Transit driver says paratransit slot was removed, city points to overtime and scheduling pressures

Matthew Reid, a Rose View Transit driver, told the Richmond City Board of Works and Safety on June 18 that his eight-hour paratransit bid position was eliminated while he was on vacation, forcing him onto the extra board and creating unpredictable split shifts and potential pay losses. “They took away his route,” said Cindy Mayberry White, Rose View driver and president of ATU Local 1474, summarizing the union’s grievance and arguing that the change violated provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.

The city’s transit managers disputed that Reid was removed from employment but acknowledged they reduced active paratransit slots from three to two for operational reasons after reviewing standby and overtime data. Troy Young of the transit department said a trial period showed approximately 231 hours of nonrevenue standby time and 513.75 overtime hours in one quarter; after the staffing change, overtime fell to about 64 hours. Young said those figures drove the department’s decision to reallocate staffing to reduce overtime and operate within budget.

The dispute centers on how the CBA applies when paratransit demand and staffing needs shift. Union representatives cited Article 8 (subsections B3 and B11) on pages 9 and 11 of the agreement to argue that a driver may not be transferred between paratransit and fixed routes without consent. Transit staff pointed to a benefits section (page 13, section D1) noting that paratransit drivers with a CDL receive a stipend and “will be used as needed for Rose View,” which the city said permits operational use across services.

Union witnesses described the practical consequences for drivers. Tassy Sailor, the union secretary, and Reid said the department has increasingly broken eight-hour runs into shorter assignments and lunch-relief shifts, creating split shifts with unpaid time between segments and weeks in which Reid’s paycheck was lower. Reid said one recent pay period was about $200 below his typical check, and the union reiterated that predictability of hours is central to driver payroll stability.

Transit staff answered detailed questions from board members about how paratransit trips are scheduled and how return pickups are handled. Under current practice, drivers complete a drop-off and riders call the office when ready for return pickup; staff said a planned software dispatch system included in the city’s master transit plan should allow scheduling multiple pickups together and reduce travel and standby time. Staff also presented May ridership and fare-reporting figures (225 cash-paying paratransit rides and 548 pass-validated paratransit trips for May) and said some regional trips involve Union County through a pass-through agreement.

Board members pressed both sides for payroll and scheduling evidence. Transit staff said they maintained Reid’s 40-hour guarantee through April while a prior bid sheet remained in effect and that much of the overtime was connected to limited driver availability earlier in the period. Staff said the department is working with RLS and Associates on a master transit plan and estimates an operating roster of 12 drivers would provide adequate PTO coverage and reduce excessive overtime, but they stressed that the city must balance service levels within existing grant and budget rules.

After extended discussion, the board voted to table the grievance and requested additional documentation; the item was set for further review at the board’s July 2 meeting.

What the union said: “He should have never been taking away his eight-hour bid sheet route,” said Cindy Mayberry White, summarizing the union’s central contention that removing the paratransit assignment improperly demoted Reid and harmed riders.

What the city said: Troy Young said the decision followed a six-month review of operational metrics and that the reduction was a temporary, data-driven step to cut overtime while the department implements dispatch software and finalizes a master transit plan.

Next steps: The board tabled the grievance for further review and asked staff to provide detailed payroll and schedule documentation at the July 2 meeting.