Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

June 20, 2000                                                                                                                     File: Attendance Policy

Dear Sirs and Brothers:

As you are well aware the BNSF has implemented its "Attendance Guidelines" and our members are now being held accountable to those imposed standards.

I will not spend a lot of time on the history of this issue, but in order to understand where we are at with this dispute one must know where we have been.

In August 1999, when the Carrier first initiated its "Availability Policy" the Organizations viewed this as an illegal change in working conditions and threatened strike action. The Courts deemed it a "minor dispute" under the Railway Labor Act and granted the Carrier a Preliminary Injunction. However, due to the seriousness of the controversy, the Court ordered expedited arbitration on the issue.

In October 1999, this dispute was heard by Referee Richard Kasher. The Organizations argued that this policy was a unilateral change in our working agreements. The Carrier argued that this policy was within its managerial right. Neutral Kasher found in favor of the Carrier, although he quantified his decision by stating there was an "unreasonableness" associated with the policy and that he felt that it did, in fact, conflict with some of the collective bargaining agreements. In such cases, although he had none to review at the time, it was his opinion that the collective bargaining agreements would prevail. Further, he encouraged the parties to attempt to seek a compromise.

Meetings were held with Labor Relations in which this Office voiced its concerns with the policy and ideas were presented that would bring this policy into the realm of reasonableness. Some of those ideas were acknowledged by the Carrier, others were ignored.

One thing must be made perfectly clear, this Office has not reached any accord with the Carrier regarding the application of this latest attendance policy.

At the IWC which was held in Jackson Hole, WY during the week of June ₅th, I had the opportunity to have a private meeting with FRA Administrator Jolene Molitoris, in which I was able to voice our concerns with the latest BNSF policy. She immediately requested her staff to look into this situation and once information is gathered, she intends to discuss our concerns with BNSF management. Since that meeting, I have had a conference call with the FRA in D.C. and meetings with the FRA here in Fort Worth to further quantify our concerns.

Further, General Chairman Mullen and myself had a meeting last Friday with Labor Relations Vice President John Fleps and Assistant Vice President Milton Siegele in which we, again, set forth our position regarding the unreasonableness of this policy.

This Office will continue to meet with the Carrier or any other entity in an effort to move BNSF’s "Attendance Guidelines" into the realm of reasonableness. We will not set idly by while our members are subjected to an unreasonable application of this policy.

It is unfortunate that a very small number of our members have brought these attendance requirements upon the majority. BNSF has stated that it is only attempting to turn around the egregious part-time employee. That being the case, then the overkill we are seeing in the number of letters that are being generated is totally uncalled for. Engineers who in no way should be deemed a part-time employee are being targeted and that is totally unacceptable.

Investigations are being held. Local Chairmen, be prepared. Many of the carrier officers in the field do not have a very good understanding of the guidelines. If the supervisor does not have a thorough understanding of the guidelines, how can the employee be held accountable to those guidelines? Particularly, when those in assigned service have not even been informed of what is required of them. Grill those carrier witnesses on their knowledge of the guidelines.

What was the employee’s work history? How many days and hours has the employee worked in the last ninety days, the last six months, the last year? How many hours has the employee been held at the away from home terminal? Are lineups accurate, in order for the employee to know when he/she is going to work? Has the Carrier provided the necessary manpower to allow the twenty-five percent layoffs which the policy states the unassigned engineer is entitled? Were there extenuating circumstances that required the employee’s absence? Medical reasons? Family emergencies? Union or company business? Grade crossing accidents or traumatic work events? Special events or activities at home? The list can go on and on.

If the Carrier is going to apply these guidelines in a "common sense" manner, as indicated, then all of theses things must be taken into consideration.

It is indeed unfortunate that investigations will be held but, as previously stated, this office will continue to use any and all venues in an effort to convince the BNSF that the vast majority of its engineers are full time employees and standards used in other industries in which employees work forty hours a week and have assigned rest days cannot be realistically applied to this industry.

But, if we are going to have to represent our engineers in investigations, then be prepared and we will kick their corporate butts. It is our opinion that Neutral Kasher set our plate quite well for progressing individual cases to arbitration on this issue. If it takes arbitration precedent to turn this thing around, so be it.

This office will keep you appraised of all future developments regarding the "Attendance Guidelines". As always, I remain,

Fraternally yours,

M. W. Geiger Jr.
General Chairman

cc: E. Dubroski, President, BLE
J.L. McCoy, First Vice President, BLE
D.M. Hahs, Vice President, BLE
J.D. Mullen, General Chairman, BLE
T.R. Murphy, General Chairman, BLE
A.G. Morrision, General Chairman, BLE