SAN JOSE >> As the Valley Transportation Authority strike entered its second week Monday, a Santa Clara County judge temporarily denied the agency’s request for an injunction due to noncompliance with court rules as negotiations between the two sides over the weekend yielded no movement toward a new contract.

Workers and the VTA have been unable to come to an agreement on a contract. ATU members walked off the job March 10 and have been picketing ever since as some of the 100,000 daily commuters usually served by the transit agency have gotten creative with their routes to make up for the lack of buses and trains.

VTA officials filed a lawsuit last week aiming to swiftly stop the strike, alleging that the striking workers were violating a “no strike” clause in their collective bargaining agreement. The union has said that the VTA acknowledged the expiration of the contract in early March and that their claim that the clause still applies is a “blatant about-face.” The agency has also appealed to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office to request a “cooling off period” and intervention in the strike.

“Whether it’s the injunction from the judge or if it’s the governor’s office that’s stepping in, ultimately we want to resolve this, and the only way to do that is to get back to the negotiating table and the agency to give us our fair right to go to arbitration,” said Raj Singh, president of ATU Local 265. “The issue of the wages I’m sure will resolve itself once we can get over that initial hurdle.”

As of Monday afternoon, the governor’s office had not announced plans to intervene in the strike.

“Our office is urging the parties to return to the bargaining table to engage in meaningful conversations and reach an agreement,” said Brandon Richards, the governor’s deputy director for rapid response.

ATU and VTA negotiators met for about ten hours of mediation on Thursday and Friday of last week, with the conversation focusing on the issue of an arbitration clause, Singh said. The issue of adding language guaranteeing arbitration for the union has been a sticking point in negotiations since talks initially fell apart in early March. Further negotiations Sunday did not yield further movement, and Singh added that the union was expecting a call from VTA Monday afternoon to meet further.

“The agency shared the reasons why they were not willing to accept,” Singh said. “They accused the union of trying to challenge everything, including the probationary evaluation period, simply that just wasn’t true.”

Singh added that the union revised the proposed language three times during mediation, including to specify that arbitration would not be guaranteed for employees in their probation period, but that VTA rejected all three proposals. Arbitration is the union’s primary way of dealing with contract violations or labor disputes, Singh said, adding that there are between 100 and 200 cases of grievances annually.

“We really don’t have any other way of addressing it,” Singh said. “Once we get past this hurdle, then we can talk about fair compensation, but we’re not going to be able to get there if we don’t resolve this issue.”

Singh added that VTA wants to “keep control and power of what moves forward and what doesn’t.”

“They’re saying that the union will just take every case forward, which is just not the case because we have a process on our side where we look at the merits of the case before we move it forward,” Singh said. “We don’t have the resources and the finances to just put up a fight for every little thing.”

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Daniel T. Nishigaya denied VTA’s request for an injunction without prejudice Monday because the forms filed were not compliant with the rules of court, according to filings — meaning that the agency can refile the request at a future date.

Nishigaya said in his ruling that the VTA may re-submit its order to show cause and be in compliance with California’s Rules of Court.

Nishigaya’s ruling stated that he will consider the application for an injunction upon receiving the compliant temporary restraining order and order to show cause, according to court documents.

Robert Ovetz, a lecturer in political science at San Jose State University, said that there is no precedent “where an employer in this sector went to a court to seek an injunction to stop a strike.” He added that the lawsuit is a “long shot” and noted that there is not a legal precedent to declare public transit an essential service to stop the strike in California.

“Once the contract expires and they’re not in bargaining, then the union has a legal right to strike,” Ovetz said. “If this judge does get involved and issues an injunction or temporary restraining order or whatever it might be, they’re essentially tilting the balance towards the employer, because the workers would be forced to go back to work under the terms of the old contract even though they didn’t agree to it.”

VTA did not respond to a request for comment Monday.

The union members are as “motivated as ever” as the strike entered its second week, Singh said.

“They’re showing up at four o’clock in the morning,” Singh said. “Doesn’t matter if it’s cold or raining outside — they’re there. Their will is strong.”