Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
Division 758

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

Ms. Kathy Johnson
AVP, Crew Support
BNSF Railway
PO Box 1738
Topeka KS 66601

January 30, 2000

Ms. Johnson,

This letter is to confirm our discussion several days ago, in which we discussed the new "policy" of the crew support department, in regard to calling demoted engineers to protect other than the board they are holding. This new "policy" calls for any demoted engineer, who is called to work off any position other than engineer, who empowers him/herself and declines to take a call for engineer work, when the information he/she had currently been provided did not provide the information needed to obtain rest for this surprise shift, to be laid off on call.

Previously, it has been the policy of the crew desk to bypass any demoted engineer who declares his/her inability to be rested, based on the information proved. That employee was left in the position on whichever board he/she was holding. The crew caller then moved to another demoted engineer until one was obtained. The employee was not laid off, nor moved to any other status. The employee was not given the onus of "laid off on call". Calls for demoted engineers to be used as engineers were never called in seniority order, but by convenience of the crew desk.

Now, however, under the instructions of labor relations (according to our phone conversation), this has been changed. Now the employee who declines the surprise work will be tagged with a layoff on call, and laid off for 24 hours. Then this employee will be moved to the bottom of the board he/she is holding. By allowing this practice, this policy is also denying the carrier the ability to utilize that employee in the craft for which he/she normally protects. So, now you are short one engineer, plus one individual from the board that person was protecting. This defies logic, when by the very own efforts of the carrier to prevent unwanted absences from work; the ill fated availability policy was born. Now, a new policy that prevents an employee from protecting the craft he/she is assigned? This smacks of punitive measures.

This committee takes the position that this new "policy" is a subtle threat to the employee, letting them know there will be a substantial loss of income if the call is not taken. It is fully known that almost any employee, when faced with a punitive loss of income will probably take the call, regardless of how tired he/she is. It is one thing being left alone where he/she is in relation to being first out, and being taken off the board for 24 hours and being placed to the bottom of the board again. (This, also is a violation of schedule agreements, as we have a minimum lay off of 12 hours).

This committee also wishes to convey that this new policy is considered an unsafe act. It was discussed with your office that it is simply a matter of time until one of these demoted engineers, working only because of the threat of this policy will take a call for other than the craft he/she is assigned, and due to fatigue issues, someone will be hurt, or killed. Also, how is the issue of being laid off on call going to be handled? It is understood that any new "working policy" taking the place of the now deceased "availability policy" will have a provision prohibiting "laying off on call". Does this mean now the employee will be faced with disciplinary action on top of punitive financial burdens?

Also, Ms. Johnson, it was mentioned by this committee that at no time had Vancouver WA. enforced the rule of calling demoted engineers in seniority order. Since this new policy is now in effect, and the reason stated by your office is the requirement of demoted engineers to be called in seniority order, at this time, I would like to take this opportunity to notify your office that effective immediately, all calls for engineers in demoted status to be used as engineers must and will be called in strict seniority order per the A-700 rules. Any violation of said agreement would result in penalty claims for those affected.

I hope that upon further consideration, your office will agree to return to the prior arrangement that has been in effect for over a year's time. That position would do away with the threatening, and intimidating policy now being placed in service. It would also allow the crew desk to call demoted engineers in the order they find most convenient. You make mention of an agreement on the Lincoln Division that addresses this issue. I would remind your office that this division had already had an agreement that worked fine for the carrier, and the employee, in effect for over a year. The only reason this is not working properly at this time is due to the carriers' new "policy".

Respectfully,

Richard E. Etienne

Local Chairman
Div. 758

CC: MW Geiger Jr.
GW Stengem