| GENERAL DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION, | | | CASE NO. 279 |
| LOCAL NO. 554, affiliated with | | | |
| International Brotherhood of Team- | | | |
| sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen | | | |
| and Helpers of America, | | | |
| | | ||
| Petitioner, | | | |
| | | ||
| v. | | | OPINION |
| | | ||
| THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY | | | |
| OF OMAHA, d/b/a METRO AREA TRANSIT | | | |
| | | ||
| Respondent. | | |
Before: Judges Kratz, Wall and McGinley
WALL, J.:
This matter comes before us to determine the 1978-79 wage levels for that portion of Metro Area Transit organized by petitioner, hereinafter referred to sometimes as the Teamsters or Local 554. We find that we have jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.
The evidence herein consists of the evidence introduced in our Case No. 225, M.A.T. v. T.W.A. , 3 CIR 225-1(1979), consisting of the exhibits and transcript of testimony in that case, together with testimony by petitioner as to the similarity of duties of drivers represented by it and drivers represented by T.W.A., and testimony by the respondent as to the dissimilarity of the two, plus evidence of an array of Iowa cities having bus service, which respondent alleges should be compared to the Council Bluffs portion of its system.
Due largely to historical accident, the employees of respondent are represented by two unions - the T.W.A. represents basically those employees who work on the Omaha side of the Missouri, and the Teamsters represent basically those employees who come over to Omaha, pick up a bus, and drive it over to Council Bluffs. Two routes start in Omaha and continue into Council Bluffs. Two routes in Council Bluffs are basically just for intra-city passengers, but in taking the bus from the respondent's garage at 25th and Cuming in Omaha to Council Bluffs, drivers on those routes are required to carry passengers to Council Bluffs if passengers are waiting.
During the two year course of litigation of Case No. 225, the respondent spent a great deal of time and effort establishing the position that only regional transit authorities could properly be compared with M.A.T. to establish the likelihood of the similarity of duties of employees in the compared systems. We agreed with that position in reaching our decision. Now, with the same evidence before us, respondent takes the position that a piece of its region can be broken off and compared to cities having bus service in Iowa, to establish the likelihood that duties are similar. The evidence before us now, taken as a whole, convinces us that only regional transit authorities may properly be compared, and that respondent's present evidence is insufficient to overcome the evidence previously adduced.
We, therefore, conclude that the wage scale adopted for operators in Case No. 225 is also appropriate here, with adjustments for the differing Health and Welfare Plan and Pension Plan of the petitioner. The parties have agreed upon use of the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund at a cost of $9.00 per week to the respondent. They have agreed to the use of the Teamsters Central State Health and Welfare Fund at a cost of $14.25 per week to the employer. There is no evidence of the cost to M.A.T. of the health and welfare package for the T.W.A. in the record, but the evidence does show that benefits were to be maintained at least at the July l, 1973 level, which we may judicially notice to b low compared to 1979. The record also shows that the T.W.A. health plan was modified on July l, 1978, to increase the maximum payment for surgical coverage to $1,500.00 and the maximum payment for a doctor's visit to $10.00 per day. The maximum surgical benefit under the Teamsters' plan is $600.00. The Teamsters have a separate Dental and Optical plan in addition to the health plan. We conclude that the health and welfare plans are substantially comparable.
The pension plan directed to be established in Case No. 225 will cost respondent approximately $11.95 per week for operators, not counting funding requirements. The benefits provided are substantially comparable.
The Teamster operator pays $6.75 weekly as his portion of the health and welfare plan. The T.W.A. operator under our decision in Case No. 225 plays approximately $8.05 weekly as his portion of the pension plan. The T.W.A. operator thus pays $1.30 extra per week for his total benefits package, and the respondent pays approximately $2.95 per week extra for his pension, but apparently pays somewhat less for his health and welfare package, leading us to conclude the cost to respondent is substantially comparable. We conclude that to make the entire package of wages and benefits comparable, there should be a three cent per hour differential in pay.
Wages for July 1, 1978-June 30, 1979 period for the petitioner are thus set as follows:
Student Drivers $3.12
Bus Drivers (1st Six Months) 6.48
Bus Drivers (2nd Six Months) 6.52
Bus Drivers (After 1st Year) 6.57
Petitioner asks for an additional personal day of leave per year. The T.W.A. drivers have had this benefit since 1976. We conclude that the Local 554 driver should also have this benefit to make the entire package comparable to the prevalent as established by all the evidence in the case, including from that Case No. 225.
We note that while for ease of discussion, we have used terminology indicating comparison of T.W.A. and Teamster drivers for respondent, that our actual comparison is all M.A.T. drivers with the array found comparable in Case No. 225 and, on the same evidence, also found comparable here.
ORDERED, that the dispute is ordered settled as provided herein.
Entered July 3, 1979.
_______________________________