STEWARTWEINBERGDAVID A ROSENPEL~ ~INBERG ROGER & ROSENFELLI USL R. DUNCAN

JORDAN D. MAZURWILLIAM A SOKOL ~ JACOB J. WHITEVINCENT A HARRINGTON, JR.BLYfHE MICKELSON

j` yA PrOlESS1OI1Al Corp OrA~lOII

ADAM J. LUETTO

BARRY E. HINKLEJAMES RUTKOWSKI. 1001 Marina Villa e Parkwa SUIte ZOO9 Y~

SEAN D. GRAHAMDANIEL S. BROMEJOLENE KRAMERSANDRA RAE BENSON STEPHANIE L MARN»CHRISTIAN L RAISNER

JAMES J. WESSER AIt~CT~GdEI, CA 94501 ANTHONY J. TUCCI

THEODORE FRANKLIN TELEPHONE (510) 337-1"001ANTONIO RUIZMATTHEW d GAUGER FAX (510) 337-1023 PATRICIA M. GATES, Of CounselASHLEY K. IKEA o ~ R00ERTA D. PERKINS, Of CounselLINDA BALDV✓IN JONES NINA FENOEL, Of CounselPATRICIAA DAMS ANA M. GALIEGOS, O/CounselALAN G CROWLEYKRISTINA L HILLMAN w.EMILY P. RICHBRUCE A. HARLANDCONCEPG16N E LOZAN0.BATISTACAREN P. SENCERANNE I. YEN ~ •Also admitted In ArizonaKRISTWA M. ZINNEN - «Admitted in HawaiiJANNAH V. MANANSALq •• Aisa admitted in NevadaMANUEL A. BO(GUES ....KERIANNE R. STEEI,E... •••• Aiso admitteU in IllinoisGARY P. PROVENCHER ~ ••••• Also admitted in New YorkEZEKIEL D. CARDER.«..MONICA T. GUIZARSHARON A SEIDENSTEIN August 21, 2013

Honorable Kamala D. HarrisAttorney GeneralState of California, Office of the AttorneyGeneral/ Dept. of Justice1515 Ciay Street, Suite 2000Oakland, CA 94612-0550

Re: People e~ rel. Edmund G. Brown, Jr.v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1 SSS, et a~Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No. CPF 13-513159

Dear General Harris:

We write to you on behalf of our clients Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1555, and ServiceEmployees International Union, Local 1021, concerning a matter of great importance.

As you well know, an August 4, 2013, Governor Brown, upon request of the President of the BARTDistrict Board, appointed a Board of Investigation pursuant to Government Code § 3612(a) in regard tothe ongoing, and unresolved, bargaining at the District. In that letter from the District President, datedAugust 4, 2013, and Exhibit A to your office's Petition for Injunctive Relief in this matter, the Presidentrepresented that a "cooling off period" permitted by Government Code § 3612 would allow "us tocontinue negotiating while assuring the public that it will have transit service tomorrow and for another60 days as we continue to bargain." The letter went on to state that the public "should not be deprived ofthis essential public service unless all alternatives to avoid a work stoppage have been utilized."

On August 11, 2013, your office sought, and was granted, an injunction pursuant to Government Code§ 3614 which, among other things, directed the parties to maintain the status quo and to not either strikeor lockout fora 60 day period.

Despite the District's representations to the Governor, as of the date of this letter, August 21, 2013, theDistrict has steadfastly refused to "continue negotiating." Indeed, the District has refused to authorizerelease time for the rank and file bargaining team members to caucus in order to resume the bargainingdescribed in the BART District President's letter to the Governor.

The District has stymied efforts by the mediators assigned to assist in the bargaining to schedule meetingdates. Although the Unions have each indicated their availability for a number of days, including dayslast week, and days this week, the District has declined to accept any of them. Instead, it is posturing,

LOS ANGELES OFFICE SACRAMENTO OFFICE HONOLULU OFFICE800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1320 428 J Street, Suite 520 Union Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90017-2607 Sacramento, CA 95814-2341 1136 Union Mall, Suite 402TEl 213.380.2344 FAX 213.443.5098 TEL 916.443.6600 FAX 916.442.0244 Honolulu, HI 96813-4500

TEL 808.528.8880 FAX 808.528.8881

Ms. Kamala HarrisAugust 21, 2013Page 2

and making false claims about the status of the bargaining as it concluded on the evening of August 10,2013, the day before you sought injunctive relief. We have attached and marked a copy of an August 16,2013 letter sent to the SEIU co-negotiators as Exhibit A. We have attached and marked as Exhibit Bthe identical letter sent to the ATU negotiators. There are numerous aspects of the letter which are falseand misleading. It was sent virtually at the time that we were working with the mediators to scheduleadditional bargaining dates. Please note the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph in which theDistrict refuses to engage in "ongoing or further discussions" which it characterizes as "not fruitful"unless the Unions present the alleged last, best, and final offer to their membership. On August 16, theUnions, through counsel, sent a responsive letter to the District bargainer refuting his falsecharacterizations of the status of the negotiations and urging that the District once again return to thetable and commence the bargaining the District claimed it wanted to engage in during this cooling offperiod. We have attached a copy of the Unions' responsive letter and marked it as Exhibit C.

As set forth in the Unions' August 16 letter, we firmly believe that the District's failure and refusal toreturn to the table, and its insistence that the Unions vote on what it now characterizes as a last, best andfinal offer is in violation not only of the spirit and the intent, but also the letter of the injunction whichyour office sought at the request of the Governor on August 11. The purpose of that injunction was toprevent either party from changing the status quo, including the Unions being on full release time toengage in the bargaining process, working cooperatively with the mediators to schedule bargaining dates,engaging in good faith bargaining during the cooling off period, and to avoid last, best and final offers.The District's further response of August 20, reiterating its contrary position, is attached and marked asExhibit D. We believe that the District is clearly in violation of the injunction, and we would urge youroffice to obtain their voluntary compliance, or short of that, move promptly in court to seek a contemptcitation compelling the District to get back to the bargaining table, resume the negotiations, and bringthis bargaining cycle to a conclusion.

Our clients stand ready to assist you in any way they can to compel the District to meet its legalobligations and return to the bargaining table and bargain in good faith, and we are available to discussthis matter at your convenience.

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELDA Professional Corporation

By.

1NCENT A. HA TON, JR.

LEONARD CARDER, LLP

B~ ~. p ~"'

PETER SA AN

VAH:mp ~-opeiu 3 afl-cio(1)Enclosures133495/730944

AUG, 09, 2013. FRI 06.22 P~ CA. DEPT. OF JUSTICE FAX No, 415 703 1290 P. 00$/087

~~,.. ' ~ ~,,

~ ~ ~ `E` ~ SAIV ~FtA~fGISCO gAY AREA ~iRP~ti TtiANSE7' Dt~'I'RECT~ 300 Lakeside Dave, p.b, eax 22688i''~' Qakland, CA s4so~2688

(5tffl 46~r-6040

August 4, 2Q132og~

The ~Ionora~Ie Ec3xnund G. ~3xo~vvza, Jc•,Tam Aadutovich ~~~~ ~~p~i~aI, Suite 1 I73PAEsm~rr S~~ram,~nto, Cn 94814J9el KellapKaepaes~oExs

~~Sl' ~7'bV$I1~OP ~YOWtl~Etsce Crubtcaa .GFJSEAAI MgHAGEA

.As you are aw~ntce, BART and its unions (.A,~'SGlvtFs 3993, SHUT 1421, 1~TU 1X55) havebeer at tha laargaining table for n~zoz~i'hs tying to reach a dead on the terms Of A neV~

DIflcGTORs eon~.~ct. 'T`~augliout ~11is process, ~e District less necessarily prioritized the Ior~~-~t~l1ieaJ~. and susta~nabil~ty q~ i;~e SA,RT systezrs, and its ability GQ meet ~e future p~eds o~

sr aar Bay ,Area.~asidents. The TiA~,T systEgn is agrs►g, and. needs oor~5iderable reinves#rnenC.tnet Kesler ~ fa rxt~efi ~lte~ mabiSity needs off' ~iae $ay Area while state anc~ federal su~s~+ort far ~raztsit:Noasrn~cr ~ ~I~int~le. TVl~anwhile, the cost of mai~tailtiz~.g bet~~~fs continues #'o grow f~tste~ th.&tl ouzRebecca 5altzmen revenues. tour laboi xgf e~tuexzfs must z~eIlect fi~teso ~u7.ancial ~eatitics.aaoms~mcr ,

~,° ~ ~~°~~, ~" 'i'~e will co~~tzc~u~ to focus oux ei~orts on fhe ta'bie and zemfw.z car~mitted t~ reaek~x~,g anagreem,~nt. We beli~v~ t1~aY. the Best a~raeme~~zt is bi~e arrived at betv~c~n tae partiesJohnMcPert~enasrr~oiarwc~ tilEmselves, wi,thot~t interve~tiaon b~ outside forces.

~' '~i'~mas 511. Bt~lack. P,E..ISH GI5IRiCT ,pespit~e these e~forEs, we ~niay retch tonight's ~i.dt~zgbt dead~ina v~ithout azt ~.greeznent. I~ze~ery M~13s~ this is tl~e.c~se, the bist~ict is witIing tb ext4nd the eontraots acrd vrill make Y1~at offer to theSri o~rxGcr

Utx1.OS25. T~ ~lXey deelive itr eXte~.d i3a~ contracts, ~UB~ 11'~3y GI704S~ to. s't1.il~e EtZ2tI SY1tIt t~DwR,lames Fang~n~n~mer BART service. As w~ saw im eazly .Tiny, the ei~'ect of a public trransi,# 5tt-i~Ce i5 a completeTOm ftad~lcviCh d3S1'U~ItYOTt 0~ ~.'~~ ~8y !a feA t'-CC13317iri~.arN D~sr~u~

If tae irauons do decide to strrl~e, we aL~e se~,i~esting ti~at you seek a cooling of!' p~ziod for'lhes~ thxee unions, as provided for izt C~lifarni~ ~overnm~nt Cade section 3612 (teaR~sb!ic Tr~:spar~:atian I,a~or nispautes ~.ct), Tk~is ~~ould ~Ilow us to con,Tira~ae saagotiatingwhile assuri.~.g tl~e public that zt v~il~ bav~ ~rapsit service tomorrow and. ibr auot~er GO daysas we ~o~~inue to bazg~~n. We balie~-e tY~e pub]i.c should ~zot b~ ~~priv~d of dais ess~nt~11pu~lie se~-vic~ ut~Io-ss a?i a~te~natives eo avoid a z~arlt stoppage ;~:.ue been ti~til~zed.

~Ve appreciate youz vi gi3ance 1zt ~asutzn'ing tills process and Must we ,~riay cgnt~,~.ue to relyoil your help as tive aon.~~~ue to urork vut this coLnplex cl3spu~e. .

Sicacetely, '

I~~"~c.~.Crd~z'y`~..'

-`""~~''. Tarn Rad~l,oviclx•~ President

~-r cc: Bond of bir~cors~`. Ge~erat Mazxage~ .

vuvwsr.ltart.gav

Exhibit A

BART SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRARISIT D15TRICT3U0 lakeside Drive, P.O, Box 72688Oakland, CA 94604-2688(510)464-6000

2x73 August 16, 2013

Tom RadulovichPAFSIDENT Via E-Mil

Joel KellerVICE PRESIDENT

Grave CronicanDfNERALMANABER

Ms. Josie MooneyMS. Leah BerlangaCo-thief Negotiators, SEIU 1021

DIRECTORS Re: District's Final t~3ffer~aii Murray,sro~s~~rcT Dear Ms. Mooney and Ms. Bexlanga:Joel Keifer'~° ̀~sr"~cT 4n August 3, 2103, fine District provided SEIU with a finalR~ebe~ccs~ altzman ~mprehensive offer addressing both the general and supplemental contract~oa~~t ~~um provisions, an additional copy of that final ofi~er is attached.4TH D1&TRICT

Jahn Mc#~ardand At the time the offer was presented it was clearly stated that it was thebTti Q18TN~CT District's final offer and, as such, we would expect that the comprehensiveTh~D ~ flIM. ~~e~oc~, PE. package would be presented to your members fox a vote.

7TNkDIBTNICMTaf~ We understand, based on discussions with ~e mediators, that the offergames Fsn~ has not been presented to your members and that SEIU intends to pxesent the87H013TBICT p~st~ict with acounter-proposal. We, again, urge you to treat our offer a~ what9TH OISTAICT4N~ it is, a final offer. If you decline to present this offer to your r~nembe~~s, we

would appreciate an expL~.nation with respect to why yc~u have chosen not to daso. Engaging in ongoing or further discussions would not be fruiitfui unless oruntil the members have had the opportunity to consider what the District haspresented.

I look forward to hearing from you

Very truly yours,

~ ~ ~ ~~~~Thomas P. Hoc

Enclosurecc: John Arantes ('via e-mail w/encl.)

Deslar Patten (via e-mail wlencl.}

~iJbart,gov Exhibit B

August 10, 2013

District's Final Comprehensive Offer to ATU and SEIU

Regarding Genexals

The District hereby presents the fallowing campxehensive off`ex regarding xesalution ofthe General Pravisio~ns (Sections 1-9) of the SEIU and ATU co~t~ract. To the extent fat thisoffer zefexe~sces new or modified pxopasals they are attached.

Section 1.2 -Term of Agreement -A dour year term as set forth in the District's June 11, 2013proposal;

Section 1.5 -Beneficial Practices ~ As proposed by the District on April 1, 2413;

Section i.$ — Go~tracting Work -- As set forth in the Uistriict's duly 2, 2413 proposal;

Sections S.2 -- PERS ~tedieal &Prescription Drug Benefi#s ~ ~,,s specified in the District'sAugust 2, 20X3 proposal;

Section 5.2 H —Retiree Medical Eligibility — As specified in the July 2, 2013 pxaposal;

Section 6.1—Public Employees Retirement System — As specified in tae District's June 27, 2013proposal;

Section 6.2 - PERS Pick- Up — As specified in the District's attached revised proposal;

Section 8.1—Pay Periods -~ As specif ed in the District's June 29, 2013, pxoposal;

Section 9.1 --Sick Leave — As specified in the Juae 29, 2013, ~ropasal;

Section 9.2 —industrial Injury/Illness -- As specified in the June 27, 2013 proposal;

Section 9.3 —Medical Examinations -- As specified in the June 11, 2013 proposal;

Section 9.S — Ternporaxy Modified Assignment Procedure ~ As specified in the June 5, 20I 3proposal;

Section 9.7- Safety — as specified in the District's June 27, 2013 proposal;

Wage proposals ~ As specified in the Uxstrict's attached revised proposals;

Gnxoa~i

In addition to the followi~.g tentative agreements reached among the parties

Section 1.3 -- Agreezxzez~ts Furnished;

Section 1.9 —Domestic Partners;

S$ction 2.4 --Dues Deductions;

Section 2.5-Bulletin Boards;

Section 3.1 --Investigation of Empla~ees;

Section 3.2 —Access to Pexsonnel Files;

~ecrion 3.S —Educational Assistance Program;

Section ~F.4 —Maternity Leave;

Section S.3 --Dental Care;

Section 5.4 —Vision Care;

Section S.S —Group Life;

Section S.I 1--Health and Cost Containment;

69204v1

District Revised Proposal —August 10, 20~i 3

6.2 PERS EMPLOYE CONTRIBUTION~t~I,~R

Employees commencing emgloyment with the District on or after January 1. 2013 shall beresponsible for fftv percent tS0%} of the normal cost of the aension as calculated annuaily bythe Public Emgiovees Retirement System iPERSI.

~matovees emalaved by the District arior to, January 1. X013. shall, cammencin~ no later than,ninety ~9a} days followin ratification of this Agreement, be responsible for payment of onepercent t1%1 of the ~~=-'^••^^`~ ~"~~^ ^ the pension. That amount shalt increase to twa percent(2%) far fiscal year tFY} 2015; three aercen# (3%).for FY 2016; ancf four percent t4%) for FY 2t}27.

The base wade .increase is inclusive of those amounts necessary to offset the contributionssaecified herein. '

~&:

Each employee is solely and personally responsibCe for any federal, state ar local tax liability ofthe employee that may arise out of receipt of ~ pickup by the District or any pens{ty thatmay be imposed therefore.

~ yi

DISTRICT REVISED pROPUSAL- AUGUST 1U, 2013

Z8.4 BASE WAGE SCki~DULE

A. The base wage scheduEe will be implemented and administered as follows:

1. Employees will suf#'er na lass of pay as a result of the pay progression.

2. Entry and training rates are eliminated.

3. The pay progression of 76.5%, 79.5%, 85%, 90%, and 104 (top rate} apply to alt baserates of pay, All percentages are based on the tap rate. Movement within the pay stepsare based on one year intervals, on the date of hire/anniversary date. The payprogression will apply only one time to each such employee.

4,,,lNew employees that are hired will be placed at the first year pay progression rate(76,5%j of their classification pursuant to Section 28.4 Base Wage Schedule. Newemployees will progress through each successive step based on their date ofhire/anniversary date with the District.

8. SAIARYIWAGES FOR fiscal Years ~0~42017

A. Fiscal Year 2014

Effective July 5, 2023 the base salarvlwa~e schedule for bargaining unit members shall beincreased by two and one half percent t2.5~} over the prior year base rate of ~ay. The priorbase rate. of pav includes the one percent (11) conditional wage increase, provided for infihe 2009 - 2Q13 Agreement, effective .lulu 1. 2013 and the Section 8.2 COLA wane scheduleprovided for in the 2009 -2013 Agreement effective .lulu 1, 2013.

B. Fiscal Years 207.5 2QZ6 and 2017

Effective July 1 of FY 2015, 2016 and 201?, the base salary/wage schedule for bar~aininunit members shall be increased by two and one half percent (2.5%}.

y4: This wage increase is inclusive of the amounts desi~naCed In Section 6.2,paid inexchange for the agreement to nay a portion o#the employee's pension confiribution.

District Revised Propasal August 10, 2013

S47.2 SALARY/WAGE5 F~I2 FISCAL YEARS 2014 -20 ,7 ~8~89 "- '

A. Fiscal Year 2Q1~

effective July 5, 2013 the base salary/wale schedule for bar~ainin~ unit members shall beincreased by two anct one half percent (2S%) over tie prior base rate of pay, The prior baserate afi pav includes the one percent (19~) conditions! wage increase, provided for in the 2809 -2013 A~reemenfi, effective .iuly 2.2013 and the Section 8.2 COLA wage schedule provided for inthe 20Q9 -2013 Agreement effective July 1.. 2013.

8. Fiscal Years 2015 2016 and 2017

Effective July 1, of FY 2015, 2016 and 2Q17 the base salary /wade schedule for bar~ainin~u ,nitmembers shall 6e increased b~ two and one half percent t2.5%~.

This wage increase is inclusive of the amounts designated in Section 6.2 paid in exchange forthe agreement to aav a pardon of the employee's pension contribution.

,....~ ...

• a 8 t~ i t

~ i • • ~ 1 i r

A • A

Alt• ti•

~ a f 1 •

t I• t t~ ~ ~

t t t M

A

• • _ { t

w s a w

t

• ~ ■ ~

4v

Aug~,st xc~, zai~

Di$firict's Final Comprehensive Offer to SEIt!

Regarding Supplemental Provisions

Section 00 —elimination of Daily Bidding—As specified in the District's July 29, 2013 proposaland added to Section 24.21;

Section 1.3.1-5-8 Wnrk Day & Warkweett—As specified in the District's Juty 2, 20.3 proposal;

Section 13.2 - 4-10 Work Day &Work Week — As specified in the District's July 2, 2013 proposal;

Section 17.7 —Training Development and Oversight Committee — As proposed by the District onAugust 3, 2013;

Section 19.2 — Foreworkers — As specified in the July 2, 20 .3 proposal;

Section 24.6--Foreworker Evaluation Committee—As proposed by the District an August 8,2013; .

Section 27.3 -Part Time Employment and Temporary Agency EmpCoyment — As prapos~d by theDistrict on August 8, 2013

Section 28.1—Jab Descriptions —As proposed by the District on July 2, 2013;

Section 28.2 —Functional Classification ~ As proposed by the District on July 2, 2013;

Section 28.~F--SSW/Utility Worker —wage rate —As specified in the attached proposal;

In addition to tentative agreements an the foEtowin~ provisions:

Section 12.2 —Uniforms;

Section 12.3 —Safety Shoes;

Secfiion x.2.4- Safety Glasses;

Section 12,5 —Payroll Deductions;

Sec#ion 13.4- Meal Periods —Clerical;

Section 14.5 — Leadwarkers;

Page 1 of 2

Section 14.6 —Special Pay premiums;

Section 1~.8 —Compensatory Time off;

Section 15.1— Seniority & Selecfiian: Vacation;

Section 17.1- General Prc~vis3ons;

Section 1~.4- Employee Development Specialist;

Section 19.1—Staff Assistants, Clerical and Engineering Aides;

Section 19.3 — 9/80 work Schedule for Maintenance;

Section 20.1— Union Representation;

Section 21.2—Grievance Procedure;

Section 22.4 ~ Jab Ab~ndanment;

Section 24.4=System Wide Position Award;

Section 24.8 -Eligibility Bidding Pools;

Section 28.2K — eBART;

Section 28.2E ~ OAC;

Section 28.~t --Jab Descriptions for:

Electro Mechanical Assembler (I and il)

System Service Worker

Quality Team Leader

Structures Worker

Letters of Understanding:

Safety Vest as agreed between the parties an May 31, 2013

Employee Shuttle as agreed between the parties on June 2~., 2p13

Page 2 of 2

District Counter Proposal —August 10, 2013

28.4 BASE WAGE SCHEDULE

The District will agree to:• 28.4 BASE WAGE SCHECtULE

Uaan ratification of the agreement, Ufiility Worker,~UW~ and System Service f SSW}classifications wil! be upgraded as falfows:

a. Unon ratification of this agreement the UW and SSW base wage schedule willincrease by twenty-five (25}cents per hour.

b. Be~innin~ an July 1, 2U14 the UW and SSW base wage schedule will increase byan additional twee#y-five (25} cenfis tier hour,

c. Be~innin~.on luly 1, 2015 the UW and SSW base wage schedule will increase Envan additional twenty-five (251 cents per hour. and

d. Be~innin,~ on July 1, 201E.the UW and SSW base wage schedule will increase byan additional twenty-five X25) cents per hour.

Page 1 of l

` ~T ~ LEONAitD CAKDER, L~~P1330 Bmad~~%av_ Smite id~~3

~ Oakland, CA 94512~PRE'SI.~]TING UAII(tNS.~4RI~RS. AND BENF3?iT Pid~N3 'Tslephonc_ (510) 27?.-U1 b9

!'ax' (510) 272-Oi 74un+R1. lennarticarder. com

August 16 2U 13

Via Email (thamas.l~ock(a~veo~tatransdev.cc~m;DFaniel(i~bart.gov; VNuetze@bart.gov)Thomas P. HockChief Negotiator, BART300 Lake~ic~e Drive, P.O. Box 126b8Oakland, CA 946Q~-2688

ate: Your Letter cif August: l~, 201

Mr. Hock:

On behalf of our respective clients, v~-e a~~e responding to your separate letters oftodav to S~,I~~`Local 1021 and ATU Local 1555 demanding ghat Chet' present the District's latest proposals totheir n~en~bers for a vote. The Unions arc nc~l required to do so, ~nr~ for the reasons that followdecline t~ do ~o.

To begin ~~~ith, we must correct two serious misstatements in your letter. First, tie District'sso-ealled "final cairaprehensive" proposal ~~vas presented t~ the Unions on Saturday- night,August 1 ~. not. August 3, as your letter states. Second, you write that at the tune the proposal_~s~as made, it was "cleaY•1}~ stated" that the District "would expect that the eomprel~ensivepackage would be presented to your members for a vote." Nothing could be further ~fronl thetruth. As anyone, including the mediator, who eras present that night cau clearly xecall, youwere specifically queried about wh_y the District used tihe term "final comprehensive" todescribe its proposal, and u~ response you pointedly steered clear of saying that this was a "last.hest a~ld real offer" that the District expected to be brought to a vote. ~1Jhai you did say wasthat the District still had some flexibility, but that in its view the Unions had not movedsufficiently ~o use that tlexibility. Tlie Unions stated that they would consider the proposal alydres~~ond to it. They also requested costing information, which you promised would be.fprthcoming. The fallowing day, BAR"I~'s yvebsite accused the UnYons of walking out of'bargaining without countering the District's ofFer c~i~tl~e night bet~ore — a false and self-servingaccusation to be sure, but one which is wholly inco7~sistent with your belated characterization01~ the District's proposal as a last, b~sl and final offer. Now, just six days later, with nointervening discussions, no further infornlation, and just as the parties are actively reschedulingbargaining through the mediators, 3rou seek to abo~•t the entire process.

Exhibit C

~t~irH O~trEs c; S.~v Fx.~~cisco ~+~D O~h-n

Thomas HockAugust 1 b, 2013Page 2

~resent7n~ the Uniona with a last best and final offer, as you only no4v ire effect characterize it,is a blatant unfair labor practice. Given the nature of the mediation process, the movemel~t inbargaining, and the paucity of face icy face negotiations to date, the parties are far frombargaining impasse. Y'nux sudden attempt to declare impasse, as when you write that"ezlgaging in ongoing ar further discussions would nc~t be fruitful unless or until" the t~~nionsbring the latest set cif proposals to their nlernbers for a vote, therefore constitutes a violation ofthe District's continuing obligation to meet and b~u-gain with the Unions in good faith.

On August 4, 20l 3, the District wrote Governor Brown requesting that he seek a cooling off`period under Section 3612 of the California Government Code: "This would allow us toconti~iue negotiating v~~~ule assuring the public that it ~~ill have transit ser~~ice tomorrow and foranother 6Ci days as we continue to bargain." Apparezltly, the District is now repudiating thiscommitment by refusing to bargain. In so doing, ii is in violation of the Court's August 11injune~ion. As the Attozne~r General emphasised in seeking ~laai injunction, and as co~ltirmedon the record at the hearing nn At~gus~ l 1, "the only function which such an injunction mayserve is io maintain the status duo as it existed before the actual or threatened strike or lock-out." 1n this case, the Unions notified the District of their intent to strike on August ],and thestatus quo vn and before that date wa.s refleoted in the Mediaioz's Agreement of July 4, whichrequired the parties to meet, with fills release time for bargaining team members, and whichprohibited last, best, final offers. V~~ith your letters of today, and the District's recentelimination of full release tirr~e fax bargair~n~ tearri members, the District is plainly i~ vi~~lationof the August l l Order.

'For these reasons, and in order to avoid the necessity of legal recourse, we ask that. yUu rescindthe letters sent today. nn August 13, the State mediator vv~~ote the parties to Schedule abargaining date on August 22 or August 23. The [lnion negotiato~~s immediately respondedindicating their availability nu August 22. Tlie Uiuons are still prepared to meet on that date,and hereby request that the District provide release time for their bargaining teams August 20-Au~ust 22, so that they may caucus among there' sel~~~s ou August 20-21 prior to meeting wii„hthe District next Tl~ursday.

Please respond. to leis letter by 12:00 noon, Monda~r, Au~u~~ 1 .

ink you.

x~e~rely,

LEONARL) CARDER LLP

r ; , ~~ - ~_Peter SaltzmanAttorneys for ATLI Loc~11555

'1'j~c~mas HackAugust l6, 213Page 2

"V~'EINBERG, I~UGER & KOSENF'ELD~~ A Prc~fessiorzal Corporation

]3y: ~n Hatringion :~Attorneys for SEIU Local 1021:

~c: Antanelte Brr~ant.losie i~~Cc~oneyJoin ArhanTes

B ART SAN ~~ANCISCO BAY AREA BAPIII TRAWSI~' DISTRICT30D Lakeside Drive, P.q. Box 12688Oakland, CA 94604-2688(510 464-6000

2013 Augusf 20, 2013

Via E-MailTam RedulovichPRESIDENT

Petex ~attzman Esq.,~~~ ~~~er Leonard Carder4tCEPRESIDENT~~~0 Broadway, Suitte 1454GraceCruniesn

(iENERAt MANAGER Oakland, CA 94612

Re: District's final OfferDIRECTQHS

Gail Murray ~~~T ~T. ~~ItZITi~II:1ST OISTBtCT

Joel Keller This is in response to your ~arrespondence of August 1 &, 2013.2ND 018TBICT

Rebecca Saltzman First you are earrect that the ffnal offer was presented to ATU and SBIIJ3Ao msm~cr p~ August 10 and not ~1.ugust 3, 2Q i 3. We apologize for that error.Robert Ra6um4TH DISTRICT

John Me~artiand ~ SeCo1~d, when that offer was presented across the table I clearly stated6'fN OISTNICT that it was a final t~ffer. The written t~f~er itself indicated that it is a final offer.~nomas nn. siabr~, P.E. Mr. H2Gr;rington asked a number of specific questions about the nature oftheBTH OlStfltC'F offer. I confizmed that the offex was the District's final offer and that I was notzakhary Mallett fauthorized to increase the economic offer any further. The District s position7THD~T8ICT

was clearly stated to tk~e Unions and based on that clearlq expressed position thatJames Fanga~x o~srn~cr I suggested in my Augustl.6th correspondence that the offer be presented to yourlam Radulovidi members for a vote.8TN DISTRICT

The District's actions are wholly consistent with the Court's August 11order. That order ~nnerely requires that fihe parties maintain the status quo, i.e. nostrike or ~ockouC. There is nothing in that order tha# requires the District tocontinue to provide full time paid release or that specifies any xequired meefiu~gschedule.

t~1e, again, urge you to treat our offer as what it is, a final offer.

Very truly yours,

t4~; ~,~~Thomas ocChief Negotiator

cc: Vin Harrington, Esq.

Di v hart.gov Exhibit D