Cover letter: Summary of TriMet's Bargaining Interests and Proposals

Memorandum
To:
From:
ATU Bargaining Team
TriMet Bargaining Team
Date: November 30, 2012 [Updated 01-29-13]
Subject:
Summary of TriMet’s Bargaining Interests and Proposals
This memorandum is a courtesy communication intended first to convey the District’s interests that cause the District to
offer proposed changes to the current collective bargaining agreement between the parties. Second, this memorandum
is intended to give a summary explanation of the actual contract proposals that are shown in the attached red-lined
version of current contract. The red-lined contract contains the District’s actual bargaining proposals. In the event of
any conflict between the summary below and the red-lined contract, the red-lined version shall control.
This memo is organized into four sections: 1) substantive proposals; 2) housekeeping proposals; 3) permissive subjects
of bargaining as to which we are providing the ATU notice that the District is exercising its unilateral discretion to have
these items removed from the successor agreement; and 4) side letters the District wishes to bring forward. In the first
three sections, proposed changes are listed in the order found in the contract that expires on November 30, 2012.
Proposal # 1: Article I, Section 1 – Term of Agreement
1. SUBSTANTIVE PROPOSALS
Par. 1. Effective Date. The District proposes an agreement effective through November 30, 2015. The District is
proposing prospective application of its proposals. The District proposes that the effective date be the first of the
month following ratification by both parties or upon an award of contract pursuant to interest arbitration, whichever
is applicable.
[NEW] Par. 2. Notice of Opening. The District proposes that either party may give notice of opening (demand to
bargain) in February of the year in which the contract expires. If notice of opening is given, the District further
proposes that the 150-day bargaining period commence by mutual agreement on the first working day in March,
whether or not proposals actually have been exchanged.
The District believes that the parties’ relationship will be improved if resolution of successor contract negotiations
occurs prior to expiration of the current contract and if neither party is able to lengthen the time to achieve
resolution by delaying the exchange of initial proposals.
Proposal # 2: Article I, Section 3 – Adjustment of Grievances & Arbitration
The District proposes a new three-step grievance process, which preserves the option for expedited arbitration. The
District proposes to use a common process for both discipline and non-discipline grievances.
[OLD] Par. 1-2. The District proposes to delete these paragraphs and replace them with the following:
[NEW] Par. 1. Definition; Reciprocal Rights. The District proposes that a grievance be defined as an alleged violation
of the express terms of this Agreement, which may be filed by an employee, on behalf of an employee by the
Association, or by the District.
1

[NEW] Par. 2. Association; Disciplinary Grievances . The District proposes that we use a common process for both
discipline and non-discipline grievances, but that disciplinary grievances and grievances filed by the Association on
behalf of an employee (and, reciprocally, those filed by the District), start at Step 2.
[NEW] Par. 3. Grievance Steps. The District proposes three steps in the grievance process, a new grievance form,
and elimination of “binding” panel decisions, which the Association has refused to recognize as binding.
The District believes it is time to revise the grievance process due to the extraordinary number of grievances filed
each year by the Association and its members when considered together with the very small percentage of
grievances sustained after arbitration; the excessive drain on District resources to process the number of grievances
files; the lack of acknowledgement by the ATU of a reciprocal right of the District to grieve contract violations by the
ATU violation of the contract; refusal by the ATU to utilize a grievance form that adequately gives the District notice
as to which provisions of the Agreement are being grieved; and the ATU’s insistence upon moving grievances to
arbitration despite clarity in the contract that the Step III Grievance Panel’s decision is binding, yet refusing to give
the District a similar right.
[NEW] Par 4. Limitations. The District proposes that only grievances related to discipline or an alleged violation of a
provision of this Agreement be submitted to arbitration and that the arbitrator have no power to add to, subtract
from, or change, modify or amend any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement.
[NEW] Par. 8. Mid-Term Bargaining. The District proposes that the parties “zip up” the contract to avoid additional
mid-term collective bargaining, except as otherwise mutually agreed by the parties.
The District’s financial condition is perilous. Consequently, the parties’ relationship has become tumultuous. The
District believes the parties would benefit by mid-term stability and predictability as to mandatory subjects of
bargaining.
Proposal # 3: Article I, Section 4 – Discipline
Par. 1. The District proposes the parties define discipline to include Warning Letters, Letters of Reprimand,
Demotion, and Suspension and Discharge (excepting that the District may enter into a last chance agreement in lieu
of Discharge). The District also proposes the parties acknowledge Counseling Letters and Letters of Expectation are
not disciplinary and may not be grieved. The District further proposes that pre-discipline representation of an
employee not be at the District’s expense.
Par. 6. The District proposes the same grievance process be used for grieving discipline as for other grievances.
Under the District’s proposal, disciplinary grievances begin at Step 2. The District believes there is no need for a
separate process.
Proposal # 4: Article I, Section 7 – Vacations
Par. 3(i). The District proposes a “ten over base” formula for determining additional weeks of vacation during the
summer.
Due to the large number of staff reductions in recent years, 65 additional vacation weeks is too many.
Par. 3(o). Under both FMLA and OFLA, the employer may require employees to take concurrent paid leave in a
specified order. Consequently, the District will require that sick leave be taken first.
Proposal # 5: Article I, Section 9 – Health & Welfare Benefits
2

Par. 1. Medical, Hospital, Prescription Drug, Dental, and Vision.
Par. 1(a). Medical, Hospital, Prescription Drug, Dental, and Vision. Subject to other proposed changes below,
the District proposes that the District pay 94% of the premium cost for each tier of coverage: single, single + 1,
single + children, and family coverage. The District further proposes that insurance plans offered to association
members be the same Regence and Kaiser plans (with the same employee deductibles, co-pays, and out-ofpockets
expenses) as offered to non-union employees as of November 30, 2012 (see plan summaries attached to
the contract). In order to comply with existing insurance contract requirements, if an active employee or their
eligible dependent(s) become Medicare eligible for any reason, including disability, the member must enroll in
and maintain Medicare parts A & B insurance coverage as soon as they become Medicare eligible. In such cases,
TriMet shall reimburse the employee the actual costs of the Medicare B monthly premium for the member
enrolled in Medicare. Finally, the District proposes to change the title of the paragraph to reflect modern
terminology regarding lines of coverage.
As described by Arbitrator Gaba, active and retiree healthcare costs continue to be the “two-headed Siamese twin
elephant” in the room that, unless acknowledged and addressed, eventually will result in TriMet’s insolvency.
Should that occur, the impact to employees and retirees no doubt would be similar to the situations now being
experienced by employees in City of Vallejo, San Bernardino, Mammoth Lakes, and other California cities.
TriMet’s unfunded OPEB liability, now over $900 million, is growing rapidly. Moreover, TriMet’s share of
providing active employee health care under the Regence plan is over 50% higher than coverage provided by our
peer transit agencies to their represented employees. Even the Regence 90/10 plan implemented September 1,
2012, pursuant to the interest arbitration award is a gold-plated, Cadillac plan. The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act defines “Cadillac plans” and it imposes an excise tax for health plans that will exceed a
premium cost of $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage in 2018. The tax is equal to 40%
of plan value that exceeds the threshold amounts. The union PPO plan already exceeds these thresholds. Based
upon the initial premiums quote, we expect the 2013 Regence 90/10 individual premium to be $10,823 and family
coverage to be $30,659. That does not include dental, nor does it account for premium escalation between now
and 2018. We expect the excise tax will cost TriMet between $6 and $7 million in 2018, which we cannot afford.
TriMet believes there is a great benefit to having all employees on the same healthcare plan and contributing the
same amount toward coverage. The same plan means management and labor’s interests are aligned. TriMet also
believes this is fair considering that the average wage of TriMet’s non-union employees, including wages of
executives, is only about $10,000 a year more than the average of union employees, and that union employees
disproportionately utilize healthcare benefits.
The District does not carry separate “convalescence” coverage; this is outdated terminology. Similarly, “optical”
coverage now is referred to as “vision” coverage. The same change to terminology has been made to Article II,
Section 2 , Par. 9.
Par. 1(c)-[NEW](e). The District proposes that employees hired between February 1, 1992, through November 30,
2012, and those who have met the 10-year requirement for retirement prior to the effective date of this
agreement shall receive the same health and welfare benefits available to active employees. The District also
proposes that employees who meet the 10-year requirement on or after the effective date of the agreement will
be eligible upon retirement for single coverage until age 65 with the District paying 50% of the cost. As of
September 9, 2012, 62% of active union members meet the 10-year requirement and so would not be affected by
this proposal.
The District also proposes that employees and dependents must enroll in Medicare insurance when they are
eligible for any reason, including disability.
3

Par. 1(f) Mini-Run Operator Coverage & Article II, Section 2, Par. 9. The District proposes that the District pay
90% of the premium cost for each tier of coverage: single, single + 1, single + children, and family coverage under
the 80/20 Regence and Kaiser plans offered to non-union employees as of November 30, 2012 (see plan summary
attached to the contract). The District also proposes that this formula apply to MRO employees in training for
light rail.
The parties’ current practice does not follow the current language of paying 100% for the employee + “75% of the
family premium cost.” The awkwardness of the language is susceptible to multiple interpretations. In actuality, if
a MRO employee has any dependents, they pay about 13% of a composite rate under the predecessor contract.
Par. [NEW] 1(g). Dual coverage; Waiver of Coverage. The District proposes to allow employees or retirees to
waive coverage upon hire or during open enrollment if they can certify medical coverage under another medical
plan, including Medicare. Employees or retirees who waive eligible coverage shall receive $250 monthly as
taxable income, as appropriate. The District also proposes to eliminate dual coverage of active employees, or
their dependents and thus, by extension, retirees.
Employees, particularly MRO employees, may wish to decline our benefit coverage because, as part-time
employees, they may find coverage is too expensive. Because waiving coverage saves the District money, it is
willing to pay an incentive of $250 monthly. Should an employee or retiree lose coverage under another plan
sponsor, they must inform the District and will no longer qualify for the incentive. They will be allowed to reenroll
in the District’s plans for which they are eligible.
Currently, non-union employees can waive coverage, and we are proposing to align the medical benefits of union
and non-union employees. There is a significant amount of dual coverage at TriMet, particularly where a husband
and wife are both covered individually. Dual coverage is costly, whether in a fully insured or self-insured
environment. The cost of dual coverage comes largely from three areas: 1) premiums; fixed fees such as
administration and stop loss (self-insured); and 3) deductibles.
Par. [NEW] 1(h). Benefits Eligibility Hours Requirement (“BEHR”). The District proposes to implement a
quarterly requirement of 240 hours (144 hours for MRO) comprised of all paid hours and all unpaid hours while
on statutory leave in order to continue employee eligibility for healthcare coverage and the District’s contribution
to such coverage.
Currently, employees can be off work for a year without being on protected leave and still receive all their
benefits with premiums paid in full by TriMet. Under this proposal, if an employee fails to meet the required
hours, s/he will lose coverage at the end of the quarter. Once the employee again meets the quarterly hours
requirement, coverage will be reinstated at the beginning of the following quarter. The employee will be eligible
for COBRA coverage at the employee’s expense while ineligible for employee coverage.
[OLD] Par. 2. Benefits Coordinator. The District proposes no longer to pay the union to retain a Benefits
Coordinator. The District has sufficient benefits personnel to answer questions regarding all benefits it offers to
employees, making this is an unnecessary expense.
The District pays $1,500 a month to the Association for this position. Evidence in the 2012 interest arbitration
established that the Associations pays a retainer of $900 a month in part to obtain benefits consulting expertise
under this contract provision.
In addition, upon information and belief, the Association has used the funds for the Benefits Coordinator in a manner
that is illegal under PECBA and the Oregon Constitution. At the interest arbitration, the evidence introduced was that
the Association has used the Benefits Coordinator to obtain technical expertise for purposes of evaluating the
District’s benefits proposals and testifying in opposition to the District’s Last Best Offer. Using the District-funded
4

union Benefits Coordinator in this manner means the District is paying the Association to provide testimony against
the District’s interest. This violates PECBA and the State of Oregon Constitution because it constitutes impermissible
assistance in the “formation, existence, or administration” of the union under ORS 243.672(1)(b). City of Portland, 8
PECBR 8115, 8121 (1985). This provision also violates the Oregon Constitution because public funds must be
expended for a public purpose. See Carruthers v. Port of Astoria, 249 Or. 392 (1968). The District cannot expend
funds to underwrite the ATU obtaining consulting expertise used by the ATU to further its own interests at the
expense of the District’s interests.
Proposal # 6: Article I, Section 15 – Safety and Health
Section Heading & Par. 2. The District proposes to clarify the section heading by adding “& Health.” The District also
proposes to add the word “vocational” in Par. 2 for purposes of clarification.
[NEW] Par. 3. Hours of Service Policy and Procedures
Par. 3(a)-(c). The District proposes to incorporate the April 2000 Hours of Service MOU into the body of the
collective bargaining agreement.
Par. 3(b). The District proposes to add Track Maintainer to the list of job classifications affected.
Par. 3 (c). The District proposes to limit the number of hours a safety sensitive employee may work within a
service day. The District is proposes to move to 10 consecutive hours of rest from seven (also applies to Par. 3(d))
and define the seven-day period as a rolling seven-day period. The District also proposes to associate
unnumbered text with sub-paragraph (5).
Par. 3(d). The District proposes to incorporate ODOT’s definition of a 24-hour day under OAR 741-060-0020
pursuant to the District’s notice to employees dated October 31, 2011. The District is proposes to move to 10
consecutive hours of rest from seven (also applies to Par. 3(c)(1).
Par. 3(e). The District proposes that the on-duty Station Agent be responsible for ensuring compliance with Hours
of Service limitations.
Par. 3(f). The District proposes that the Hours-of-Service requirements may be waived by the Executive Director
of Operations in emergency situations.
Par. 3(g). The District proposes to incorporate into the agreement the substance of communication to ATU from
WES Director Jeff Lowe on August 18, 2008, that Commuter Rail Vehicle Maintenance Technicians and Assistant
Supervisors are subject to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Hours-of-Service regulations.
Par. 3(h). The District proposes that the parties acknowledge that Par. 3 is subject to FRA and/or FTA regulations,
which may compel changes to Hours of Service requirements.
Proposal # 7: Article I, Section 19 – Other Provisions
[NEW] Par. 10(b). Child Care/Elder Assistance Program. The District proposes to continue making annual payments
of $55,000 annually, but only when the balance is $100,000 or less on the date a payment is due. As of March 31,
2012, the balance of the fund was in excess of $400,000.
Proposal # 8: Article I, [NEW] Section 20 – Emergency Operations
The District proposes to add a new section in the agreement that incorporates the Emergency Operations side letter.
The District also proposes to delete the requirement that the District and the Association jointly develop and agree in
5

writing on operating protocols prior to implementation in an emergency. The nature of emergency responses make
the type of collaboration described impractical and puts public safety at risk.
Proposal # 9: Article II, Section 1 – Operators
Par. 1. General.
Par. 1(c). The District proposes to increase from 5% to 10% the number of straight runs involving the Operator
changing vehicles on Sunday in order to provide greater operating efficiency.
Par. 1(m). The District proposes to eliminate Operators trading and signing into pass-up situations in order to
ensure it has sufficient Operators available to provide scheduled service.
Par. 5. Overtime.
[NEW] Par. 5(g). The District proposes to make mandatory the current voluntary practice of having Operators attend
8 hours of training annually on their regular day off, which would be paid at their regular overtime rate.
Par. 6. Off Duty.
Par. 6(f). The District proposes to change the minimum number of available openings at each facility to a 1
opening per 50 Operator formula for registering to be off duty. The existing fixed number of opening is
impractical in light of reduced services that have occurred in recent years.
Par. 9 Other Provisions.
Par. 9(a). The District proposes to delete references to vehicles that do not require the same type of training that
is required to operate vehicles involved in the District’s core business.
Par. 10. Extra Board Rules.
Assigning Work (6). The District proposes to clarify that “specials” and “extras” are accorded the same treatment.
Report Operators (11). The District proposes that the next report Operator up for work that has been cut off in
the a.m., will be brought back first as opposed to specifying that they will be brought in by 11:00 a.m. The District
also proposes to correct awkward language in this provision.
Report Operators (13). The District proposes to simplify the provision by having reporting Operators receive
actual time in all situations rather than units of time, which is less accurate.
Pass-Ups [NEW] (23). This is the same change as proposed for Art. II, Section 1, Par. 1(m) precluding Operators
from signing in to a “pass up” situation.
Penalties (29). The District proposes to clarify existing language that changes to assignments to comply with
hours of service requirements are not to be considered as error.
General (34). The District proposes that the phrase “at least” be added to properly convey the parties’ intent
regarding how far in advance an Operator must call in before being penalized for a road relief or a garage sign-up.
General [OLD] (38). The District proposes to delete obsolete language regarding special consideration given to
Extra Station Agents, Extra Supervisors, and Bus Operators when assigned to any overtime.
6

General [NEW] (51). The District proposes to move the first sentence of Article II, Section 9, Par. 11 to item 51 as
an additional Extra Board rule and to clarify the use of operators sent out as extra service to fill open work is
according to existing practices.
Par. 11. Extra Service.
[OLD] Par. 11(a). The District proposes to delete this provision and move it to a new Par. 10, General (51), with
the clarification as stated therein.
[NEW] Par. 11. The District proposes that Operators working extra service shall receive an 8-hour guarantee and
will be relieved at the District's discretion.
Proposal # 10: Article II, Section 3 – Station Agents/Clerks
Par. 5. The District proposes to fill the Chief Station Agent by selection rather than by sign-up. This classification is
the only Operations Division “lead” position that is filled by seniority rather than by selection/appointment.
Proposal # 11: Article II, [NEW] Section 9 – Attendance/Time Loss – Transportation
The District proposes to add a new section relating to attendance/time loss provision that aligns with the
Maintenance Department’s attendance/time loss policies. The District also proposes to delete Side Letter – Time
Loss Notification.
This proposal lowers the Step 1 counseling threshold from 90 hours to 40 hours (55 to 24 for PTOs) and lowers the
Step 2 warning letter threshold from 110 hours to 64 hours (70 to 38 for PTOs). In addition, because the District is
proposing to incorporate this issue into the main body of the agreement, the Side Letter regarding Time Loss
Notification is no longer needed.
Proposal # 12: Article III, Section 2 – Filling of Positions
Par. 8(a)-(h). Assistant Supervisor. The District proposes to consolidate language related to Assistant Supervisors,
making the provision applicable to Bus, Rail, and Facilities Assistant Supervisor provisions. The District also proposes
to change the assistant supervisor premium from 115% to 110% of the journey worker rate for employees who
become assistant supervisor on or after the effective date of this agreement. The District also proposes that
Assistant Supervisors perform journey-level work in addition to their Assistant Supervisor duties without any caveat,
making clear they are working supervisors.
Par. 9. Service Worker. The District proposes to eliminate Service Worker premium pay for job functions within the
helper classification.
This relates to settlement of grievance #6184. The intent behind creating the Service Worker classification was to
lower the cost for employees hired after July 1, 2004. This was to be accomplished by a lower wage and no premium
pay.
Proposal # 13: Article III, Section 5 – Allowances
Par. 3. For new hires after the contract’s effective date, the District proposes to purchase a full set of tools for the
apprentices and provisional Journeyworkers.
The District does not believe employees should have to purchase a full set of tools, which can cost in excess of
$6,000. Under this proposal, ownership of the tools would transfer to the employee once the employee completes
the training program. Consequently, such employees would not receive an hourly tool allowance.
7

Par. 4. The District proposes to provide an overalls allowance in the same manner as it provides the uniform
allowance to Transportation employees, pursuant to Article II, Section 7.
Par. 5. The District proposes to provide the same allowance to Journeyworkers who train Provisional Journeyworkers
as it does for training Apprentices.
Proposal # 14 Article III, [OLD] Section 6 – Night Shifts
Par. 1-2. The District proposes to eliminate pay differentials and paid lunches for night shifts.
Proposal # 15: Article III, [NEW] Section 6 – Maintenance Journeyworker Classifications
The District proposes to add a new section to the Agreement related to Journeyworker classifications in the
Maintenance Department.
Par. 1. The District proposes that this section will apply to Bus, Light Rail, and Facilities Maintenance departments.
Par. 2. The District proposes that there be 10 journey level classifications, including “A” and “B” Bus and LRV
Mechanics.
Par. 3. The District proposes to “grandfather” existing Journeyworkers to the “A” classification.
Par. 4. The District proposes “B” Mechanic classifications primarily will perform preventive maintenance inspections
and perform vehicle adjustments, servicing and repairs within the scope of their “B” Mechanic training.
Par. 5. The District proposes that the number of “B” Mechanics be less than the number of “A” Mechanics.
Par. 6. The District proposes that the “B” Mechanics be eligible for the tool and longevity allowances and that there
be no bidding back and forth between the “A” and “B” classifications.
Par. 7. The District proposes to fill Journeyworkers in Maintenance from either the ranks of Provisional
Journeyworkers or from the ranks of Apprentices, except for Light Rail Track Maintainer positions, which will be filled
only by Trainees who complete a District Light Rail Track Maintainer Trainee program.
Par. 8. The District proposes a consolidated Mechanic seniority provision that applies to all Journeyworker
classifications. In addition, the District proposes to change from 6 months to 3 months the Article III, Section 15, Par.
8 provision giving Trainees and Apprentices the right to return to their previous classification without loss of
seniority.
Par. 9. The District proposes that it may conduct cross training for employees in light rail maintenance functions.
Proposal # 16: Article III, [NEW] Section 7 – Provisional Journeyworker Programs
Section 7, Par. 1-7. The District proposes to add a new section to the Agreement related to the direct hire of
Provisional Journeyworkers from outside the District in a manner similar to other transit agencies.
In addition to the benefits of acquiring skilled craft personnel previously unavailable to the District because of past
practices, such hires will help reduce OPEB costs because they will be eligible for less generous retiree health benefits
than provided to currently active employees. They also will participate in the slightly less costly, but fully funded,
defined contribution plan implemented August 1, 2012.
8

Proposal # 17: Article III, [NEW] Section 8 – Mechanic Apprenticeship Program
Par. 1-5. The District proposes new language regarding the Mechanic Apprenticeship Program, including a new
section title and consolidation of program provisions. The District also proposes that Journeyworkers may not enter
a new apprentice program until after 10 years as a Journeyworker in their existing craft. The District also proposes
application tests be changed to qualification tests about acquired knowledge from aptitude tests. The District further
proposes that employees on time loss or on discipline status not be eligible for the apprenticeship program.
Proposal # 18: Article III, Section 10 – Maintenance Department Assistance Fund; Warranty Work
Par. 1. The District proposes to simplify and consolidate the Maintenance Department contracting out provisions
and warranty work provisions and clarify that the section applies to Bus Maintenance, Rail Equipment Maintenance,
and Rail Maintenance of Way operations.
Par. 2. The new language proposed is pursuant to the November 21, 1996 pre-arbitration agreement.
[NEW] Par. 3. The District proposes to streamline the language to state simply that employees will not be laid off
solely as a result of contracting out work.
[NEW] Par. 4. Warranty Work. The District proposes that warranty work will be done by District employees when
qualified, unless work performed by District mechanics violates the vendor warranty.
This proposal reflects established practice.
Proposal # 19: Article III, [OLD] Section 11 and [OLD] 12– LRT Maintenance Vehicle Mechanics’ Training; LRT Vehicle
Mechanics’ Seniority
[OLD] Section 11, Par. 1-3; Section [OLD] 12, Par. 1. The District proposes to delete these paragraphs because these
provisions are incorporated into proposed new Article III, Sections 6-8. The District also proposes to delete old
Section 12, which is incorporated into proposed new Article III, Section 6, Par. 8.
Proposal # 20: Article III, [NEW] Section 13 – Operation of LRVs by Engineers and/or Mechanics
Par. 1-7. The District proposes to delete most of Pars. 1-7, which are now incorporated into new Article III, Section
10, Par. 4. The District proposes to rename the heading since the remaining language relates to Operation of LRVs by
Engineers and/or Mechanics.
Proposal # 21: Article III, [OLD] Section 15 – LRT Apprenticeship Training Programs
Par. 1-11. The District proposes to delete all of Pars. 1-9 because the training provisions have been replaced by
proposed new Article III Sections 6-8. The District also proposes to delete Pars. 10-11 because the tool allowance
provisions are incorporated into new Article III, Section 5, Par. 3, including the tool allowance provision for Field
Equipment Technicians, pursuant to a February 10, 2009 MOU.
Proposal # 22: Article III, [NEW] Section 18 – Attendance/Time Loss – Maintenance
The District proposes to incorporate existing Maintenance Department attendance/time loss practices into the main
body of the agreement with the exception that the District also proposes to lower the Step 1 threshold from 80 hours
to 40 hours, and the Step 2 threshold from 104 hours to 64 hours.
Proposal # 23: Article V, Section 1 – Purchasing Department
Par. 2. The District proposes that the Buyer position be filled by qualified applicants from within the District wide
represented workforce rather than solely from Stores positions. In recent years, there have been too few Stores
9

positions from which to build an adequate candidate pool. The District also proposes there be a 90-day probationary
period.
Proposal # 24: [NEW] Article VIII – Commuter Rail (formerly MOU related to Wilsonville – Beaverton Commuter Rail)
The District proposes to incorporate the MOU related to Wilsonville – Beaverton Commuter Rail into the main body
of the agreement, making it Article VIII, and changing the format of the MOU to match the rest of the agreement.
The District also proposes to make certain other housekeeping changes as described below.
In moving the MOU into the Agreement, we have not shown resulting formatting changes and insertion of existing
MOU language as new. That is because we wanted to highlight the housekeeping changes to existing MOU language
that the District proposes, as well as identify the permissive subjects of bargaining discussed in Section 3 of the
memorandum.
[NEW] Section 2, Par. 3. (formerly Appendix A - Transfer from Commuter Rail Department). The District proposes
to add the abbreviation “QMP” to shorten subsequent references in the MOU to the “Qualified Passenger Equipment
Maintenance Person” position.
[NEW] Section 3, Par. 2. Seniority. The District proposes to adopt contract language that is in accord with existing
practice.
The parties have long understood that employees in the Commuter Rail Vehicles Technician and Assistant Supervisor
classification are granted seniority upon the occurrence of two events: 1) being qualified as a QMP; and 2) one year
of service a QMP. The intent of the proposed change is that employees who select a Commuter Rail Vehicles
Technician position for their initial training and qualification may leave Commuter Rail prior to meeting these
conditions only with the mutual agreement of the District and the ATU. TriMet believes this is consistent with the
MOU dated February 14, 2008.
[NEW] Section 3, Par. 3. Return to Department After Transfer from Department. The District proposes to allow
transfers back without waiting a year when there is an open position and filling it does not result in bumping an
employee working in the Commuter Rail Department who has not yet received one calendar year of service.
This workgroup has a relatively small number of personnel, and the District is concerned about excessive personnel
churn.
[NEW] Section 4 (formerly Appendix B – WWA Modifications)
Par. 1(c). The District proposes to incorporate the MOU dated February 14, 2008, and subsequent arbitration
award on grievance # 7387, dated July 25, 2011. The arbitration decision held that no more than one (1)
Commuter Rail Vehicle Maintenance Technician or Assistant Supervisor, Commuter Rail Department per shift
may take vacation or floating holiday on the same date(s), except as otherwise stated in Appendix B.
Note: Par. 1(a). References to “do not apply” provisions need to be changed based upon proposals adopted.
Proposal # 25: [NEW] Article IX – Pay and Classification
[NEW] Section 1. Wage Rate Adjustment. The District proposes a fixed 2% annual wage increase for the term of the
agreement. The District also proposes moving this provision, which used to be titled “Operations Division” to the
beginning of the Article before the pay schedules.
10

A 2% wage increase is very competitive with the wage increases ATU has negotiated with comparable transit
agencies during 2012. The District has an interest in keeping wages at a level competitive with comparable transit
agencies so as to attract and retain a productive and capable workforce. As established at the interest arbitration in
2012, the District’s turnover rate is exceptionally low and applicant flow for available positions is very high.
Moreover, in relation to comparable transit agencies, the District’s current base wages are very competitive with its
comparator transit agencies. In addition, all of TriMet’s comparator transit agencies have abandoned cost of living
increases based upon CPI in favor of negotiated fixed percentage increases.
Proposal # 26: [NEW] Article IX – Pay Schedules
The District proposes a separate pay rate for the new Journeyworker “B” classifications in Bus Maintenance and Rail
Equipment Maintenance, which are proposed under Proposal 15.
The District proposes a separate pay rate for the new “Provisional Journeyworker” classifications for direct hires from
outside the District, proposed under Proposal 16. The District proposes a single 6-month step progression for
Provisional Journeyworkers.
Changes to the pay schedules related to the District’s proposals are labeled as such in the pay schedule tables.
Proposal # 27: [NEW] Article X – Pension Plan and Permanent Disability Agreement
Section II. Permanent Disability. The District proposes to replace the existing in-house permanent disability
provision with a fully insured long-term disability product with standard term that includes a benefit of 60% of predisability
earnings, reduced by deductible income and subject to a cap and a 90-day elimination period.
Proposal # 28: Active Employee Health Benefits Summary
Consistent with the District’s Article I, Section 9, Par. 1 proposal, the District proposes to pay 94% of the premium for
regular employees, 90% for MRO employees.
The District proposes to incorporate the Pension Plan and Permanent Disability Agreement into the main body of the
Agreement as Article IX, but retain the Active Employee Health Benefits Summary as a separate addendum.
Proposal # 29: MOU Supplemental Working and Wage Agreement by and between Tri-County Metropolitan
Transportation District of Oregon and Division 757, Amalgamated Transit Union Related to Portland Streetcar Special
Project
Par. 8. Seniority. The District proposes to add all of the relevant Street Car positions and also proposes that
Streetcar seniority be conditioned both upon completing the initial commitment and training.
Par. 11. Back-up Operator Duties. The District proposes to incorporate the existing practice related to the "Flex
Operator" to the Portland Streetcar Supplemental WWA.
Par. 12(a)-(c). Transfers to or from Streetcar Department. The District proposes to reflect that transfer opportunity
(including the initial such opportunity following fulfillment of the initial commitment) is once annually at the next
following Spring service change signup. This reflects existing practices for Operators and Superintendents; it is
reflected in the 6/26/12 Supplemental WWA amendment re: Streetcar Track Maintainer and Signals Maintainer. The
District further proposes that the transfer privilege is subject to neither being on time loss status nor having other
pending discipline actions.
Par. 13. Grievances. The District proposes to align this language with the District’s grievance proposal contained in
Article I, Section 3.
11

Note: Appendix A, 4. References to “inapplicable” provisions need to be changed based upon proposals
adopted.
2) HOUSEKEEPING PROPOSALS
Housekeeping Proposal # 1: Article I, Section 1 – Term of Agreement
[NEW] Par. 3. Severability . The District proposes to use the term “this Agreement” consistently throughout the
contract in referring the collective bargaining agreement between the parties.
[OLD] Par. 3. The District proposes to delete this provision, which is obsolete.
Housekeeping Proposal # 2: Article I, Section 9 – Health & Welfare Benefits
Par. 1. Medical, Hospital, Prescription Drug, Dental, and Vision. The District proposes to change the title of the
paragraph to reflect modern terminology. The District does not carry separate “convalescence” coverage; this is
outdated terminology. Similarly, “optical” coverage now is referred to as “vision” coverage.
Par. 1(d). TriMet proposes to delete obsolete language regarding the length of time coverage continues for surviving
spouses.
[OLD] Par. 3. Employee Assistance Program. The District proposes to delete this provision, which is obsolete
because the District’s obligation to make contributions to the fund ended in 2008. Pursuant to implementation of the
contract award by Arbitrator Gaba, the District has offered to transition employees to the District’s EAP program at
the District’s expense (The District recognizes the ATU views this proposal as substantive and that the ATU has filed a
ULP regarding on this issue).
[NEW] Par. 2(a). Group Life, AD&D, and Sickness Insurance. The District proposes to delete obsolete language
relating to retirees who retired prior to July 1, 1971, since there are no such retirees left.
[NEW] Par. 3(g). Sick Pay. The District proposes to delete language relating to doctor’s certificate stating the nature
of the employee’s illness. Language requiring a doctor’s certificate will remain, except as it relates to stating the
nature of the illness. The District believes that requesting the nature of the employee’s illness goes beyond what is
allowed by current 9 th Circuit case law.
[NEW] Par. 4(a). Workers’ Compensation. The District proposes to delete this provision. The language regarding
September 11, 1985 changes to workers’ compensation law is obsolete.
Housekeeping Proposal # 3: Article I, Section 12 – Continuous Service Definition and Section 17 – Modified Return to
Work
The District proposes to fulfill the parties’ agreement, made between Al Zullo and Mike Ford on or about June 6,
2003, regarding the settlement on the Deborah Shill, grievance # 5383, to “clarify the language, intent, and purpose
in resolving current and future interpretations of how this section will be applied.”
Section 12, Par. 2. The District proposes to add “or alternate work assignments” to light duty as time not worked in
the employee’s regular work assignment.
Section 17, Par. 1, 1(e), 1(f), 1(g). The District proposes to clarify that modified return to work means “light duty”
work. The District proposes to clarify that light duty work is considered as worked time for seniority purposes except
as it relates to continuity of service. The District proposes to clarify that light duty does not apply to the continuous
service definition for the purposes of the 12 months continuous service. An employee must work (30) calendar days
12

and have a full and complete release from his or her doctor to perform all duties in their regular assigned job without
restriction. Finally, the District proposes to delete Par. 1(f), which is an obsolete action item that has been satisfied.
Housekeeping Proposal # 4: Article I, Section 14 – Layoff
Par. 1-3. The District proposes to correct and clarify confusing existing language that is grammatically incorrect.
Housekeeping Proposal # 5: Article I, Section 19 – Other Provisions
Par. 1. Change Article VIII to Article IX.
Par. 4. Recreation Fund. The District proposes to delete this provision, which is obsolete because the District’s
obligation to make contributions to the fund ended in 2008 (The District recognizes the ATU views this proposal as
substantive and that the ATU has filed a ULP on this issue).
[OLD] Par. 7. The District proposes to delete obsolete language regarding lost and found items that is no longer
allowed under applicable law.
[NEW] Par. 9. The words “Section” and “benefit” are added to clarify that it is the District’s Section 125 benefit plan
in which employees are eligible to participate.
Par. 10(c). The District proposes to correct a typographical error, changes “an” to “a.”
[OLD] Par 13. Portland Activities Bus. The District proposes to delete this provision, which is obsolete. The Portland
activities bus program was ended in February 2009.
Housekeeping Proposal # 6: Article II, Section 1 – Operators
Par. 2(g). The District proposes to eliminate obsolete language regarding road relief.
Par. 9(h)-(i). The District proposes to delete these obsolete provisions; the District’s SIP policy has replaced the
former CSI policy/program.
Par. 12. Special Work. The District proposes to delete this obsolete language; the District no longer provides charter
or special work under FTA regulations.
Housekeeping Proposal # 7: Article II, Section 2 – Mini-Runs
Par. 11. The District proposes to delete this obsolete language regarding an experimental program no longer in
effect.
Housekeeping Proposal # 8: Article II, Section 6 – Fare Inspectors
Par. 1-3. The District proposes to delete obsolete language pursuant to an August 18, 2008, settlement agreement
under which openings for Fare Inspectors no longer are offered in this classification. Under the agreement, fare
inspection is a duty of the Road and Rail Supervisor classifications.
Housekeeping Proposal # 9: Article II, Section 7 – Uniforms; Article II, Section 8, Par. 7
Section 7, Par. 1-7; Section 8, Par. 7. The District proposes to incorporate existing practices that update, clarify, and
consolidate various provisions of the uniforms policy and existing practice. The deleted language in Par. 4 has been
incorporated into Par. 1. Language added to Par. 4 has been relocated from Article 2, section 8, Par. 7.
Housekeeping Proposal # 10: Article II, Section 8, Par. 2(b).
13

The District proposes to incorporate the side letter dated September 18, 2008, pursuant to which Cleveland Ave. was
added as a relief point with stated compensation of $6.00.
Housekeeping Proposal # 11: Article III, Section 1 – General
Par. 1. The District proposes to identify the functional areas that make up the Maintenance Department.
Par. 5. The District proposes to update obsolete language. The classification “maintenance helpers” has been
replaced by “service workers.”
Par. 6. The District proposes to delete this provision and consolidate provisions regarding warranty work into a single
section, Article III, Section 10.
Par. 7. The District proposes to update obsolete language. The District no longer has “stenographers.”
Housekeeping Proposal # 12: Article III, Section 2 – Filling of Positions
Par. 7. The District proposes to clarify that this paragraph, in accordance with existing practice, applies to bus
maintenance trainers since in REM and MOW, trainers are non-represented positions.
Housekeeping Proposal # 13: Article III, Section 4 – Layoffs
Par. 1(c). The District proposes to add the words “Bus and Light Rail” before Maintenance in accordance with
existing practice for purposes of clarification.
Housekeeping Proposal # 14: Article III, Section 5 – Allowances
Par. 1. The District proposes to incorporate August 21, 2001, and October 4, 2001, longevity pay clarification MOUs
into the body of the agreement.
Housekeeping Proposal # 15: Article III, Section 10 – Maintenance Department Assistance Fund; Warranty Work
[NEW] Par. 2. The District proposes to incorporate into the main body of the agreement the November 21, 1996,
grievance # 3473 pre-arbitration settlement, as upheld by the September 22, 2011, arbitration award regarding
Green Line grievances. The District also proposes to incorporate the terms of the July 7, 2008, settlement of
grievance #6080.
Housekeeping Proposal # 16: Article III, [NEW] Section 11 – Utility Helpers
Par. 1. The District proposes to clarify that this provision relates to Bus Maintenance only.
Housekeeping Proposal # 17: Article III, [NEW] Section 15 – Other Provisions
Par. 1-4. The District proposes to delete obsolete references to light rail maintenance.
Housekeeping Proposal # 18: Article III, [OLD] Section 16– Assistant Supervisor – Rail
The District proposes to delete this section because Bus, Rail, and Facilities Assistant Supervisor provisions are
consolidated for treatment into new Article III, Section 2, Par. 8.
Housekeeping Proposal # 19: Article IV, Section 1 – General
[OLD] Par. 2. The District proposes to move this provision to new Article IV, Section 4, regarding Contracting Out.
14

Par. 2. The District proposes to incorporate existing practice into the main body of the agreement by naming the
positions to which facilities maintenance seniority applies.
Housekeeping Proposal # 20: Article IV, Section 3 – Other Provisions
[NEW] Par. 3. The District proposes to insert language to reflect existing practices regarding overtime.
[OLD] Par. 4-5. The District proposes to consolidate these training provisions into the new Article III, Sections 6-8.
[NEW] Par. 5. The District proposes to incorporate into the main body of the agreement the mediation decision for
Grievance #6778.
[OLD] Par. 9. The District proposes to move the bulk of this provision to new Article IV, Section 4, regarding
Contracting Out. The District proposes to delete reference to named individuals because it is obsolete language.
Housekeeping Proposal # 21: Article IV, [OLD] Section 4– Janitors
Par 1-4. The District proposes to delete obsolete language regarding janitors.
Housekeeping Proposal # 22: Article IV, [NEW] Section 4 -- Contracting Out
Par. 1. The District proposes to incorporate existing provisions from old Article IV, Section 3, Par. 9 and Article IV,
Section 4, Par. 3.
Par. 2. The District proposes to incorporate into the main body of the agreement the 1982 and 1983 facilities
maintenance exclusion provisions.
Housekeeping Proposal # 23: Article IV, Section 5 – Apprentice Program
Par. 1. The District proposes to delete this provision and incorporate it into new Article III, Sections 6-8.
Housekeeping Proposal # 24: Article VII, Section 1 – General
Section 1. The District proposes to add a section titled, “General” in order to provide formatting consistency across
the agreement.
Housekeeping Proposal # 25: [NEW] Article VIII – Commuter Rail (formerly MOU related to Wilsonville – Beaverton
Commuter Rail)
[NEW] Section 3, Par. 5 (formerly Appendix B – Operations Manager Performance of Vehicle Maintenance Work).
The District proposes to correct a typographical error, changing “is” to “are.”
Housekeeping Proposal # 26: [NEW] Article IX
[NEW] Section 2 – New Jobs and Classifications (formerly supplemental agreement New Jobs and Classifications).
The District proposes to incorporate the supplemental agreement titled “New Jobs and Classifications” into the main
body of the agreement as Article IX, Section 2 without change, except to correct how “TriMet” is spelled.
[NEW] Section 3 – Pay Schedules. The District proposes to make the Pay Schedules a section of Article IX. A number
of housekeeping changes have been made to delete obsolete job titles no longer used, to correct job titles to reflect
the titles in Oracle, to reflect modern terminology, add missing classifications and progressions, and other
miscellaneous changes. The housekeeping changes to the table as indicates as such.
15

Housekeeping Proposal # 27: MOU Supplemental Working and Wage Agreement by and between Tri-County
Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon and Division 757, Amalgamated Transit Union Relating to Contracting
Out
The District proposes to delete this letter because the District proposes a consolidated Contracting Out provision
incorporating existing practices and contractual provision into the main body of the agreement, which are found at
Article III, Section 10.
Housekeeping Proposal # 28: [NEW] Article X – Pension Plan and Permanent Disability Agreement
Section I, Par. 2(b). The District proposes to delete obsolete language regarding normal retirement age.
Section I, Par. 5(c). The District proposes to delete obsolete language regarding the date of the interest arbitration
decision. A reference to an interest arbitration decision is problematic in the event of future such decisions.
Section I, Par. 8. The District proposes to substitute a date certain and delete references to the interest arbitration
decision. A reference to an interest arbitration decision is problematic in the event of future such decisions.
Section I, Par. 9. The District proposes to substitute a date certain and delete references to the interest arbitration
decision. A reference to an interest arbitration decision is problematic in the event of future such decisions.
Section III. The District proposes to align the language regarding duration of the agreement with similar language
contained in Article I, Section. 1, Par. 1.
Housekeeping Proposal # 29: Side Letter, Health and Welfare Benefits Benefit Change Reimbursement, Kaiser Plan
The District proposes to delete this side letter, which is obsolete.
Housekeeping Proposal # 30: MOU Supplemental Working and Wage Agreement by and between Tri-County
Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon and Division 757, Amalgamated Transit Union Related to Portland
Streetcar Special Project
Appendix A, Par. 5. The District proposes to correct a typographical error, changing “fist” to “first.”
[NEW] Appendix B. The District proposes to incorporate the terms of the August 22, 2008, MOU regarding Fill-in
Light Rail Operators for Portland Streetcar to the Portland Streetcar Supplemental WWA.
[NEW] Appendix C. The District proposes to incorporate the terms of the June 24, 2004, MOU regarding Streetcar
Training Maintenance Technician to the Portland Streetcar Supplemental WWA.
[NEW] Appendix D. The District proposes to incorporate the terms of the June, 26, 2012, MOU regarding Streetcar
Track Maintainer and Signals Maintainer positions to the Portland Streetcar Supplemental WWA.
3) PERMISSIVE SUBJECTS OF BARGAINING
The following is a list of permissive subjects of bargaining as to which TriMet is exercising its discretion by notifying the
ATU that these items will be removed from the successor agreement.
Permissive Subject # 1: Article I, Section 1 – Term of Agreement
[OLD] Par. 4. Designating who each party will represent it at the bargaining table is a permissive subject of
bargaining. TriMet believes that it is a bedrock principal of collective bargaining that each party has sole discretion as
16

to who the individuals are that will represent the organization, which may change from time-to-time. Moreover,
requiring a minimum or maximum number of meetings is unproductive.
As always, TriMet is willing to meet and confer with the Union at any reasonable time and place on issues of mutual
interest and to negotiate in good faith regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining or to negotiate the impact of
discretionary decisions, as appropriate.
[OLD] Par. 5. Joint Labor Relations Committee. Having a Joint Labor Relations Committee is a permissive subject of
bargaining. Furthermore, TriMet does not believe it is appropriate to establish an exclusive forum for side letters, to
establish a forum that contemplates an end-run around the grievance process, and that requires monthly meetings.
As to items of mutual interest, TriMet is willing to meet and confer with the Union at any reasonable time and place
on issues of mutual interest and to negotiate in good faith regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining or to
negotiate the impact of discretionary decisions, as appropriate.
[OLD] Par. 6. Specifying a limit on the number of participants and a minimum number of meetings is a permissive
subject of bargaining, which TriMet finds inappropriate.
Permissive Subject # 2: Article I, Section 9 – Health and Welfare Benefits
Par. 1(c)(2), (4) and (5). The District proposes to update the names of the Medicare risk plan carriers, which are
Kaiser Permanente Senior Advantage and United Healthcare Group Medicare Advantage. Once the level of benefits
is set, the carrier that provides the benefit is a permissive subject of bargaining. See Cascade Bargaining Council v.
Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist., 83 Or App 418, 422 n.5, 732 P2d 54 (1987)(choice of insurance carrier is permissive); Salem
Police Emps. Union v. City of Salem, 8 PECBR 6642 (1984)(while benefits are mandatory, it is a management
prerogative to determine how benefits will be provided). This provision acknowledges TriMet may designate the
carrier, so the District is willing to include names of the carriers so long as the ATU acknowledges that TriMet may
unilaterally change carriers and update the provision to reflect the current provider.
Permissive Subject # 3: Article III, Section 11 – Utility Helpers
Par. 2. The District hereby notifies the ATU that the provision limiting to 12 employees [four (4) in each division] in
the Helper classification that may be assigned as Utility Helpers relates to staffing levels and is a permissive subject of
bargaining. The District initiates its unilateral right to have the provision deleted.
Permissive Subject # 4: Article III, Section 17 – Stores
Par. 4(b). Utility Partsperson. The District hereby notifies the ATU that the provision limiting to 2 employees the
number that may be assigned as Utility Partspersons relates to staffing levels and is a permissive subject of
bargaining. The District initiates its unilateral right to have the provision deleted.
Permissive Subject # 5: Article VI, Section 3 – Other Provisions
[OLD] Par. 3. The District hereby notifies the ATU that the provision requiring the District to maintain current staffing
levels in the Maintenance Department relates to staffing levels and is a permissive subject of bargaining. The District
initiates its unilateral right to have the provision deleted.
[OLD] Par. 8. The District hereby notifies the ATU that the provision requiring the District to maintain eleven (11)
Facilities Maintenance positions in the Bus Division and three (3) Facilities Maintenance positions in Light Rail relates
to staffing levels and is a permissive subject of bargaining. In addition, the limitation is limited to the term of the
agreement. The District initiates its unilateral right to have the provision deleted.
17

Permissive Subject # 6: Active Employee Health Benefits Summary
The District hereby notifies the ATU that the provision requiring the District to use a particular health insurance
carrier is a permissive subject of bargaining. Once the level of benefits is set, the carrier who provides the benefit is a
management prerogative. The District initiates its unilateral right to have the provision deleted. See Cascade
Bargaining Council V. Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist., 83 Or App 418, 422 n.5, 732 P2d 54 (1987)(choice of insurance carrier
is permissive); Salem Police Emps. Union v. City of Salem, 8 PECBR 6642 (1984)(while benefits are mandatory, it is a
management prerogative to determine how benefits will be provided).
Permissive Subject # 7: [NEW] Article VIII – Commuter Rail (formerly MOU related to Wilsonville – Beaverton
Commuter Rail).
Section 1, Par. 3. TriMet Staffing. The District hereby notifies the ATU that the required designation of a non-union
position as “Commuter Rail Operations Manager,” is a permissive subject of bargaining. The District also notifies the
ATU that requiring a specific number of Commuter Rail technicians, Commuter Rail Assistant Supervisors, and Rail
Facilities Maintenance Platform Cleaners relates to staffing levels and is a permissive subject of bargaining. The
District initiates its unilateral right to have these manning level provisions deleted.
4) Side Letters, MOUs and Supplemental Agreements That the District Wishes to Bring Forward
In compliance with Article I, Section 19, Par. 10, attached to this memorandum is a table of side letters, MOUs, and
supplemental agreements that the District desires to remain active and in effect under the successor agreement. The
District has proposed that some of these agreements be incorporated into the main body of the contract, either through
substantive or housekeeping proposals. To the extent that the proposals are not agreed to or awarded through
arbitration, the District desires them to remain active and in effect pursuant to Article I, Section 19, Par. 10.
18

Location: GRIEVANCE REPORT Date:
PRESENTED BY: Employee's Name:
Contract Provision Violated: (Article, Section, and
Paragraph) NOTE: Contract reference required:
Employee Job Classification:
E-Board Officer Representative’s Name:
PRESENTED TO: Director of Labor Relation’s Name:
NATURE OF GRIEVANCE:
REMEDY SOUGHT:
Signature of ATU Representative and/or Employee
DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE'S ANSWER (See Additional Sheets as Necessary):
DISTRIBUTION OF DISTRICT’S ANSWER:
Director of Labor Relations (Evelyn Minor-Lawrence)
ATU President/Business Representative
E-Board Officer Representative
Grievant (through E-Board Officer)
Signature of District Representative:
___________________________________________
Date:
__________________________
19