News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.5K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.3K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2K     0 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

innsertnamehere said:
I mean often these come from disgruntled employees not privy to the full picture.
Click to expand...
I would normally agree with you on these kinds of things.

But if the poster is who I think he is, he is someone who has operated at Bombardier/Alstom for quite some time and is very well connected with much of the staff there - and not just on the operations side, either.

innsertnamehere said:
These kinds of transitions are also not uncommon to experience a few "growing pains" which I'm sure will be resolved by mid 2025.
Click to expand...
Yes, but......

There have been some very serious missteps with this process. Both in terms of how it was laid out and has happened, and also due to Alstom management's stubbornness, with a bit of Metrolinx overreach mixed in for fun.

crs1026 said:
Perhaps, but I am still stunned that the concept of "successor rights" did not apply to labour agreements, employment status, etc for operating and maintenance staff. I guess the law is less airtight than I had imagined.

- Paul
Click to expand...
It does, but only if the agreements have been put into place to make them happen.

That has not happened here - at least not as yet.

Dan
 
Perhaps, I'm just usually wary of these kinds of rumours.

And even if the rumours are true, these things have a tendency to resolve themselves by the time the time-critical date rolls around (in this case, January 1st).
 
smallspy said:
It does, but only if the agreements have been put into place to make them happen.

That has not happened here - at least not as yet.

Dan
Click to expand...

Interesting....I looked it up. The Collective Agreement between Alstom and TCRC 660 expires Dec 31 2024. How convenient.

All the same, successor rights are about the right to represent as well as the continuation of any collective agreement then in force. So I can't see how TCRC 660 loses its rights to negotiate a first agreement with Onxpress. And I can't imagine that the workforce would accept an agreement that didn't generally match the old one.

But a good lawyer....

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Interesting....I looked it up. The Collective Agreement between Alstom and TCRC 660 expires Dec 31 2024. How convenient.

All the same, successor rights are about the right to represent as well as the continuation of any collective agreement then in force. So I can't see how TCRC 660 loses its rights to negotiate a first agreement with Onxpress. And I can't imagine that the workforce would accept an agreement that didn't generally match the old one.

But a good lawyer....

- Paul
Click to expand...
Successor rights also need to be baked into the agreement between the originator and successor - Alstom and ONXpress. At this time, they have no such agreement.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
Successor rights also need to be baked into the agreement between the originator and successor - Alstom and ONXpress. At this time, they have no such agreement.

Dan
Click to expand...

No, actually. The whole point of successor rights is where employer A goes away and Employer B begins doing the same work with the same people in the same space. (My rough translation of the more legalistic test that is actually used) The Union takes Employer B to the Labour Board and points out the facts. The Labour Board then decides whether the union does hold a successor "right to represent" and if so whether a collective agreement is in place.

Employer A may not even exist anymore and what if anything they agreed to with Employer B is irrelevant.

I can't imagine how the Labour Board would say that running a GO train on Jan 1 is different work than running the same train on Dec 31. So I can't imagine how TCRC 660 would lose their certification over the right to represent the workforce running the trains.

Maybe I'm missing something.

- Paul
 
Has there been any talk of more grade separation in Hamilton for the CN mainline heading to the new Confederation station (and eventual Grimsby station)? The tracks pass over multiple N/S arteries between Confederation and West Harbour and these arteries are major industrial routes for truck traffic in the area. As train frequencies increase, it will surely cause congestion in the area (on top of the wear of driving heavy steel industry trucks over it constantly). I know the upgraded grade separation at Centennial was a big project.
 
Last edited:
Unlike Presto in Google Wallet, I don't know how to say what I want to say without breaking my NDA.

This might be a bit glass-half-full, but YRT goes through the same thing whenever they change contracts. Things tend to end up okay eventually...

Whatever damage has been done is done. What's important now is that Metrolinx and ONExpress move forward and make GO even better than it is today.
 
ownthesky said:
THas there been any talk of more grade separation in Hamilton for the CN mainline heading to the new Confederation station (and eventual Grimsby station)? The tracks pass over multiple N/S arteries between Confederation and West Harbour and these arteries are major industrial routes for truck traffic in the area. As train frequencies increase, it will surely cause congestion in the area (on top of the wear of driving heavy steel industry trucks over it constantly). I know the upgraded grade separation at Centennial was a big project.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the list of items needed to be addressed in the Hamilton area is much longer than grade separations in the north end. And yet still, you undersell the shortcomings of today's setup; the impact of the tracks being at grade is a major speed limitation through to Grimsby Stoney Creek.

I am starting to understand why so many of the provinces' old plans for the city involved just building a new right-of-way into the core, like with GO ALRT. Neither CN nor CP's corridors come without major barriers.
 
Sunnyside said:
Unfortunately, the list of items needed to be addressed in the Hamilton area is much longer than grade separations in the north end. And yet still, you undersell the shortcomings of today's setup; the impact of the tracks being at grade is a major speed limitation through to Grimsby Stoney Creek.

I am starting to understand why so many of the provinces' old plans for the city involved just building a new right-of-way into the core, like with GO ALRT. Neither CN nor CP's corridors come without major barriers.
Click to expand...
Curious to know if CN "begrudgingly" did the recent construction at West Harbour because Metrolinx coaxed/paid them enough to do it. Or because they saw a legit need to construct the tie in, as it would benefit their operation.

I know the whole situation with freight and passenger rail in Canada can be quite frustrating at times. As some one who works for a class 1 freight company and is obsessed with passenger rail, I would argue that Ontario is truly in a unique position within the developed world in terms of rail. Where as Class 1's in America are dead set against granting passenger rail on their tracks and Europe struggles with capacity for freight, Ontario makes an honest effort to work with and negotiate with the Class 1's for passenger service. Hopefully Ontario can achieve some kind of symbiont between the two that hasn't been achieved in much of the rest of the world.

Although eventually I truly believe that CPKC will at some point have to have their own "York sub" that skirts around the GTA. The first phase could be having tracks run parallel with the 413 in order to open up the Milton line to AD2W passenger service.
 
crs1026 said:
No, actually. The whole point of successor rights is where employer A goes away and Employer B begins doing the same work with the same people in the same space. (My rough translation of the more legalistic test that is actually used) The Union takes Employer B to the Labour Board and points out the facts. The Labour Board then decides whether the union does hold a successor "right to represent" and if so whether a collective agreement is in place.

Employer A may not even exist anymore and what if anything they agreed to with Employer B is irrelevant.

I can't imagine how the Labour Board would say that running a GO train on Jan 1 is different work than running the same train on Dec 31. So I can't imagine how TCRC 660 would lose their certification over the right to represent the workforce running the trains.

Maybe I'm missing something.

- Paul
Click to expand...
My understanding from people at Alstom is that the successor rights did have to be agreed to between the four parties - Metrolinx, Alstom, OnXpress and the Union. The same process was in place for the change from Alstom to Bombardier - even though Alstom bought Bombardier, there was a separate Canadian-registered company at Bombardier that handled the staffing of operations. That company was wound down, and a new one started by Alstom started up for the same purpose.

For whatever reason, several of the parties feel (or felt) that successor's rights are not necessary here. And one of those parties is, or at least was, the Union itself.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
My understanding from people at Alstom is that the successor rights did have to be agreed to between the four parties - Metrolinx, Alstom, OnXpress and the Union. The same process was in place for the change from Alstom to Bombardier - even though Alstom bought Bombardier, there was a separate Canadian-registered company at Bombardier that handled the staffing of operations. That company was wound down, and a new one started by Alstom started up for the same purpose.

For whatever reason, several of the parties feel (or felt) that successor's rights are not necessary here. And one of those parties is, or at least was, the Union itself.

Dan
Click to expand...

Very curious. It’s always the case that one attempts to negotiate before resorting to an application to the Labour board. So discussions may have been seen as the proper path forward, may be continuing, and the solution may turn out to be whatever is eventually agreed to.
Whether that solution is more helpful to the parties than a direct and literal application of the law…. Is between the union and its members.

- Paul
 
smallspy said:
... even though Alstom bought Bombardier, there was a separate Canadian-registered company at Bombardier that handled the staffing of operations. That company was wound down, and a new one started by Alstom started up for the same purpose.
Click to expand...
I've been in that situation before. While the mother company was purchased, all that happened with company we all legally worked for and were paid by only went through a name-change. The business number never changed.

If they wound down one company and started another, there was some reason to their advantage - it certainly isn't mandatory!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top