SAN JOSE >> The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority filed a legal complaint Monday night against Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265 for allegedly violating a “no strike” clause in their collective bargaining agreement as the union continued to push for higher wages and other benefits.

VTA filed the complaint in the Santa Clara County Superior Court with the aim of bringing the strike to a swift end, according to a statement from the agency. The case was filed shortly before 11 p.m. Monday, less than 24 hours after the strike began.

“This strike is having an overwhelming impact on the community, and we are working on all efforts to support our riders getting to work, school, medical appointments, and events,” said Carolyn Gonot, general manager and CEO of VTA, in a statement. “VTA is an integral part of the transportation network for Santa Clara County and the region overall. Getting our buses and trains rolling is imperative.”

A representative of ATU, which represents some 1,500 VTA employees, including bus and light rail operators, maintenance staff, dispatchers, fare inspectors, and customer service representatives, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

ATU members walked off the job Monday after seven months of negotiations ended in an impasse last week. The union is pushing for higher pay amid concerns of the cost of living and high inflation.

The district has said it serves some 100,000 passengers per day.

The union is seeking a 6% raise per year over three years and wants to add a clause guaranteeing arbitration for contract disputes. VTA’s last and best contract offer in negotiations would give workers a 9% raise over three years.

As of Tuesday afternoon, a hearing had not yet been set for the case. It will likely take a few days for one to be set, according to the court clerk’s office.

In court filings, the VTA references a “no strike” clause in the union’s previous collective bargaining agreement. This section of the contract, which expired on March 3, states that “during the term of this agreement,” the union will not “call, sanction, assist, engage in any strike, slow-down or stoppage of VTA work, operations or service, or in any manner sanction, assist or engage in any restrictions or limitations of the work, operations, or service of VTA.”

VTA alleges that ATU’s decision to go on strike is a “clear and unequivocal breach” of their collective bargaining agreement, according to court documents. They claim the strike violates the “no strike” clause because another section of the contract stipulates that the terms of the contract run “from year to year thereafter” the expiration. VTA also said the contract says it “shall remain in full force and effect” during contract negotiations, according to court filings.

The section of the contract referenced by VTA also states that if either party of the contract wishes to terminate or alter the contract, they must give the other party “written notice 90 days prior to March 3, 2025, or any subsequent March 3rd,” according to the contract between ATU and VTA.

VTA further alleges that the union is violating an implied “covenant of good faith and fair dealing” in California contracts. The strike will cause “severe and irreparable harm” to the VTA, their lawyers argue.

“VTA has bargained in good faith,” court documents read. “ATU has not.”