IntheMatterofanInterestArbitrationinvolvingWASHINGTONMETROPOLITANAREATRANSITAUTHORITYJanuary13,2012andTHEOFFICEANDPROFESSIONALEMPLOYEESINTERNATIONALUNIONLOCALNO.2AFL-CIO
1.
INTRODUCTION
ThisisastatutoryinterestarbitrationproceedingbetweenWMATA(TheAuthority)andtheOfficeandProfessionalEmployeesInternationalUnion,Local2(TheUnion).TheAuthoritywascreatedin1967byanInterstateCompactbetweentheFederal
Government,
theStateofMaryland,TheCommonwealthofVirginiaandtheDistrictofColumbiatoplan,develop,build,financeandoperateabalancedregionaltransportationsystemintheNationalCapitalarea.ThismatterisconvenedunderArticleXIV,Section66(c)ofthatCompact.ThedecisionalstandardsforresolvingthisdisputearesetforthintheNationalCapitalAreaInterestArbitrationStandardsAct,40U.S.C.18301-18304.ThedisputeinthisInterestArbitrationarisesoutoftheinabilityofthepartiestoagreeonthetermsandconditionsofemploymentforasuccessorcontractcoveringthebargainingunit.Thebargainingunitcoveredbytheagreementatissueinthis
1
proceedingconsistsofapproximately700employeeswhocollectivelyrepresentapproximately7%oftheAuthority'sworkforce.ThecollectivebargainingagreementwasamendableonJuly1,2008.Afterbargainingforseveralmonths,thepartiesexchangedfinalproposalsonMay27,2010(theAuthorityreviseditsproposalsonJuly13,2010andOctober26,2010).Whenthepartieswereunabletoresolvetheirdifferences,theissuesindisputewereprocessedtoInterestArbitration.(ArticleXXsection7oftheCBA)InaccordancewiththeprocedurescontainedintheAgreement,thepartiesestablishedaBoardofArbitration.TheBoardwascomposedofthefollowingmembers.MR.THOMASR.ROTHOPEIULOCAL2MEMBERMR.ROBERTAMESESQ.WMATAMEMBERMR.KENNETHE.MOFFETTNEUTRALCHAIRMANHearingsonthemeritsofthematterwereconductedonJuly8,9,12,13,15,and16;October25,26,27;andNovember8and9,2010.ExecutivesessionswiththepartisanArbitratorsandtheChairmanwereheldonJune21;August4;October24;andNovember14,2011.Duringthehearings,thepartieswereaffordedafullandcompleteopportunitytopresenttestimonyanddocumentaryevidenceinsupportoftheirproposals.Abroadrangeofcross-examinationwaspermitted.Attheconclusionoftheevidentiarystageoftheproceedings,Counselfiledpost-hearingbriefsinwhichtheyraisedpointsandcontentionsinsupportoftheirrespectivepositionsregardingproposalsinvolving
2
economics,wagesandbenefits,andproposedchangesincontractlanguageregardingsubcontracting,paybands,andmultipleworkrules.OnJune21;August4;October24,andNovember14,2011theBoardmetinexecutivesessionsforadditionalargumentandadditionalevidence.AtthelastexecutivesessionthepartieswerefurnishedanoutlineoftheneutralChairman'sdecisionregardingallopenmattersexcept
two:
subcontractingandthecreationofnewpaygrades.TheneutralChairmaninformedthePartisanmembersofhisdecisionontheseitemsafterreviewingtheirsubsequentresponse.TheBoardhasgivenfullconsiderationtotherecordinthiscase,arecordthatexceeds2,386pagesoftranscriptplusseveralCD's,andincludesmorethan400exhibits.ItshouldbenotedthatthisArbitrationBoardwasconvenedforthefirsttimeonJuly8,2010andthefinalexecutivesessionwasnotconcludeduntilNovember14,2011.ThepartiestothisArbitrationdelayedcompletingtheirpresentationsuntilafinaldecisionwasrenderedintheFederalcourtcasewithATULocal689andWMATA.ThecasebroughtbyWMATAconcernedthevalidityofthearbitrationawardissuedbythethree-personBoardinthatArbitration.BothpartiesrightlyfeltthatcourtcaseimpactedtheseproceedingsasitrelatedtothevalidityoftherulessetforthintheNationalCapitalAreaInterestArbitrationStandardsAct.Section1803,StandardsforArbitratorsoftheNationalCapitalAreainterestArbitrationStandardsActprovidesinsubsection(b)thatanArbitratorinacaseofthistype"maynotmakeafindingoradecisionforinclusioninabargainingagreementgoverningconditionsofemploymentwithoutconsideringthefollowingfactors".
3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
