Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
Division 758

Richard E. Etienne
Vancouver, WA
rick@etnsplace.com

Ms. Marka L. Hughes General Director
Labor Relations, Operating Timekeeping
BNSF Railway2600 Lou Menk Dr.
Ft. Worth TX 76131

May 6, 2000

Ms. Hughes,

Be advised that the current practice of Operating Timekeeping regarding the handling of special claims is unacceptable to this committee. Under the Railway Labor Act, Section 1, first, as amended, the carrier is obligated to "exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning pay, rules, and working conditions". This is clearly not being done.

Reference a letter to UTU General Chairman JD Fitzgerald dated April 20, 2000 from BH Pechal. This letter talks about a pilot program regarding crew management errors being started in Twin Cities Service Region. Unfortunately, the program is so restricted that only a very minute amount of claims would fall into the categories. A runaround is a runaround, regardless of where it takes place, but this program separates home terminals from away from home terminals. Run off assignment, etc. are handled differently etc. How is an operating employee to know exactly who required him/her to perform the violation of scheduled agreements? Who called the wrong person for the job? Who committed the runaround?

You have crew technicians, crew planners, dispatchers, chief dispatchers, and trainmasters in finitude. Now your department says these claims will not be approved unless the timeslip designates the exact proper code? How are the employees to know this special secret code? Mr. Pechal's letter chides employees that "Claims that are incorrectly filed under codes BD or MC will result in processing being further delayed". Then he fails to explain exactly how his office will educate the multitudes of operating employees in the exact proper way to submit these timeslips. Under schedule rules, a board runaround occurs when an employee behind the affected employee gets called ahead of said employee. Nothing in the agreements call for any difference as to where the event took place, or who authorized it.

In conversations with other Crew managers, it was told to me that the crew desk would only approve special claims that are generated by the members of that crew office. If a violation occurs and the crew technician was not the culprit, the claim will be sent back to payroll. Unfortunately, the claim will then sit there for the required 60 days, then will be declined. The generic declination is something on the order of: "Investigation at this juncture fails to locate any supporting evidence of rule violations. As result, claim is declined. Should future developments locate support for claim, a revised declination will be issued, so advising".

Explain to me, Ms. Hughes, how it is that this committee, and multitudes of other committees, many times over, will locate said documentation in less than 5 minutes, and process the claims for payment through the Director of Administration? Also, please explain how any "future developments" could possibly occur when your own department fails to even take the first step to gather the documentation for said claims?

More than three-quarters of the claims from this committee are results of crew calling/handling errors. Invariably they are declined due to "lack of documentation" but surprisingly are found by this committee in order to complete the claim for payment.

I find it hard to understand how your department is complying with the basic requirements of the Railway Labor Act, by sitting on these claims for the requisite 60-day period, then declining them.

Respectfully,

Richard E. Etienne

Local Chairman
Div. 758

Cc: MW Geiger Jr.
JD Fitzgerald
J.L Schollmeyer
M David Dealy