Title: Greater Dayton Regional
Transit Authority and Amalgamated
Transit Union, Local 1385
IN THE MATTER OF:
Transit Union, Local 1385.
Before Fact Finder
Dale A. Zimmer, Administrator
N. Eugene Brundige was selected by the parties to serve as Fact Finder in the above referenced cases and duly appointed by the State Employment Relations Board in compliance with Ohio Revised Code Section 4117.14 ©(3).
The parties informed the Fact Finder that time extensions would be filed. A hearing date of May 2, 2003 was subsequently established and utilized.
Appearances for the Union included Pete Rakay, Attorney and Advocate, Robert Stevens, Claude J. Huff, Robert H. Baker, Sr., Mike Sparks, Leo McManahan, Scott Baker and Devin Frazier.
Appearances for the Employer included Tom Hock, Advocate, Dale Crutcher, Judith Pepper, Mary K. Conkez, Binh V. Dinh, Wayne Barnett, and John W. Brown.
A good faith effort was made to mediate outstanding issues. This effort was made to comply with the language of ORC 4117 and also due to the significant number of unresolved issues.
The parties were unable to effectively use the mediation process primarily based upon the significant degree of distrust that did, and does exist between them.
In their pre-hearing filings and during the first part of the hearing, one or more of the parties identified the following issues, and/or contract provisions as being unresolved: 
The task of listing the open issues is a difficult one in that the parties utilized different approaches to identify them. The Union listed contract articles and management listed themes that were reflected in various sections of the Agreement.
During the hearing the parties did agree that this list constitutes a total list of the open issues:
1 LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES
ARTICLE 2, Section 3
ARTICLE 4, SUBCONTRACTING
A, PROJECT MOBILITY OPERATORS
ARTICLE 4 B,
ARTICLE 7, HOLIDAYS
11, AUTHORITY SICKNESS AND GROUP SICKNESS AND ACCIDENT PROTECTION
12, LIFE INSURANCE 
19, HOURS OF WORK – WORKING CONDITIONS – TRANSPORATION.
21, PICKING RUNS OR SIGN-UPS
28, TOOL ALLOWANCE
33, PART TIME OPERATORS
36, TERM OF AGREEMENT
OF UNDERSTANDINIG ON CERTIFICATION
In this report the Fact Finder has made a good faith effort to capture all of the issues, and sub-issues and make recommendations but based upon the sheer volume of open issues errors or omissions are likely. In such case I urge the parties to attempt to resolve their differences through honest exchamge.
At hearing the parties had an opportunity to state and argue their positions on each.
Each party was more than adequately represented with management bringing six administrators plus the Advocate, and the Union Advocate was accompanied by eight persons representing the Local and the International.
This case involves a bargaining unit comprised
of approximately 550 bus operators and mechanics.
The parties met on seven occasions beginning February 20, 2003.
They reached agreement on three items
The format of this report will be to list an
article and the sub issues within that article.
A brief review of the position of each party will follow and then a
discussion of that issue. My recommendation will be listed and, if new contract
language is required to effectuate that recommendation, that language will be
The only open issue in
Article 1 is Section 5 “Union/Management Committee.
The parties agree upon the language except the Union desires to add a
specific reference to “run cuts and working conditions.”
Adding specific references to the language on
Union/Management committees will not achieve the desired results.
Joint committee work when both parties commit to use them as a problem
It appears to this Fact Finder that the current
climate between the parties is filled with such distrust that it would be
difficult to resolve many difficult issues.
The current language is broad enough to permit
discussion of “run cuts” or any other problem areas the parties agree upon.
I do strongly recommend that the parties
utilize an outside sources to assist them in joint union management committee
training that would teach an interest based approach to their relationship.
The State Employment Relations Board offers such services as does the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service or a neutral trained in Interest
Based Decision Making.
upon the above discussion, I recommend current contract language for Article 1,
ARTICLE II, Section 3:
Management proposes to deal
with a problem of absenteeism that is created when employees are on disability.
Their solution is to delete the words “”These vacancies are defined
as being created by the termination of hourly employees, and their separation
from the seniority lists.” This
action would save significant overtime.
The Union opposes any change in this article.
They argue that management can add additional employees anytime it
desires to do so.
this Article, as in many others, this Fact Finder fails to see a willingness of
the parties in this situation to recognize and meet the needs of the other.
This is a public entity and the taxpayers and riders expect a certain
efficiency and reasonableness in how their funds are managed and spent.
A mechanism needs to exist whereby employees on long term illness or
injury leave can be replaced without the necessity of paying overtime
This is best accomplished when the two parties
sit down and work together to find solutions to such problems.
Since that has not occurred, In this case I will recommend a possible
Article II, Section 3 shall be amended at the
end by adding:
“When the employee is made aware that an employee will be on extended
leave due to illness or injury, the employer may declare a temporary vacancy for
the position held by that employee and hire a temporary employee to fill the
temporary vacancy. The temporary
employee shall serve no longer than the time the regular employee is off work
plus the time necessary to fill the permanent vacancy.
The permanent vacancy shall be filled pursuant to this agreement and the
temporary employee shall have no guarantee of continued employment.
Management seeks to remedy
another problem by removing the words “deprive the members of the bargaining unit to work heretofore normally
and regularly performed by them.” They would add an affirmative statement
that says “Where the authority is short
handed in the janitorial classification due to illness, injury, long term
absence and everyday absenteeism.” They
believe the impact of this language change would be to
allow the Authority to contract out janitorial services when they are
short handed. They would not lay
off any employees due to such a decision to sub-contract.
The other problem management seeks to address
through this change is to gain the flexibility to purchase some reconditioned
parts rather than have all of them rebuilt in house.
By management’s estimate $131,000 per year
could be saved on purchasing reconditioned Diesel Engines.
Another $72,000 could be saved on alternators If
one addes in Fuel pumps, water pumps, turbochargers and air compressors, they
estimate the savings to be $241,000 dollars.
The Union favors current language.
They note they have secured the right to do this work by previous
negotiations and have protected it through various victories in arbitration.
They are not willing to give it up.
let me address the issue of janitorial service.
Ordinarily the right to employ casual labor would exist
under the reserved management rights concept.
In this Agreement it appears that right was given away long ago.
This fact finder failed to see convincing
evidence as to why this change is needed.
Further, the addition of the “temporary
vacancy” should assist to address this problem.
The matter or the cost of reconditioning in
house is another matter. It is true
that the Union has prevailed in arbitration and that is noteworthy in that the
Union has apparently read the Collective Bargaining Agreement correctly.
There may be a greater underlying issue and
that is the public’s trust and confidence in the parties.
If (emphasis added) the figures advanced by management
are correct, the public will not forever stand by and allow such over
expenditures. It is in the shared
best interest of the Authority and the employees to work to resolve any
perception that they are not jointly exercising good stewardship of the public
and rider funds.
This Fact Finder is not prepared to recommend a
“shotgun” fix as proposed by management, but does offer another
recommendation that should force the parties to work together to resolve this
problem or perception of the problem.
I recommend that current contract language be
maintained with the following addition at the end of the first paragraph:
The Authority shall not lease or otherwise
transfer its buses, or use buses leased or otherwise obtained from other
companies or persons, the effect of which would be to deprive
the members of the bargaining unit to work heretofore normally and regularly
performed by them except that if either party
believes there is a significantly more economical.option,
such as purchase of reconditioned parts vs. in-house rebuilding, that party
shall approach the other in a union management meeting and present the option
along with cost estimates for savings. There
shall be a full and complete sharing of data and estimates.
If there is disagreement regarding estimates, the parties may mutually
agree upon a neutral expert to review the data and estimates and offer an
opinion on the correctness of it.
If there appears to be a significant savings by
utilizing the proposed option or a variation of it, agreed to by the parties,
then both parties will consent to the option.
Such consent will not be unreasonably denied.
The utilization of such an option will not
result in the layoff of any bargaining unit employee(s).
The joint union management committee may
discuss the expenditure of any funds saved through the utilization of the
ARTICLE IV A, Project Mobility
The Union makes a case to illustrate the status
of Project Mobility Operators as they relate to traditional operators.
They propose equity for Mobility Operators with other employees.
Management seeks to change this article by
adding combination drivers to the “forced list” and would and a requirement
of a Commercial Driver’s License.
The Union notes that this matter was arbitrated
and decided and management is trying to reverse the effect of that arbitration.
Finder David Stanton discussed the addition of the Mobility Operators and wisely
advised the parties to negotiate their inclusion into the unit.
Apparently the parties followed that advice by means of the Memorandum of
Understanding signed by the parties on July 14, 1995.
While this Fact Finder has great empathy for
those persons in this category, it is difficult to award significant increases
in these very challenging financial times.
Further, this Fact Finder has very limited factual data from which to
determine the appropriate levels of benefits.
While this Fact Finder understands that management would like the
additional flexibility of being able to assign Project Mobility Operator’s,
I fail to be convinced of the necessity of such action especially in
light of no proposal to improve the financial status of these operators.
Management also proposed a change to the sick
leave reference in this section. On its face it appears reasonable to have the same sick leave
provisions apply to Mobility Operators as other employees.
But, since these employees are not treated the same in other aspects, I
hesitate to alter the deal that was reached in 1995 regarding these employees.
If there is equity in the positon then this is something the parties
should agree upon.
I recommend Article IV A remain at current
ARTICLE IV B,
Union’s position mirrors the arguments advanced regard Project Mobility
Operators. It is noted that, while
combination operators are compensated higher that Project Mobility Operators,
they are still far below traditional drivers in pay and benefits.
Management wishes to amend section 6, paragraph
2 after the third sentence: “if work
remains, the work will be assigned in inverse seniority order off of the PMOB/Combination
Operator seniority list. The next
forced assignment will begin when the last forced assignment ended.”
Fact Finder, like many others, follows the practice that the party who advances
a change in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, bears the burden of persuasion
regarding that proposed change. The
parties have failed to fulfill that that burden regarding this provision.
For these reasons and those stated related to
Article IV A, I recommend the language remain the same as contained in the
preceding Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The Union seeks to add President’s Day,
Veteran’s Day and one Personal Leave day.
Management wants to make the use of holiday
leave more restrictive by removing the provision that allows for an excuse to be
used when the employee is off before or after the holiday.
that neither party provided me with comparables or evidence that would justify a
change when applied to the statuatory criteria, I see no reason to change the
deals previously made.
I recommend the status quo language of the
previous Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The Union seeks 100% payment of premium.
Management seeks to eliminate specific benefits
as enumerated in Appendix B.
appears to this Fact Finder that this is one article where the parties have
cooperated in order to hold down costs. I
commend them for their efforts. The
cost of future health care as acquired though negotiations reported to the Fact
Finder at the hearing, would evidence the success of these efforts.
In these days of excallating health care costs
it is unreasonable to believe that the employer will pay the total cost of
The 70/30 arrangement over $625 monthly premium
is fair and provides an ongoing incentive for the Union to cooperate in the
selection of different carriers.
I appreciate the management position that being
tied to a specific list of benefits makes negotiations more difficult.
This is a very rich plan. Employees
should appreciate the uniqueness of benefits like no in plan deductible and
unlimited lifetime maximums.
However, at this time it appears the Union has
been cooperative in seeking reasonably priced Health Care.
I do not recommend a change in the premium
arrangement. I do recommend minor
changes in the article as noted below:
I recommend Article IX remain unchanged except
that Section 2 be amended to read:
The Authority has the right to provide reasonably
comparable benefits through another agency(ies)………..
Further I recommend the addition of a new
During the term of this agreement the parties
will form a joint Health Care Committee composed of representatives of
management, ATU and any other Bargaining Unit.
The purpose of the committee will be to seek ways to contain Health Care
costs, and find creative alternatives to provide the best health care for
employees as the lowest rates possible. The
committee may consider alternative minimum benefit plans and recommend same back
to the union and management, if it seems appropriate.
Sickness and Accident
union believes there is a need to update Section 1, (A) in order to preserve the
days earned by their bargaining unit members.
If I understand their point correctly, there is
no need to make this change. The
April 6, 1997 date had significance because there was a change in how sick leave
would be carried over.
After that change has been accomplished,
employees will not lose days they have already accumulated under previous
Management seeks to increase the number of days
the employee must work to earn leave from 15 to 18, and would change the waiting
period from 45 to 60 days. Finally
they would be able to request a certificate from the Doctor immediately instead
of waiting for three days.
advances a “take back” agenda without offering anything in exchange.
I recognize the importance of addressing absenteeism issues, but cannot,
in good faith, recommend this type of an approach.
I do offer, in what is becoming a recurring
theme, a vehicle by which management could address absentee concerns.
That is by engaging the union in the effort.
If the parties will faithfully utilize this collaborative approach, I
urge them to include such language in their Agreement.
If they will not then they should mutually agree to delete this
I recommend the addition of a part K in Section
Recognizing the impact of significant
absenteeism on efficient, public trust and the morale of employees who regularly
come to work, the parties pledge to work together to reduce absenteeism, while
caring for the legitimate needs of bargaining unit members.
To assist in this effort the parties will form
a joint committee which will address ways of reducing absenteeism.
The parties will study and recommend strategies which may include
recognition of employees with outstanding attendance and strategies that have
worked in other jurisdictions to improve attendance.
the course of the hearing the parties agreed to current contract language.
It is so recommended.
Union proposes current language.
Management would amend Article XV (B) (2) from 180 scheduled days to 216
days and would delete the second paragraph of this section.
Management has failed to convince this Fact
Finder of any major operational problem that must be fixed by changing the
number of days. Absent such
rationale it appears as merely another take back without a quid pro quo.
I heard no testimony or argument regarding the
problem with the second paragraph.
I recommend current contract language.
HOURS OF WORK:
Union proposes current language.
Management proposes to change section 11, (C2)
by deleting part-time combination drivers.
Further, they would delete from (C3) the words “of
those with 15 years or less seniority. That
ist of 15 years or less seniority would rotate.”
Management notes that there were 30 part-time
drivers when the language was inserted. Now
there are only 2. Likewise, they
believe there is no reason for the 15 year restriction and removing it would
make the distribution of overtime more efficient.
Management’s arguments sound reasonable.
The Union’s only statement seemed to be “we have never done it that
I recommend the two changes proposed by
management in this article.
the course of the hearing the Union agreed to withdraw this item and submit the
subject matter to discussion in the Union Management Joint Committee.
Management agreed to discuss the matter in that forum.
Therefore I recommend current contract language.
recommends current language. The
union proposes an increase to $400.
Management notes that the employees often do
not utilize the entire amount of the allowance.
Article contains appropriate safeguards to assure the money is expended wisely.
The only question relates to whether the amount needs to be increased.
For most employees it appears the current amount is adequate.
For new it would not be.
The requested $400 is clearly out of line but
some adjustment may be appropriate.
I recommend Section 1 be amended to read:
“A cash voucher will be issued
to each full-time operator on the effective date of the Agreement each year as
follows: $335 for the first
year, $350 for the second and subsequent years thereafter for
Currently the tool allowance for employees in
the Mechanical Classifications of Maintenance is $290 per year.
The Union proposes to increase this by $10 each year of the agreement.
During th hearing the Union stated its desire
to have Inclement Weather gear considered as a proper expenditure under Section
2. Management agreed to such an
My recommendation is based upon that
understanding and agreement.
proper amount seems to this Fact Finder to be $300 per year.
I am not persuaded that there is a necessity to buy so many tools that an
inflation factor must be built in.
I recommend Section 1 be amended to read:
The Authority will issue by
October 31 during the term of this Contract, to each employee holding Mechanical
classifications in Maintenance, and on the active payroll at October 1, each
year a tool allowance voucher in the amount of $300.
offered an interesting position. They
propose a one time lump sum payment of $350 plus a share of the saving on any of
their proposals that would generate savings.
The Union proposes 4% per year for each year of
a 3 year agreement.
As with most aspects of this negotiations, the
parties viewed the economic situation from different poles.
Management asserts that they have a significant
ability to pay issue. The sales tax
collections have remained flat or decreased.
Since slaes tax revenues provide 60% of the Authority’s income, there
is great cause for concern.
The Union has an optimistic belief that the
economy will improve and thus revenues will improve.
They also note the Authority has over $43 million in investments.
They note that in the midst of this financial
situation the Authority not only gave its executive director a $28,000 increase
but also allowed her to retire and rehired her after paying out her accumulated
The Union also provided information on the
controversial remodeling of the Authority’s Board room at a cost of $1.4
Finally, they note that management’s
projections included a high increase in Health Care Costs and the current
negotiations with carriers illustrates that this will not be necessary.
Management notes that another Fact Finder
viewing this same information in a different unit froze wages for the first year
of their agreement in favor of a $350 per employee one time payment.
Management provided comparable information on
the salaries of employees in Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus
Fact Finder has reviewed the financial statements provided by the parties with
particular emphasis on the report of the Independent Auditor.
Several observations and conclusions come to
While it is true the Authority has significant
investments, the bottom line is revenue is flat or declining.
This is based in part, on the tragedy of September 11, 2001 and the
current sluggish economy.
This Fact Finder shares ann optimism that the
economy must turn around soon but as of the date of this writing that turnaround
has not begun.
While the Authority could fund 4% increases
from its reserves, that would be financially irresponsible.
Ordinarily this Fact Finder does not give much
weight to the salary paid to the Chief Executive Officer.
The significant expenditures in this case do illustrate that the
Authority apparently does not view the situation as the “sky is falling.”
If such expenditures are authorized by the Board, then there certainly
has to be confidence that a reasonable increase can be granted to employees.
The employer should realize some savings
through the utilization of the language proposed regarding temporary vacancies,
and the joint effort to save money regarding rebuilding vs. purchase.
The final consideration lies in the outstanding
work that has been done in securing favorable Insurance premiums.
In the hearing the employer intimated that there would be room for some
modest raises based upon these numbers.
I recommend Annual % increases be:
2.0% effective the pay period that includes July 1,
2.5% effective the pay period that includes April 1,
3.0% effective the pay period that includes April 1,
and that all pay tables be adjusted to reflect these
(The only other salary issue to be considered is the
supplements addressed in Appendix C. Those
will be addressed when Appendix C is considered.)
The Union is seeking 100% of single coverage
plus $20 toward family coverage.
Management responds that there are so few
persons in this category that there is no justification for such a change.
I fail to be convinced that there is
justification for such a change. I
recommend current languge.
During the course of the hearing the parties
agreed to withdraw this proposal.
TERM OF AGREEMENT:
The Union proposes a 3 year agreement arguing
that the regular term is necessary to provide a measure of labor peace.
Management has two reasons for seeking a one
year agreement. The first is due to the financial uncertainty of the current
The second is to provide additional
opportunities to bargain changes in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and
policies. They feel that this more
frequent opportunity to bargain is necessary based upon recent SERB decisions.
The Fact Finder finds merit in the first
concern but has addressed the financial situation in the Article on wages.
The economy certainly should be turning around by the third year of the
agreement or all employers will have to find other avenues to manage expenses.
The second argument, while a valid concern, is
better addressed in attempting to work with the Union to resolve many of these
troublesome issues. More frequent
bargaining within the constraints of the current labor management relations
climate will merely frustrate the parties rather than lead to positive change.
I recommend a three year agreement.
The parties should Amend Article XXXVI to reflect this term.
PAYMENT OF TRAVEL:
the hearing the Union stated its desire to put current ATA practice into the
Collective Bargaining Agreement. Management
agreed. Management is to prepare
the language for Union review. I so
Union proposes current language with the increases in compensation for receiving
certifications that were discussed under the wage article.\
Management proposes to amend the MOU to reflect
Management also recommends an amendment to
Article II, Section 5 to make this a condition of employment.
There seems to be little disagreement regarding
this program. Based on the
comparable information provided, I am recommending a small increase in the
amounts contained in the MOU. I do
not recommend the inclusion of the amendment of Article ii, Section 5.
I recommend Appendix C be amended as follows:
APPENDIX C - Memorandum of Understanding
The Authority and the Union desire a workforce that is proficient in its skill and has knowledge to operate safely.
For purposes of qualifying for positions in the Maintenance and Line Department, the following procedure will be used:
A. Candidates who have demonstrate that they meet the minimum educational, experience and licensing requirements will be given the opportunity to advance by taking the National Occupational Competency Testing Institute (NOCTI) exam. The successful candidate must have a composite score of 64.79 or above to be considered for the position.
Any candidate failing to pass the NOCTI exam must wait a minimum of six
(6) months before reapplying for the position and retaking the NOCTI exam.
C. For those already employed at RTA as Mechanics:
1. ASE Certification will be used.
2. RTA will pay for and make available the study manuals for the test.
3. RTA will pay employees one time for the time required to take the ASE test and subsequent renewals.
4. RTA will pay for the cost of the test itself.
5. ASE study material and testing will be for medium/heavy duty trucks.
6. For each two (2) certifications, an employee passes, the employee will receive an additional fifteen (15) cent per hour. An employee passing all eight (8) tests will receive a total of seventy-five (75) cents per hour. All classifications except the following are eligible for the premium: line crew, buildings and grounds, janitors, utility cleaners and fuelers.
7. To maintain the hour qualification premium, the employee must keep the ASE certification current.
An employee passing one or more tests must present the certification
documentation to the RTA Human Resources Department.
Candidates who have demonstrate that they meet the
minimum educational, experience and licensing requirements will be given the
opportunity to advance by taking the Electrical Line Workers Test (ELWT) as
administered by the Human Resources Department and graded by an independent
third party. The successful
candidate must score a minimum of 80% to be considered for the position.
candidate failing to pass the ELWT must wait a minimum of six (6) months before
reapplying for the position and retaking the exam.
NEW ABSENTEEISM POLICY:
employer desires to promulgate a new policy on absenteeism and, based on SERB
decisions, believe they must do so while the Agreement is open.
The new policy would make all absences chargable and would result in what
they term a “no fault” policy.
The Union sees no need to change the existing
Fact Finder recognizes the importance of controlling absenteeism and tired to
address it under sick leave. But I
am not prepared to recommend a policy change that would be as far reaching as
I recommend the proposed policy and its
elements be discussed in the proposed Joint Committee on Absenteeism.
LIGHT DUTY POLICY:
The employer proposes eliminating the “Light
Duty” policy because there is no meaningful work that employees can do.
The Union wants to continue the program as a
benefit to its members.
employer told stories of employees who do no work but are compensated for full
If this is ture it is another of those problems
that must be remedied to keep faith with the public the authority serves.
I recommend the following:
Within sixty days (60) of the effective date of this Agreement a Joint
Committee composed of an equal number of Union and Management representatives
shall meet to discuss the continuation of the Light Duty Policy.
If the parties mutually agree, the Policy may
be modified. If they do not agree,
the program will be continued only if the parties can agree upon meaningful work
that can be performed by the persons in the program.
If no meaningful work can be identified after
good faith discussions, the Policy shall be deleted 120 days after the effective
date of the agreement.
employer proposes a new insurability policy that would establish stringent
limits on the number of points that can be carried by Drivers either on or off
Clearly there is an issue wherein employees
must retain the proper licensure to operate Authority equipment.
Employees who cannot maintain licensure should not be retained as
employees of the Authority.
Having made those observations, the Policy
proposed by the Authority seems to go beyond the legitimate interests of
assuring maintenance of licensusre.
I do not recommend the adoption of the proposed
policy. I do recommend the parties
discuss this matter in their Joint Union Management Committee and attempt to
resolve it in that forum.
employer proposes a policy based upon a belief that they must comply with US
Department of Transportation Regulations wherein certain employees must be
medically certified at lest every two years.
The employer offers a letter from their legal
counsel, Ron Linville, that concludes they are likely covered by the
The Union disputes this letter and offers an
opinion letter of their own stating employees are not covered by the
This Fact Finder does not have a definitive
answer as to whether or not employees are covered, but the Physicals sound like
a good idea anyway. Many employees
have had their lives saved by such physicals.
The Authority should provide the time for the physical and pay the
charges involved. I so recommend.
I recommend management’s position:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
In an effort to
ensure a safe and healthy workforce, the Authority and the Union agree to the
implementation of DOT regulated Bi-annual physicals for all employees whose job
require that they possess a Commercial Drivers License and/or employees who
operate revenue service vehicles.
The Human Resources
Department will be responsible for administering the policy. Employees will be
compensated for two (2) hours pay at straight time. The cost of the physical
will be borne by the Authority.
Fact Finder has made a good faith effort to address all the issues raised by
either party but with the sheer number of open issues it is not possible to be
totally sure if he has succeeded.
As an impartial observer I am less concerned
about the contents of the agreement than I am about the relationship that exists
between the parties. As stated
earlier in this report, I urge the parties to seriously engage in joint training
and efforts to improve that relationship and attempt to move their dealings to
an Interest based, problem solving, model.
The parties this Fact Finder met seem to be
good people. Such an improved
relationship would allow many mutual problems to be resolved for the well being
of management, bargaining unit members and the riders and public they serve.
After giving due consideration to the positions and arguments of the parties and to the criteria enumerated on SERB Rule 4117-9-05(J) the Fact Finder recommends the provisions enumerated herein.
In addition, all agreements previously reached by and between the parties and tentative agreed to, along with any sections of the current agreement not negotiated and/or changed, are hereby incorporated by reference into this Fact Finding Report, and should be included in the resulting Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Respectfully submitted and issued at London, Ohio this 6th. Day of June 2003.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true
copy of the foregoing FACT FINDER’S Report was served by Regular U.S.
Mail (the parties waived service by Overnight Express Mail) upon Peter
J. Rakay, Advocate for the ATU Local 1385, AFL-CIO, 11 West Monument Buildinig,
Suite 307, Dayton, Ohio 45402 and Thomas P. Hock, Advocate for the Greater
Dayton Regional Transit Authority c/o Judith Petter, 600 Longsworth Streeet, PO
Box 1301, Dayton, Ohio 45401-1301, and Dale A. Zimmer, Administrator, Bureau of
Mediation, State Employment Relations Board, 65 East State Street, 12th.
Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213, this 6th Day of June, 2003.
 It should be noted that management proposed several “policies” for the consideration of the Fact Finder which would not modify the language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, but which they wish to resolve while the window of negotiations was open.
 During the course of the hearing both parties agreed to retain current language in this Article. It is so recommended.
 During the hearing the parties agreed that there are no open issues regarding Longevity.
 This is a novel concept. If the parties adopt this report, the Fact Finder urges them to improve the language to meet their needs while maintaining the basic concept of mutually working together to resolve such problems.
 The parties may, of course, mutually agree to delete or modify this recommendation but this Fact Finder has seen great results achieved through the efforts of such a joint committee
 If the parties disagree with the Fact Finder over the necessity of changing this language in order to insure current employees retain the leave they have earned, then they should fashion language to do so, for it is my intent to recommend each bargaining unit member retain previously earned leave.