Updated December 20, 2023: As of today, Board member Ron Lalonde, whose term was to run until February 2025, resigned creating a vacancy that could be filled with a non-Tory aligned citizen member.

At its December 7, 2023 meeting the TTC Board considered a management report recommending the continued outsourcing of surface vehicle cleaning and servicing. This proved to be a very contentious issue triggering a long in camera session after which the recommendation was adopted in part, but with one amendment, and on a split vote.

Background

Outsourcing of bus cleaning began under CEO Andy Byford as an outgrowth of Toronto’s core services review. It began as a pilot at Mount Dennis and Malvern garages, and from November 2013 was expanded to the (then) full seven garages. When that contract expired at the end of 2017, a new contract was signed covering the period to the end of 2023.

In 2020, as part of the Covid response, the work of disinfecting all vehicles, including streetcars and subway trains, was added to the contract.

Cleaning and servicing of streetcars was added to the contract in September 2021 with a December 2023 end date, and an option for two additional one-year terms. Starting in January 2023, midday in-service streetcar cleaning was added as part of “TTC’s action plan with respect to community safety, security and well-being”.

The contractor, TBM Service Group Inc., uses employees under Local 2 of the Service Employees International Union, and pays wages higher than the statutory minimum, but not as high as comparable work that would be done by Amalgamated Transit Union 113. ATU claims that this work is rightfully theirs, and that the TTC is in breach of contract by outsourcing it. This is a long-standing dispute.

TTC argues that TBM’s employees are 40% female and 85% visible minority, but this does not speak to what the breakdown might have been had the work stayed with ATU. For their part, ATU argues that the cleaning and servicing positions were entry level jobs to the TTC which are no longer available.

TTC also argues that having ATU staff perform these functions created problems at garages because of staff shortages. When other maintenance workers filled in, this left repair work unfinished. The TTC argues on the basis of efficient staff usage without addressing why they were short cleaners in the first place.

TTC also claims that vehicle reliability has gone up over the outsourcing period, but does not address other possible factors such as:

• the average fleet age which has been falling as the shift to a 12-year replacement cycle builds into the system,
• the under-utilization of the fleet thanks to pandemic-era service cuts allowing the worst performing buses to be sidelined,
• the opening of McNicoll Garage relieved bus crowding at other locations that interfered with efficient maintenance.

The TTC acknowledges that the work model implemented by TBM is an improvement over past TTC practices, and they would adopt it although costs would rise because of higher ATU wage rates.

TBM has since refined the business model to adopt a production line approach utilizing dedicated workforce to perform each activity. If the TTC were to perform servicing and cleaning in-house, the TTC would be inclined to adopt a similar business model as TBM to ensure continued success of KPIs. Using TBM’s business model, the TTC would need to increase its workforce compared to the 2012 business model. The expected cost avoidance of second sourcing with the updated workforce model is approximately $101.83 million over the contract term (2024-2028) or an average annual cost avoidance of $20.37 million.

Appendix A – Bus and Streetcar Servicing & Cleaning – Benefits & Performance p. 5

Leaving aside the question of cost, this begs the question of whether the TTC was attempting to make do with fewer staff than needed when the work was in house.

Continue reading →