Skip navigation

TriMet's Union Contract: Timeline & Documents

 

September 27, 2012: TriMet and ATU exchanged letters indicating their desire to start negotiating a new labor contract.

September 26, 2012: TriMet filed a ULP against ATU because ATU has instructed members not to cooperate with implementation of the contract award and has denied the binding nature of the arbitration award.

August 8, 2012: The ATU filed a ULP challenging virtually every aspect of the arbitration decision. TriMet has submitted its informal response to the ERB, stating that the complaint was without merit. ERB suggested mediation, and both parties agreed. Around this time, the ATU started instructing employees who are members not to cooperate with implementation of the contract.

July 12, 2012: Arbitrator David Gaba ruled in TriMet's favor, meaning that TriMet's Last Best Offer took effect as the union contract. The state-appointed arbitrator's decision was binding due to action by the Oregon Legislature several years ago. TriMet began implementing the new contract, which is retroactive to December 1, 2009, and set to expire November 30, 2012. Implementation included paying past cost of living increases (COLAs), conducting a limited open enrollment, implementing the new health insurance and pension plans, and preparing to "true up" the difference between the insurance benefits that were in place, and the ones that are in the retroactive contract.

June 25, 2012: The ATU and TriMet submit post-arbitration briefs to Arbitrator David. M. Gaba.

May 14-17, 2012: The interest arbitration between TriMet and ATU Local 757 to resolve the December 1, 2009, to November 30, 2012, labor agreement between the parties was held May 14–17, 2012, before Arbitrator David M. Gaba. The parties expect a decision and award from Arbitrator Gaba on or about July 31, 2012. TriMet's case included approximately 125 exhibits, some of which you can see here. TriMet's Exhibit 1 provides an overview of TriMet's perspective regarding the statutory factors found in ORS 243.746 that the arbitrator is required to apply in making an award. TriMet believes each of the statutory factors strongly favors an award to TriMet.

March 5, 2012: TriMet submits Second Revised Final Offer to ERB and ATU.

March 5, 2012: TriMet submits Second Revised Final Offer to ERB and ATU.

February 16, 2012: ERB rules that TriMet must include in its final offer the 3% to 5% wage increase language contained in the expired contract with ATU.

February 13, 2012: The arbitrator grants the ATU's request for delay in the arbitration and sets May 14-17 as the new interest arbitration date.

February 3, 2012: ATU requests another delay in the interest arbitration. TriMet vigorously opposes the delay.

January 26, 2012: ATU notified TriMet it intends to seek an additional delay in the interest arbitration currently scheduled for March 14, 2012.

December 29, 2011: ERB orders the parties to submit written arguments on the ATU's motion to compel compliance by January 11, 2012.

December 16, 2011: ATU filed a motion to compel compliance, claiming TriMet is precluded from making any wage proposal pursuant to ERB's September 12, 2011, ruling.

December 12, 2011: TriMet submitted its Revised Final Offer in accordance with ERB's September 12, 2011 order.

November 17, 2011: The ATU requested the selected arbitrator postpone the interest arbitration until March 14, 2012, and the ATU's request was granted.

November 16, 2011: ERB denied TriMet Petition for Reconsideration and Request for Oral Argument.

October 14-November 16, 2011: The parties exchanged a number of unofficial settlement offers in attempt to resolve the contract outside of the ERB interest arbitration process.

October 3, 2011: TriMet petitioned ERB for Reconsideration of its Ruling and requested oral argument.

September 12, 2011: ERB ruling strikes COLA reform, retiree health care, among other issues, from TriMet's Final Offer.

May 2011: An arbitrator was selected by the parties and the binding interest arbitration was scheduled for January 16, 17, & 18, 2012. 

May 15, 16 & 17, 2011: ULP 1 heard by ERB. ULP 2 heard by an ERB Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ").

October 13, 2010: The second ULP (ULP 2) was filed, alleging TriMet retaliated against the ATU for its filing of the August 11, 2010 ULP by freezing wages and not picking up health care premium cost increases to employees.

August 11, 2010: In the first Unfair Labor Practice (ULP 1), ATU alleges that TriMet introduced new topics not previously discussed with the ATU in its Final Offer. This ULP essentially stops the time line set forth by Oregon law until such time as it is resolved.

July 13, 2010:Following the end of the 150-day negotiation time period and an unsuccessful mediation, both parties declared "impasse" and submitted final offers and the costing of their proposals. ATU's final offer was simply to propose the expired contract without change.

December 2009-June 2010: ATU would not meet to discuss substantive issues. TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen and Ron Heintzman, then an officer of the International ATU, started a series of email exchanges about the proposed contract with infrequent meetings.

November 22, 2009: Initial proposals exchanged.TriMet proposed several changes to the current collective bargaining agreement. The ATU's proposal was to roll over all provisions of the current contract, including medical benefit and the COLA (3%-5%).

November 30, 2009: TriMet's prior contract with ATU 757 expired.