Historic VTA Strike Will End After Judge’s Order, Some Service to Resume by Friday

Updated 6 p.m. Wednesday

A historic strike by South Bay transit workers that has affected tens of thousands of people who rely on public transportation will come to an end after a Santa Clara County Judge issued a preliminary injunction to halt it Wednesday afternoon.

The injunction, signed by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Daniel T. Nishigaya in a San José courtroom, means Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority employees will need to return to work immediately, but it wasn’t clear how long it would take for all transit services to resume.

Leaders of the union representing the workers, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 265, said they were disappointed in the outcome.

“We’ll determine what happens tomorrow shortly, but we believe that the judge got this wrong,” ATU President Raj Singh said outside a downtown courthouse on Wednesday. “At the end of the day, the workers lost today.”

VTA spokesperson Stacey Hendler Ross said the agency is pleased with the outcome for riders and for workers.

“We are appreciative of this ruling so that our employees can get back to work. They’ve been two weeks without paychecks and tens of thousands of people have been two weeks without affordable transportation,” Hendler Ross said.

Hendler Ross said Nishigaya’s injunction means striking VTA workers need to return to work right away. She said workers would be required to report to work on Thursday, and partial bus service would resume by Friday morning.

It wasn’t immediately clear when light rail trains will begin rolling again, as Hendler Ross said the tracks and overhead lines would need to be inspected before service can start.

The VTA initiated the legal process on March 10, the first day of the strike, by filing a complaint asking for an injunction and a temporary restraining order to halt the strike, claiming it violated a “no-strike clause” of a collective bargaining agreement between the agency and the union.

Nishigaya, on March 17, denied the agency’s request for a restraining order but required the parties to come back to court on Wednesday so ATU could argue why its strike was not a violation of the contract.

The agency’s attorneys alleged in court filings that the union never gave VTA proper notice that it wanted to end or change the agreement and said the no-strike conditions remain in “full force and effect” for another year while negotiations for a new contract continue.

The agreement — which expired on March 3 — said the contract continues from “year to year” after its expiration and requires the two sides “continue to negotiate until there is a successor agreement,” the agency said.

“The court does believe that there is at least a reasonable interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement that would lead to the conclusion that the agreement, including the no-strike provision, remains in full force in effect until agreement is reached,” Nishigaya said.

The ATU countered that the contract rules were no longer applicable because bargaining for a new contract had ended, and the union declared an impasse a few days before the strike began.

The union also pointed to instances in which the agency’s officials seemed to telegraph the potential for a strike, like in a Feb. 27, 2025, memo to employees from the VTA’s Chief People Officer Sonya Morrison.

Morrison’s memo said if a contract agreement was not reached by the expiration, “‘there is the potential for a work stoppage,’” the union’s attorneys wrote. “VTA thus acknowledged to all of its employees that the union may go on strike.”

“None of that would be necessary if VTA truly believed the contract was not expiring,” Benjamin Lunch, an attorney for the union, said to Nishigaya during the hearing. “For them to then turn around and say that the contract somehow did not expire, is a wild about-face for the agency to take.”

The VTA claimed Morrison’s statements do not change the rules of the contract agreement and disagrees that the two sides have reached an impasse.

Jenica Maldonado, an attorney for VTA, emphasized to Nishigaya that there was no impasse but noted that any impasse “would have evaporated by virtue of the fact that the parties continued to meet for bargaining sessions all last week to make additional proposals, and the union took votes on those proposals.”

Lunch also argued that VTA’s interpretation of how the contract should be enforced would take away the union’s right to strike and would create “an indefinite contract.” The agency has consistently pushed back on that claim.

While issuing his ruling, Nishigaya underscored that, in this case, it’s not the court’s role to litigate the entire case. His decision was based on the “reasonable probability of success” VTA has with its claim that the union is in breach of contract with its strike, and considering the harm that would occur if he did not issue the injunction, weighed against the harm to the union.

“This is not a final decision on the merits of any claims or lawsuits, but only to determine whether there is at least a colorable and reasonable probability that plaintiffs’ claims have merit,” Nishigaya said.

The ruling comes two days after ATU members roundly rejected the latest contract offer from the VTA, with more than 80% of those who voted shooting it down.

That contract offer was finalized in a special closed-session meeting by the VTA board of directors on Sunday and included an 11% raise for the union members over three years while also asking for some concessions from workers, such as potential restrictions on overtime pay in certain circumstances.

Singh previously said Monday afternoon that VTA’s “aggressive bargaining” is part of why that offer was voted down, including the agency’s refusal to drop its lawsuit to stop the strike and to guarantee workers wouldn’t be disciplined for striking after returning to work.

The injunction represents a success for VTA, which has pursued multiple concurrent avenues to try and end the strike, including the legal challenge, as well as asking for the governor’s intervention and offering revised contract deals to the union.

The agency also announced late Monday a deal with Uber, in which people ordering rides between transit stops through the Uber app would get a $5 voucher during the strike.

The agency said the voucher would be paid for by VTA, up to two per day per person, and was aimed at reducing the cost of car transportation while transit services were unavailable.

“It was unfortunate that lawyers had to get involved because we were doing this on behalf of the tens of thousands of people who rely on public transportation,” Hendler Ross said. “They need public transportation, there are so many people who have no other option.”