|
3. STATUS AND APPLICATION OF
FRONT OF THE BUS PROCEDURES/POLICIES STATUT ET MISE EN OEUVRE DES POLITIQUES ET
PROCÉDURES EN MATIÈRE DE GESTION DE L’AVANT DES AUTOBUS |
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED
That Council approve:
1. That
OC Transpo staff be offered training with regard to dealing with conflicting
needs; and
2. That
drivers having received such training be accorded the necessary authority to
deal with the circumstances that arise.
RecommandationS MODIFIÉES du Comité
Que le Conseil approuve :
1. d’offrir
au personnel d’OC Transpo une formation sur la gestion des besoins
conflictuels; et
2. d’accorder
aux conducteurs ayant reçu cette formation le pouvoir nécessaire pour gérer les
événements qui surviennent.
DOCUMENTATION
1. Councillor’s
report dated 22 February 2010
(ACS2010-CCS-TTC-0005).
2. Extract of Draft Minute 43, 1 March
2010
Report to/Rapport au :
Comité du transport en commun
and Council / et au
Conseil
22 February 2010 / le 22 février 2010
Submitted by/Soumis par : Councillor/Conseiller Jacques
Legendre
|
SUBJECT: |
STATUS
AND APPLICATION OF FRONT OF THE BUS PROCEDURES/POLICIES |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
sTATUT ET MISE EN œuvre DES
POLITIQUES ET PROCÉDURES EN MATIÈRE DE GESTION DE L’AVANT DES AUTOBUS
|
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Transit Committee recommend to Council:
1. That
OC Transpo staff be offered training with regard to dealing with conflicting
needs;
2. That
drivers having received such training be accorded the necessary authority to
deal with the circumstances that arise; and
3. That
maximum tolerance be offered toward ‘bending’ the procedures/policies regarding
accommodating conflicting needs so that service is provided, even if some
inconvenience results, providing only that crucial safety not be compromised.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité des
services de transport en commun recommande au Conseil :
1. d’offrir
au personnel d’OC Transpo une formation sur la gestion des besoins
conflictuels;
2. d’accorder
aux conducteurs ayant reçu cette formation le pouvoir nécessaire pour gérer les
événements qui surviennent; et
3. de
leur donner une marge de manœuvre suffisante afin qu’ils puissent adapter les
politiques et procédures aux circonstances de manière à pouvoir, quitte à
entraîner un certain dérangement, offrir le service, à condition que la
sécurité ne soit pas compromise.
BACKGROUND
WHEREAS it is the intent of OC
Transpo to provide appropriate service to all of its citizens; and,
WHEREAS the least confrontational
approach to achieving that goal is for maximum consideration of others through
application of the ‘golden rule’ plus a large helping of common sense; and,
WHEREAS OC Transpo drivers are faced with one of the
most challenging work environments,
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that OC Transpo staff be offered training with regard to dealing
with conflicting needs; and,
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that drivers having received such training be accorded the
necessary authority to deal with the circumstances that arise, and,
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that maximum tolerance be offered toward ‘bending’ the
procedures/policies regarding accommodating conflicting needs so that service
is provided, even if some inconvenience results, providing only that crucial
safety not be compromised.
On a daily basis, OC Transpo drivers are faced
with one of the most challenging work environments. It is the intent of OC Transpo to provide
appropriate service to all of its citizens.
The least confrontational approach to achieving that goal is for maximum
consideration of others through application of the ‘golden rule’ and using
common sense.
It is simply not feasible nor is it productive
to try to establish a set of guidelines, policies or procedures which will
cover all possible circumstances occurring daily on our buses. It makes more sense to provide guidelines
reflecting the quality of service which can be expected by the public and then
ensure that staff (in this case our drivers) have the necessary training to
deal with the various conflicting needs of the travelling public. It would be productive if those guidelines
were clearly just that, GUIDELINES, to be applied with a good measure of common
sense and compassion. Guidelines which
reflect an expected quality of service should not cause legal difficulties if
departures from the guidelines become desirable on occasion due to difficult
circumstances. Finally, it would
contribute to a more respectful workplace if drivers were confident that, so
long as they applied the guidelines in that manner, they would have the support
of management and the public through their elected representatives.
I am in
agreement with Legal Services Branch that recommendations #1 and #2 are already
covered by OC Transpo’s training regimen.
Nonetheless, I would prefer if those two recommendations formed part of
the whole motion as it provides useful context to the motion.
Legal
Services Branch would appear to be most uncomfortable with the language in
recommendation #3 which has the notion of “… ‘bending’
the procedures/policies regarding accommodating conflicting needs …”. Legal Services Branch apparently adopt an
approach which seeks to officially eliminate “any uncertainty” as, in their
view, not being in the best interests of either the operators or the public
and, further, that such uncertainties might potentially lead to exposure to
liability. My response
to the Branch comments are as follows:
·
It might be
best to change the language of recommendation #3 to refer to GUIDELINES rather
than procedures/policies. Also, the
Branch may have a better word than ‘bending’ to suggest.
·
The Branch’s
suggestion that a review of the entire Transit By-Law would be required as a
result of this motion is surprising.
Perhaps the Branch would have a suggestion for language which would
limit the implications of this motion?
·
The premise
that “uncertainty” can be reduced to zero, along with liability exposure, by an
ever increasing list of procedures/policies is neither realistic nor
practical. I believe that liability
exposure is fully addressed in the motion recommendation #3 by including the
words “providing only that crucial safety not be
compromised.”
·
The
suggestion that discussions between management and employees, presumably
through their union representatives in the first instance and then directly
would appear to be sensible. That this
should have collective bargaining is to be hoped in the sense of creating a
more positive atmosphere in the workplace.
That the motion would actually require expression in the collective
agreement appears extreme.
·
Finally, an
effective communications strategy is most certainly desirable. The motion is nonetheless useful in defining
what exactly it is that is to be communicated.
CONSULTATION
Transit Services comments
Transit Services provides a number of training opportunities for
operators with regard to dealing with conflicting needs. The training program(s) includes the Transit
Ambassador Training Program, which was developed by Canadian Urban Transit
Authority (CUTA), and is used by transit properties across
The Transit Ambassador Program has four
distinct modules related to conflict resolution:
1. Managing Stress
2. Managing Customer Feedback
3. Essentials of Customer Service
4. Effective Communication
When Operators are first hired, they receive 8 hours of training
(2-hours per module), as part of our New Bus Operator Training (NBOT) program,
which includes:
·
Emergency
Evacuation, customer safety, providing instructions on evacuating.
·
Terrorist
Awareness Program, safety of customers and property.
·
Respectful
Workplace Training including Human Rights.
·
Fare
Structure, recognizing fare medium, compliance, rules, asking “Are you aware?”
when faced with non-compliance.
Operators also receive ongoing cyclical training, which is a four day
program provided every three years. This training has the following lessons
relating to conflict resolution:
·
Transit
Ambassador: Managing Customer Feedback
·
Accessible
Transit, including managing priority seating
·
Dealing
with customer complaints
·
Review
of new and updated policies and procedures
In addition, Operators are provided a Transit Operations Handbook (as a
reference guide), which details general rules, code of conduct and job
responsibilities. For example, the
handbook addresses issues for both priority seating and the mobility of
impaired customers.
Section 5.9 – Customers using wheelchairs have priority in the
wheelchair positions. If a customer
using a wheelchair requires that space, ask the parent/guardian to vacate the
space.
Section 5.10 – Boarding customers should be given the opportunity to be
seated before the bus proceeds. Please pay special attention to those customers
with disabilities and mobility impairments.
Section 5.11 – Operators should make a general announcement requesting
that customers vacate priority seating spaces in order to accommodate the
following customers:
Customers who contravene any provision of this By-law can be fined
pursuant to the Provincial Offences Act.
Transit Control must be contacted should the customer refuse to comply.
The Legal Services Branch has reviewed a list of the comprehensive
training sessions given to OC Transpo bus operators on conflict situations, and
many other matters, and with OC Transpo staff believes that the actions addressed
in recommendations 1 and 2 of this Report are already covered by OC Transpo
training procedures and policies. However, in accordance with Collective
Agreements in place, those training procedures and policies will be the subject
of on going review by OC Transpo management and OC Transpo employees.
The Legal Services Branch, in discussion with OC Transpo management,
believes for the following reasons, that the matters raised by recommendation 3
should be the subject of further review by staff before any Committee and
Council direction is given in that respect:
1. The “bending” of
procedures and policies on conflicting customer needs requires a review of the
implications for the City’s Transit By-law.
2. This may amount
to a new direction to operators, and implicit in that is a discussion and
review by management and employees of Collective Agreement terms.
3. Any uncertainty
in the directions provided to operators may not be in the best interests of
both the operators and of the customer, and this might best be avoided by a
deliberate and organized communications strategy directed at both the operators
and the customer.
4. An effective
implementation strategy and an effective communications strategy will assist in
avoiding potential liability for the City, because any uncertainty in the
implementation of OC Transpo policies and procedures may have liability
implications. Any further discussion of the City’s potential exposure to
liability, in matters of policy implementation, should be reviewed in camera.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
As the actions outlined in recommendations 1
and 2 are already covered by existing training procedures and policies, there
would be no financial implications from these recommendations. The financial implications of a further
review of the matters raised by recommendation 3 would be determined at the
conclusion of the review.
DISPOSITION
City staff to respond to the direction of Committee and Council.
STATUS AND APPLICATION OF FRONT OF
THE BUS PROCEDURES/POLICIES
ACS2010-CCS-TTC-0005 CITY WIDE / À
L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Mr. Alain Mercier, General Manager of Transit
Services, indicated that, from the Service’s perspective, recommendations 1 and
2 of the report were already part of the on-going work in terms of staff
training and managing customer service and conflict. He believed this was reflected in staff’s
comments, contained in the report.
However, he submitted that recommendation 3 caused a bit more concern
because of a lack of clarity as to a bus operator’s responsibility in terms of
what one might consider as “bending” the rules.
He felt this could become a slippery slope and therefore very difficult
to manage. The approach he recommended
was to have consistent and clear rules so that, when a customer boarded a bus
one day, they received a level of service that was consistently applied every
other day. He maintained that the
purpose of putting in place policies and procedures was to assist operators to
actually serve the customers and meet their needs. He suggested that creating variable
conditions would open the door to further degradation in terms of a consistent
level of service and consistent quality of service. Although he supported the notion of
front-line staff exercising the rule of customer service, which included doing
the right thing, he noted that doing the right thing in a highly congested
environment was becoming more and more difficult and the reason why staff had brought
forward the priority seating policy. He
reminded Committee that clarity had been sought by both customers and the
organization. He advised that he would
leave it to Legal Services to speak to the legal and risk implications and
suggested Committee may wish to hear from them in closed session. However, he suggested it would be quite
difficult for management staff to manage a work force if public liability and
bus operators’ responsibilities were unclear.
He remarked that management staff could be in a position of having to
punish someone for making the wrong decision and then having to reinforce them
for the same decision on another occasion.
Further, he submitted this would present further risks to the organization’s
attempts to achieve a consistent level of service delivery. In closing, he stated staff’s recommendation
was to hold the notion of clear policies and procedures that worked for both
customers and for employees so that management staff could enforce the right
behaviours of good customer service.
When asked if he had anything to add, Mr.
Ernest McArthur, Legal Counsel, reminded Committee that the City had a Transit
By-law, which addressed this matter and, since last week, there was also a
Council policy to address the matter. He
indicated Legal Services’ concern was related to the introduction of a bending
the rules policy, which might contradict the two written policies, leading to
liabilities and legal problems.
Councillor Legendre referenced the issue of
potential liabilities and noted that his motion contained a strong proviso with
respect to ensuring safety was not compromised.
Therefore, he wondered what other legal liabilities he might be
missing. Mr. McArthur submitted the last
statement did not make any difference to the situation confronted by an
operator; the inconsistency that might arise from a specific policy and a
policy to bend the rules.
Councillor Legendre asked for a direct answer
to his question with respect to other liabilities. Mr. McArthur suggested Committee could go In
Camera to discuss three instances of which he was aware.
Responding to a series of questions from
Councillor Legendre, Mr. Mercier confirmed that bus operators received training
and were provided with a driver’s handbook, which contained a summary of all
operating rules and regulations. He
explained that it was geared towards giving clear directions where clear
policies existed and left the operator discretion in handling matters that may
deal with safety or customer conflict.
He indicated the handbook was extremely brief and could be carried in
operators’ shirt pocket. He remarked
that very few practices and policies were written out in detail, which was one
of the reasons the Service was trying to incorporate more clarify for the
role. He added that the Service provided
training and resources on how to cope with conflict and how to act in
accordance with the policies and procedures, but that the handbook was limited
to the dos and don’ts of the daily reference.
Councillor Legendre submitted that in the
absence of providing operators with multiple volumes of procedures for every
possible circumstance, the Service could not get around the fact that it had to
rely on their good judgement and discretion.
Mr. McArthur posited that there was a difference in applying discretion
in the interpretation of the rule and trying to interpret between two policies,
the first being a clear statement and the second suggesting that they may bend
the rules.
Councillor Legendre indicated that if Legal
Services had a problem with the wording, he would hope they would suggest
better language; language with which they could live. He wondered if it would help to call his
recommendation a guideline instead of a procedure or policy, which he believed
would make it more flexible. He wondered
of staff had any suggestion to replace the word “bending”, which would allow
the intent of his motion to go forward.
Although he regretted sounding stubborn and persistent in this matter,
Mr. McArthur suggested the use of the word “guideline” was no different than
the word “procedure” or “policy”. He
maintained that operators would be confronted with two contradictory
directions, which would put them in a difficult position.
Councillor Legendre remarked that bus
operators’ training suggested they should use their good judgement and
discretion. He maintained the objective
of his motion was simply to make it clear to them that they had Council’s
backing when they used their common sense.
Chair Cullen noted that Councillor Legendre
was out of time and suggested he put his name back on the speakers’ list.
Responding to a question from Councillor
Wilkinson with respect to bus operators’ training and the priority seating
policy recently adopted by Council, Mr. Mercier confirmed that, unless there
was a specific definition of action on behalf of the driver through a by-law or
policy, bus operators managed situations in accordance with their best
judgement.
The Councillor wondered if there was a
guideline explaining what constituted a safety problem. Mr. Mercier indicated each driver would
assess a situation, based on their training, knowledge and experience.
Councillor Wilkinson submitted the General
Manager’s responses suggested that recommendation 3 was already in place in
that bus operators were expected to use their best judgement. She noted that the policy had been adopted by
Council. It gave bus operators the
authority to use their best judgement in managing conflicts at the front of the
bus. Therefore, she suggested the next
step was to communicate to the public that bus operators had the right to make
decisions on the matter.
Responding to a follow-up question from the
Councillor, Mr. Mercier confirmed that complaints would be handled on a
case-by-case basis.
As a result of these exchanges, Councillor
Wilkinson opined that recommendation 3 was not needed, though she had no
problems with recommendations 1 and 2.
Councillor Bloess indicated he saw bus
operators as the captain of a ship; in addition to steering the ship, they were
responsible for managing the space and managing riders. He noted that Council had recently adopted a
policy aimed at clarifying some of the issues with the space at the front of
the bus. He remarked that staff had
indicated recommendations 1 and 2 were already being done but that there were
concerns with recommendation 3, though principle already existed. Therefore, he felt the motion before
Committee did not add or contribute anything further to the operation. He further felt this amounted to Council
micro-managing whereas bus operators were in the best position to understand
the rules and how to apply them. He
asked whether his understanding of the situation was accurate. Mr. Mercier responded affirmatively, adding
that he agreed with Legal Counsel’s position in that recommendation 3 opened
the door to some problems he would prefer to avoid.
Moved by Councillor J. Legendre
That the meeting of the Transit Committee move IN CAMERA to receive a briefing from staff.
LOST
YEAS (3): C.
Leadman, J. Legendre, A. Cullen
NAYS (5): R.
Bloess, G. Bédard, C. Doucet, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson,
Chair Cullen advised that he would be calling
for a separate vote on recommendation 3.
Because staff had indicated recommendations 1
and 2 were already in place, Councillor Legendre indicated he had left them in
his motion because they provided context.
He maintained the only recommendation of consequence was recommendation
3. Therefore, he felt it was nonsense to
call for a separate vote on recommendation 3.
At this juncture, Committee members approved recommendations 1 and 2
and requested a recorded vote on recommendation 3.
That the Transit Committee recommend to Council:
1. That
OC Transpo staff be offered training with regard to dealing with conflicting
needs;
2. That
drivers having received such training be accorded the necessary authority to
deal with the circumstances that arise; and
CARRIED
3. That maximum tolerance be offered toward ‘bending’ the
procedures/policies regarding accommodating conflicting needs so that service
is provided, even if some inconvenience results, providing only that crucial
safety not be compromised.
LOST
YEAS (1): J.
Legendre
NAYS
(4): R. Bloess, G. Bédard, C.
Leadman, C. Doucet, D. Thompson, M. Wilkinson, A. Cullen,