ATU wins $35,631 in back pay for Laidlaw crew

A five-year battle with Canadian-based Laidlaw Transit Inc. and head-banging with the understaffed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has reached a happy conclusion for members of Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 757.

Last month the NLRB ordered Laidlaw to pay 200 current and former bus operators and maintenance workers at Portland Public Schools more than $35,000 in back wages. Laidlaw has the contract to provide the service for the school district.

The story began in July 1995 after ATU and Laidlaw reached a new three-year collective bargaining agreement. After several months of waiting for Laidlaw to produce the final contract in type, Local 757 took it upon itself to finalize the pact and forward it to the company for its review and signature. Laidlaw didn't reply, so the union filed a complaint with the NLRB.

Laidlaw then refused to respond to the regional NLRB concerning the charges, so the complaint was forwarded to the national board in Washington, D.C. There, the NLRB sided with the union, but still the company wouldn't respond to repeated requests for a final collective bargaining agreement. A motion of summary judgment was then filed with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In November 1997 the court enforced the original NLRB order. Laidlaw was ordered to provide to the NLRB all payroll records, Social Security payment records, time cards, personnel records and all other relevant documents necessary to analyze the numbers.

After many months, the employer finally provided payroll records and misleading information about those records that would have resulted in much less back pay and interest being awarded, said Ron Heintzman, president of Local 757. The union compiled the accurate information and gave it to the NLRB.

The NLRB re-compiled the data and this time it established that more than 200 current and former employees are due a total of $35,631 in back pay, including interest.

This amount reflects the difference between the wage rate at which employees were paid by Laidlaw and the wage rate that they should have been paid, Heintzman explained.

"At this point, we do not know whether Laidlaw is going to pay the amount or whether the NLRB compliance officer will have to take Laidlaw to court," he said. "We are hopeful that Laidlaw will comply with the NLRB's order and finally settle this case. More than five years of waiting for a final settlement seems long enough."