San Jose transit workers seek to block forced back-to-work order

SAN JOSE, Calif.—After a judge ruled an injunction against Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265, which represents public transportation workers at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the union filed an appeal this week to “protect the integrity of the language in the contract,” said ATU Local 265 President Raj Singh.

Last month, in an anti-worker ruling, the Santa Clara County Superior Court judge ruled that the ATU Local 265 must end its historic 17-day strike against the VTA. The Court of Appeals set a deadline of April 11 for the VTA and the Superior Court to file objections to the challenge.

“The VTA’s lawfare and the court’s ruling does not get the parties any closer to resolving the fundamental problem…At the end of the day, the workers lost,” Singh said at the time.

Ever since the workers walked off on strike on March 10, the first since the company’s founding in 1973, the VTA has been trying to force the 1,500 workers back on the job.

Despite ongoing negotiations since August of the previous year, ATU Local 265 and VTA have not been able to come to an agreement. Workers voted against VTA’s latest contract offer on Monday, which included an 11% wage increase spread out over three years and changes to the conflict resolution process. However, the introduction of new terms not previously discussed has caused a roadblock in negotiations. The workers still demanded an 18% raise over three years, or 6% annually.

With the negotiations, Armado Barbosa, a lead organizer for ATU, told People’s World, “The agency has yet to negotiate a fair contract, and continues in a regressive negotiating manner. One day they offered 10.5%, up to 11% back to 10.5%. They are trying to create an overtime stipulation.” The agency is trying to deny or severely reduce overtime pay.

On March 11, the VTA sued the striking workers for “violating” their expired contract by striking. They claimed that the company was not notified of the union’s actions and that the ATU violated the contract. In court, the VTA highlighted the adverse effects on thousands of passengers who have been without public transit for more than two weeks, as well as the impacts on the agency.

The argument made by the union, however, was that with the contract termination on March 3, the “no strike” clause lost its validity. ATU Local 265’s lawyer, Benjamin Lunch, pointed out that VTA had notified employees about the contract ending on March 3 and had issued a public bulletin concerning this, acknowledging the potential for a strike.

The union also highlighted the existence of government procedures for providing injunctive relief in case of a public transit agency strike—which it said the VTA did not follow. They cited a 1990 ruling by the California Supreme Court that upheld public transit workers’ right to strike despite the impact on passengers.

“Shame on the VTA for challenging and backtracking on our members’ protected right to strike. This court order essentially slams the door shut on the hard-working VTA employees, who have stood strong and united in their fight for fair wages, respect on the job, and better transit,” ATU President John Costa said.

“This ruling is not only an injustice but a direct slap in the face to the brave frontline heroes who dedicate their lives to serving the city of San Jose. They’ve been holding the line for three weeks because they want better for themselves and their community.”

On the topic of the injunction and Nishigaya’s order, Barbosa told People’s World, “ATU does have access to legal stances. At this point, it is an interpretation of the contract.”

He further continued how the community was affected by the strike, and how people could not get where they needed to be. It was unfortunate collateral damage, he said.

Returning workers are worried about retaliation and discipline from the VTA as a result of the strike.

Barbosa emphasized how “ATU does proudly serve our community, and we want to continue to serve our community. We ask for the support of the community.”