Ac Transit, a public transit system, then took over much of the old key system. AC Transit originated in a vote by East Bay citizens in 1956 to create the public and operated Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, which approved a $16.5 million loan, allowing AC Transit to acquire the bankrupt key system from the California Public Utilities Commission in 1960. Thus, in 192, ATU became the bargaining representative of the employees of the AC Transit District; a negotiating report that still exists today. The agreement leads to a threat of a strike that could have started within an hour of notification of the provisional contract. An operator shutdown would have interrupted AC Transit bus traffic for 181,000 daily passengers who rely on buses to get to the East Bay and the Peninsula and San Francisco. The new agreement provides for a salary increase of 9.5%, which will be phased in over the three years of the contract. More troubling that ATU employees contribute to health care costs, the district and ATU have agreed on monthly contributions of $70, $140 and $180 for each of the three years. For a time, ATU also represented workers from the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) in 192. Public employers were not covered by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which upheld the legal right of most American workers to form unions and set up the National Labor Relations Board to oversee union elections and settle disputes and complaints. At the time bart was created, Section 13(C) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 required approval by the local transportation union for state-funded transit projects, which guaranteed collective bargaining for workers in systems such as BART. ATU 192 argued that its members were allowed to “follow” their work on the new system, with intact union representation, seniority, contract wages, and pension benefits, and negotiated such an agreement in 1968 with BART and other Bay Area unions. AC Transit employed Williams as a bus driver. Williams was a member of Local 192, the exclusive negotiator for bus operator AC Transit, which had a collective agreement with AC Transit, which provides for a multi-step redress procedure.
From June to October 2011, AC Transit Williams cited on five different occasions for various offences. On January 23, 2012, Williams received its sixth disciplinary action in seven months for violating several AC transit operating rules. Only eight days later, on 31 January, he received his seventh disciplinary action for additional offences, including refusal of a direct order from a supervisor, failure to comply with instructions, failure to notify the operation control centre if he deviates from his intended route, failure to follow the procedures for route, driving with dome lights off and driving without a seat belt. . . .