Update, 1:15 p.m.: The lawsuit filed by BART unions this morning, originally described as a challenge to the district board's rejection of a family-leave provision in their new contract, actually goes much further.
The suit (embedded at the end of this post) names the agency and all nine members of its board of directors and accuses them of bad faith bargaining on a wide variety of health, welfare and safety issues. The complaint says the district's refusal to approve the contract in its entirety violates state law.
BART maintains that a family-leave clause in the contract, which would grant workers paid leave for up to six weeks to attend to family health emergencies, was mistakenly included in the deal signed by the district and ratified last month by both SEIU Local 1021 and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1555.
In a statement, BART spokesperson Alicia Trost criticized the suit and called on union leaders to resubmit the contracts, minus the disputed leave provision, for new ratification votes:
This unnecessary action will only delay resolution to BART’s labor contract. A lawsuit is not needed to correct a mistake. When mistakes are made in contract negotiations they are corrected administratively by the parties, acting in good faith. Fortunately this mistake was caught in time before the mistaken language was brought before the District's Board for ratification.
For the sake of BART’s riders, union leadership should allow workers to vote on the corrected agreement so BART can move forward with a renewed focus on providing safe, reliable and convenient transportation under a fair labor contract.
But the unions' lawsuit accuses the agency of refusing to bargain on safety issues throughout negotiations earlier this year.