired and Jon slandered?