LETP Concerns with RD Kerley

September 3, 2002

File: BLE Transfer Agreement/
UTU Representation

This is in reference to your letter dated July 14, 2002, concerning correspondence between the Carrier and UTU regarding the Locomotive Engineer Training Program (LETP) and its application to engineer seniority, as well as the BLE 11/l/90 Transfer Agreement. I will try to address the concerns that you have forwarded but would qualify my remarks by making it clear I have no intention of entering into a letter writing contest with the UTU representatives on this property. They are entitled to their opinions as we are, so long as the clear jurisdictional lines governing the representational rights of the locomotive engineers on this property are respected.

I would start by stating that we are aware that the Carrier has encountered several difficulties involving the awarding of LETP classes to employees from other than the location at which the LETP is headquartered. The result is that those employees trained to fill engineers vacancies at a particular location do not remain at the involved location following the training, rather they return to their home location. As the on property BLE rule for filling unbid engineer vacancies is based on retrieving the youngest demoted engineer at the nearest location by highway miles, these employees avoid promotion by traveling as demoted engineers, virtually cross country in some cases, accruing engineer's seniority on our rosters at the same time. Contrary to the position put forth by UTU General Chairman Kerley, it is quite apparent to us that this problem became what it is today with the advent of system trainmen's seniority on the bulk of the BNSF property. Although portions of the former NP, GN and SP&S trainmen's committees are not party to this system trainmen's seniority, the remainder of the properties under Mr. Kerley's jurisdiction and the remaining BNSF are. With the expansion of these trainmen's districts came expanded trainmen access to LETP. That expanded LETP access is what is now contributing to the situation described above as this situation did not occur prior to its implementation.

I have discussed the matter with Mr. Kerley and he believes that trainmen must continue to be granted this expanded access to avoid the possibility that trainmen junior to them in system trainmen's seniority will instead enter the involved LETP. He fears that these junior trainmen will establish an engineer's date that may later be utilized across the former BN system by transferring under the 1990 BLE Transfer Agreement. Mr. Kerley is correct that any engineer that obtains seniority on the former BN system may transfer under the conditions of the BLE agreement, but he has overlooked that such a transfer, as qualified by the agreement, is the contractual right of those holding engineer seniority. If UTU has promised any employee holding trainmen's seniority that engineer's seniority on this property is strictly based on trainmen's standing, then the involved member has been mislead as it is the BLE agreement that governs engineer seniority on our properties.

In studying Mr. Kerley's rational, it would appear that he has overlooked the fact that UTU's expanded access to LETP also currently applies to employees who hold trainmen's seniority on portions of the merged BNSF where engineers have no access to our 1990 Transfer Agreement, specifically the entire former SF property. For example, trainmen from the former SF in California can currently enter LETP in LaCrosse, Wisconsin to obtain an engineer's date on our EN06 Illinois/Wisconsin District. They then return to California and work demoted. No Illinois/Wisconsin engineer can transfer to California to displace them as our Transfer Agreement does not apply to engineer's assignments in on the former SF in California. In short, we do not agree that the BLE Transfer Agreement can somehow be used to justify UTU's reluctance to rectify the difficulties caused by expanded access to LETP, nor do UTU's complaints about BLE's agreement necessitate that the agreement be modified.

It must be understood that BLE is the designated bargaining agent for locomotive engineers on this property, and, although it is apparent by its actions that the UTU International may not appreciate that fact, it remains a fact nonetheless. The BLE Transfer Agreement has been in place for close to 12 years and is not an agreement that can be negotiated, administered, or even interpreted by UTU. It is a matter of record that the agreement does create a traveling date for all engineers who are allowed to utilize it under the conditions of the agreement, and most cases places them ahead of engineers on the district they transfer to. However, the agreement is no different in that regard than any agreement that creates a form of expanded seniority rights.

Although the agreement has been called a poor man's system seniority agreement, it does set forth a method for locomotive engineers to establish a former BN system seniority date that is theirs to travel with as qualified by the agreement. You cannot have any form of system seniority if you do not have a system date. No form of system seniority, BLE or UTU, is in place without such a system date.

It must also be noted that the BLE Transfer Agreement was largely created to protect locomotive engineers from the adverse affects caused by line sales such as the 1987 sale of a large portion of your seniority district, as well as threats to sale and/or abandon large portions of the former Frisco property where Mr. Kerley holds engineer seniority. The BLE was, and still is, completely within its rights to negotiate agreements, implementing them following membership ratification, as was done with our 1990 Transfer Agreement. These rights come without interference from any other organization as the matter is confined to the working conditions and work rights of locomotive engineers.

Furthermore, although UTU agreements may govern access to LETP, it is the BLE agreement that controls placement on engineer seniority rosters on the properties represented by this Committee. The current BLE agreement respects the order that the students/firemen hold within any given LETP, and ranks employees from each respective LETP class in that same fashion on the engineer's seniority roster. However, this is not a guarantee that engineer seniority is strictly captive to trainmen's seniority ranking as implied by UTU. Any trainman that has been led to believe this has again been mislead. The fact that another employee holds seniority as a trainman does not, and cannot, prevent those employees who currently hold engineer's seniority from exercising the rights that come with engineer promotion. These rights include the right to transfer to a new district, as controlled by the 1990 transfer agreement, and to assume seniority standing on a new district as dictated by the 1990 agreement as well.

I agree with the observation in your letter that Mr. Kerley has missed the real point in his haste to blame the world's ills on the BLE Transfer agreement. This series of letters started over the Carrier's decision to cancel an LETP class at Whitefish, Montana. This decision was apparently made after the involved LETP class had been awarded, but prior to beginning of any formalized training program. For that reason, those trainmen selected to enter the posted class obtained no potential standing as locomotive engineers. What has obviously been ignored is the fact that the Carrier's decision to cancel LETP classes is directly connected to its implementation of remote controlled operations in yard service without the inclusion of locomotive engineers. This implementation is currently underway at Great Falls, also on the Rocky Mountain Seniority District. In fact, by years end, the Carrier will have eliminated the assignments of approximately 100 engineers working under the jurisdiction of this Committee, if the current remote control implementation goes forward unchecked. The Carrier's willing accomplice in this process is the UTU International Division and no misrepresentation of the realities in the matter can change that fact. The UTU International has made it painfully apparent that they are willing to allow and require ground crew members to assume the rightful duties of the craft of locomotive engineer for a monetary stipend, selling out our assignments for the proverbial piece of silver.

In the process, UTU and the Carrier have eliminated access to the ranks of locomotive engineer to many if not all non promoted UTU members. Even though it is UTU's own agreements that make the move from trainman to engineer a mandatory promotion, it has entered into an agreement with the Carrier that largely eliminates any need to train future locomotive engineers on some districts for the foreseeable future. This end result has also eliminated access to higher rates of pay and expanded work opportunities for this same group of trainmen, most of whom are currently dues paying members of the UTU. Those are the realities of the current situation and these realities where not initiated by BLE. Any and all employees who are either holding seniority as engineers, or hoped to someday join the ranks of locomotive engineers, should be very concerned by UTU's actions.

These actions really come as no surprise when added to the UTU International's other recent attempts to decimate the craft of locomotive engineer, but do make it apparent that UTU has opened the door to a new era in our relationship, that being the willingness to work "trainmen only". Rest assured that this willingness has not gone unnoticed.

What is truly surprising is that employees holding seniority as locomotive engineers continue to finance and support the UTU International's efforts to destroy their craft. At the same time, these engineers have given up their voice regarding past, present or future agreements intended to protect the livelihood and work rights of locomotive engineers, as only BLE has the jurisdiction to accomplish that task on this property. Those engineers wishing to participate in this process can only do so by belonging to and working within the BLE system. If Mr. Kerley is sincere in his desire to see our agreements changed, perhaps he too, as a locomotive engineer, should reconsider his choice of union affiliation. Absent some change in that regard, his opinions concerning BLE agreements are just that, opinions.

As a locomotive engineer, one of the benefits of belonging to the BLE is the right to not only voice opinions concerning BLE's agreements, but also the right to put for-ward those opinions to participate in improving the working conditions and agreements of all locomotive engineers. Not only are these rights vacated when membership and allegiance are given to UTU, but all engineers must realize that UTU has made it very clear that it will not rest until it either destroys our craft or it destroys itself in the process. I for one do not intend to idly stand by and allow the first of those two options to take place. BLE did not start this fight but we will certainly defend our right to exist, not only as a craft, but also as an Organization.

Although my reply is lengthy, I believe that it addresses the questions that you have raised, and, if any additional questions arise please contact the office.

cc: All Local Chairmen
Don Hahs, BLE International President
BLE General Chairmen

Dennis R. Pierce-GC
BLE GC of A, BN-MRL
301 Cherry Street
Suite 1010, Unit 8
Ft Worth. TX 76102 July 14. 2002

This letter is in regard to certain correspondence being distributed by the UTU-E at Whitefish. This correspondence was in response to the cancellation of the LETP class scheduled to begin in February at Whitefish of which all six successful applicants were from Whitefish. The trainmen feel they have legitimate concerns about the manner in which the cancellation occurred and the ramifications of system-wide seniority for engineers.

It is interesting to note that UTU General Chairman Kerley's response includes a statement that engineers do not have any actual "system wide seniority". That's a very curious response when everyone in Whitefish is aware of a UTU-member exercising his engineer's system-wide seniority here to Whitefish but we don't have any trainmen who have come to this district. He then goes on to refer to his letter to Wendell Bell in an attempt to place as much blame as possible on the BLE for the reasons these poor trainmen are being mishandled.

This appears to be a further attempt to avoid taking responsibility for their own failures regarding the handling of seniority for trainmen. This gross misrepresentation by the UTU was never more apparent to me than when I assisted your office in certifying the engineer rosters this last March, Nearly 95% of the protests for engineer seniority were directly tied to misinformation about establishing engineer seniority generated by letters such as Mr. Kerley's. A considerable number were generated because protests involving the applicants brakeman date were never handled by the UTU prior to entry into the fireman programs.

The point must be made that the UTU controls the seniority rights of brakemen as well as their entry into the fireman's training program. It is only after they successfully complete that program that they establish an engineer date. Not only is the UTU avoiding their responsibilities for handling their own members seniority issues, but they are now trying to pass the blame to the BLE.

The truly amazing thing concerning this entire correspondence is that Mr. Kerley completely avoids the effects of remote-control yard engines as a reason for these classes being cancelled. The internal memo of Beth Hunter dated February 22 should make that clear to everyone. For the first time since I hired out I thought the UTU was in the same boat as the BLE in that they had to negotiate a contract with nobody's job to sell. Lo and behold, the UTU craft eliminators managed to make a back room deal to try and sell the yard engineer jobs.

3856 W. CHESTNUT EXPRESSWAY
SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI 65802
TELEPHONE: (417) 862-5459
FAX: (417) 862-6722
WEB SITE: UTU1,COM

GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT GO-001
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD
DULUTH & NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD
RED RIVER VALLEY & WESTERN RAILROAD
SAND SPRINGS RAILWAY

Reference your letter of April 23, 2002, regarding cancellation of the scheduled LETP class at Whitefish, Montana.

Unfortunately, I must advise that since the successful applicants never performed any authorized Engineer training, they did not establish Fireman seniority dates so as to preserve their relative ranking as Engineers. Furthermore, since Engineers do not have any actual " system wide seniority," we have no agreement support for the theory that they were runaround relative to their entry into the LETP.

Enclosed herewith is my response to General Director Labor Relations W. A. Bell outlining the problems caused by the BLE's transfer agreement, and I have used the situation there in Whitefish as an example of the need for negotiations in this regard. As I have indicated to Mr. Bell, the Carrier's poor planning and knee-jerk management style will continue to create such problems until all of the involved parties can address all of the related agreements and policies.

cc: G. S. McNaghten, Associate GC
G. K. Virgin, Associate GC
D. A. Montgomery, Secy. L-891

Mr. W. A. Bell
General Director Labor Relations
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway
P. 0. Box 961030
Fort Worth, TX 76161-0030

Reference my copy of your April 18, 2002 letter to UTU Assistant President Paul Thompson, regarding the above captioned subject. As I have told you on numerous occasions, any attempt to address this problem by modifying the current method of LETP selection (without also addressing the transfer of Engineers under current BLE Agreements) is like pushing the proverbial rope. The most heroic effort accomplishes nothing, and the only way to make any progress is to go to the other end.

By Way of example, attached is an inquiry from Whitefish, Montana Local Chairman W. S. Hendershott regarding an LETP class recently cancelled there, after 6 successful applicants were selected. I now have the task of informing these employees that

If you see some other option for these employees, I would be very interested to hear what it is. Otherwise, where train service employees do have rights to bid for LETP classes at other terminals (and thereby protect their future employment as Engineers at home), I fully intend to protect that right.

While not mentioned in your letter, this problem becomes even more complicated when BLE "Zoning" and Santa Fe "Flowback" are introduced to the mix. I fully agree that all of these factors are in dire need of serious, comprehensive review; but you simply can't solve all those problems by further restricting the rights of former BN train service employees.

cc: UTU General Chairmen, BNSF
Associate General Chairmen, GO-001
Local Chairpersons, GO-001
Secretaries, GO-001

Dennis R. Pierce		GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT BNSF/MRL	VICE CHAIRMEN M. 0. WILSON S. J. BRATKA D.W. MAY
General Chairman		801 CHERRY ST., SUITE 1010 Unit 8 FT. WORTH, TX 76102-4237 TEL (817) 338-9010 · FAX (817) 338-9088	J.H. NELSON SECRETARY-TREASURER GALESBURG, IL 61401