Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

Dear Sirs and Brothers:

Attached you will find a copy of a letter sent this same date to BNSF involving application of the Vernon Award noted above. Along with this copy, we are writing to provide you with instructions on the claims that should be generated based on the Carrier's current application of the award.

Our position in the first instance is better described in the attached letter, but we do not agree that it is permissible for RCOs to operate the locomotive from the controlling cab based on verbal or hand signs forwarded from another member of the crew. That would include instructions given by other RCO members of the crew as well as non RCO utility men assigned to remote controlled assignments. Also spelled out in our letter to the Carrier, we do not agree that RCOs may remotely operate the locomotive from the engineer's seat while occupying the cab. I think that you will agree that Referee Vernon's Award restricted the Carrier in this regard and we intend to see that this restriction is enforced.

The last item that I would like to address is the "in and around terminals" language in the award. BLE does not agree that the award applies or governs any service performed outside of the switching limits of any of the involved terminals. In the event that a remote controlled assignment operates outside of the switching limits other than for limited head room or tail room, claims must be filed.

In all of these violations, a claim for the first out rested and available extra board engineer, or next engineer in the order of selection is in order. I know that it is very difficult to obtain the documentation necessary to support the claims that we plan to pursue, but we would ask that you circulate this information so that your entire membership can become your eyes and ears toward finding violations. Written statements from those witnessing violations are essential. I do apologize for the delay in forwarding these instructions, we postponed our mailing until after we were able to meet in person with the Officers of the International Division, including President Hahs at the most recent meeting of the Western General Chairman's Association. I would also add that we are meeting again in the near future to discuss other remote control related disputes that Referee Vernon did not adequately address and we will for-ward any additional information that comes from those meetings.

In our struggle to survive the pain that has been inflicted upon our craft by the Carriers and UTU, I must ask that we rededicate ourselves to our true mission as Union Officers. That mission must be to provide the best representation possible to all operating employees. More and more trainmen are seeing what UTU and the Carrier's have in store for them, and it must be our continued goal to make sure that all operating employees know that there is a better way of doing business available. UTU is so determined to eliminate BLE that it will assist the Carrier in eliminating every last engineer on this property if unchecked. This ultimately comes at the expense of the most junior trainmen when engineers demote and as I have said many times, I do not consider that to be union representation that anyone should be proud of.

We will forward additional information as it becomes available, and, as always, I remain,

Fraternally yours,

/s/ Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman

Enclosure

M. H. Siegele                                                                                     May 22, 2003
AVP/BNSF                                                                                       File: Special Board of Adjustment No. 1141
2600 Lou Menk Drive                                                                        Remote Control Implementation
P. 0. Box 961030
Fort Worth, TX 76161-0030

Dear Mr. Siegele:

This is in reference to the Remote Control Award issued by SBA No. 1141 on January 18, 2003 and current application of the award on BNSF. Attached you will find a copy of BNSF System General Order No 105, dated March 13, 2003. Please reference the "EXPLANATION" portion of Page 1 of the Order wherein it states,

"Temporary instructions prohibiting remote control operator from operating the remote control locomotive from the locomotive cab have been deleted and are no longer in effect. Additional changes have been highlighted as follows: Operator Control Unit has been changed to Remote Control Transmitter. 35.3.4 now allows operation of the remote transmitter from a stopped motorized vehicle. 35.3.6 now requires that the remote control operator at the coupling to be the primary (has control) operator during the coupling operation."

We do not agree that the above noted language is in following with the findings of Referee Vernon's Award. On pages 33-34 of the Award, Referee Vernon addressed operation of remote control from the cab and states in pertinent part:

"There are a couple ancillary national issues which must be addressed. The first is UTU's request that the Neutral should clarify that RCOs may operate RCUs from inside the locomotive cars. This relates to the more recent litigation (October 17, 2002) concerning whether the January 16, 2002 injunction applied in circumstances where RCOs operate from inside the cab. The BEE and Carriers agreed to an order-without prejudice to any par-ties' position in arbitration-that pending the outcome of SBA No. II 14, RCOs should as a general matter spend their time on the ground except in emergencies. However, the every day practical reality is that even in the traditional engineer-operated model, here are circumstances where groundsmen are in the cab of the locomotive for legitimate operator reasons, whether it be for safety reasons or matters of significant practicality and/or compelling convenience. Nothing more than a recognition that such circumstances occur in the traditional engineer/groundman model is appropriate or necessary in this award except that the Carriers should act to limit the RCOs' presence on engines to those past circumstances where it has been accepted operational practice." (Emphasis ours)

Referee Vernon's language did not grant the Carrier the wholesale right to eliminate the restriction on the RCOs presence in the cab of the locomotive. Rather, it specifically instructed the Carrier to limit the RCOs' presence in the cab to those past circumstances where it has been accepted operational practice. It has never been an accepted operational practice in the engineer/groundman model for groundmen to occupy the engineer's seat, directly behind the control stand, for the sole purpose of taking hand signs, radio signs or way side signals while controlling and or operating the locomotive. No past circumstance included this practice and for that reason, it is prohibited by Referee Vernon's Award.

Even more disturbing is the gross misrepresentation in Order No.105 that RCOs are only restricted from passing signs to another RCO in the cab during a coupling operation. On pages 34-35 of the Award, Referee Vernon states as follows:

"There is on aspect of the "RCO in the cab" issue that warrants comment. According to at least one of the BLE declarations (page 9 of the BLE Exhibit 49, volume I H), there have been occasions where an RCO sat in the cab and received radio direction from another RCO on the ground. The RCO in the cab then moved the locomotive according to the direction of the on-ground RCO. This is troubling, not for the fact that the RCO is in the cab, but for the fact that an RCO on the ground is not directly controlling the movement but giving control commands to the RCO on the engine. This then does arguably put the other RCO in the shoes of an engineer and would be impermissible unless there was an emergency such as the on ground RCO's transmitter not functioning. All members of the ground crew should have transmitters and utilize the pitch and catch features rather than one RCO utilizing a single transmitter to control the movement based on the verbal signals of another groundman." (Emphasis ours)

Referee Vernon did not restrict this language to the act of coupling, it applies to all operation of remote control when either RCO is in the cab. To imply otherwise is a blatant disregard for Referee Vernon's language and findings. Reports are being received in the Office from across the property that since this Order was posted, RCOs have begun operating from the cab, based on hand signs and radio signs from other RCOs and utility men, on a regular and wholesale basis. I have attached three specific write ups from Galesburg, Illinois wherein RCOs were operating from the cab based on controlling instructions from outside of the cab. These are just a sampling of the continual reports that we have receive from locations including Grand Forks, Spokane and Mandan just to name a few. These reports have only increased since Order No. 105 was posted and after reading the Order, I have no doubt that there is a direct connection to this increase. By this notice, BLE requests that Order No. 105 be cancelled, and, further, that instructions be issued that are consistent with the findings of the Award. Absent such a modification by the Carrier, BLE will pursue all available means to see that the Award is enforced as written.

It is more than frustrating that this Carrier continues to implement remote control operations in a fashion that totally disregards the contributions that locomotive engineers bring to the Carrier's operation. The above described actions are just one more example of this disrespect. Furthermore, it is visibly apparent that the desire to eliminate the highest trained and most responsible member of the crew has driven the Carrier to acts that are beyond common sense. It is publicly known that traffic has been diverted from locations where remote control without locomotive engineers has been implemented, only to be switched by conventional crews elsewhere. In Kansas City, utility men who work for an approximate daily rate of $225.00 have routinely been assigned as third crew members to remote assignments to provide the same point protection that a locomotive engineer provides cheaper. Extra conventional assignments that do include locomotive engineers have become routine practice where ground crew only remote control has been implemented as it is the only way that performance can be achieved.

In fact, I have attached recent examples, also from Galesburg, Illinois, where extra engineers are now being called to work with assigned remote control ground crews on an ever increasing basis. This latest development is perhaps one of the most promising indications that common sense might prevail, but there is still no willingness on the part of the Carrier to meet with BLE and discuss the integration of locomotive engineers into remote control implementation. We have long advised that BLE and the fully certified locomotive engineers that we represent can provide the Carrier with a safer and more productive remote control product. Rather than take advantage of our suggestions, this Carrier continues to plod along with a less than premium product that in many cases, places employees of this Carrier at safety risk, and hampers productivity at the same time.

We are routinely told to work out our concerns with UTU to participate in remote implementation, but the last time I checked, BNSF's locomotive engineers don't work for UTU, they work for BNSF. Although UTU may have a pay rule for remote control operations, the swift education that I received on scope rules at the SBA 1141 hearing makes it clear that UTU's National Agreement contains no exclusive scope rule governing remote control operations. Nothing in that agreement prevents the Carrier from utilizing locomotive engineers along side groundmen to provide a safer and more productive implementation of yard remote control operations. BLE, both on this property and at the National level, has put forth proposals that would make engineers available to provide this service. Rather than even explore these options, BLE has been rebuked over and over again, apparently to avoid upsetting UTU. UTU's feelings appear to be more important than this Carrier's bottom line, and are most certainly being treated as more important than a common sense, productive and safe implementation of remote control operations.

At some point BNSF would be better served to reconsider these decisions and go back to making decisions that provide a premium product. Although Referee Vernon's Award clearly prohibits the actions that BLE complains of in this letter, it leaves many questions unanswered and lends itself to additional disputes, and possibly more arbitrations. BLE has made a good faith effort to resolve these potential disputes by integrating locomotive engineers into remote operations in the post Vernon Award era. The ability to operate both conventionally and remotely during the same shift is a product that only a fully certified locomotive engineer can provide and there is most certainly value there to the Carrier. The choice to ignore these facts is obviously yours, but it does not go unnoticed. "Team BNSF` does not include locomotive engineers in remote control applications, and perhaps the most valuable operating asset has been left off of the "Team" for that reason.

I would appreciate your swift response to the concerns raised herein, and if you desire to meet and discuss any of these matters, I will make myself available.

Sincerely,

/s/ Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman

Enclosures

cc:     Don Hahs, International President, BLE
         Ed Rodzwicz, First International Vice President, BLE
         Bill Walpert, General Secretary Treasurer, BLE
         Steve Speagle, International Vice President assigned, BLE
         Pat Williams, General Chairman, BLE
         Rick Gibbons, General Chairman, BLE
         Austin Morrison, General Chairman, BLE
         BLE Local Chairmen, Former BN Northlines
         Matt Rose, Chairman, President, CEO, BNSF
         Carl Ice, Executive Vice President, COO, BNSF
         John Fleps, VP, Labor Relations, BNSF
         Dave Dealy, VP Transportation, BNSF
         Greg Stengem, VP Safety, Training, Ops Support, BNSF
         Mark Kotter, AVP Operations North, BNSF
         Ray Stephens, AVP Operations Southeast, BNSF
         Chris Roberts, AVP Operations South, BNSF

SYSTEM GENERAL ORDER No. 105 / ALL DIVISIONS                                                                 Page 1 of 4

DADPPRN2                                                                                                                                          03 / 13 / 03
CLOVIS NM                                             * * * * * * Post * * * * * *                                                10:05:18MT

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 12, 2003

BNSF Railway Co.
ALL DIVISIONS

SYSTEM GENERAL ORDER No. 105

TO ALL CONCERNED,

SUBJECT:             Remote Control Operations

System General Order No. 71 is cancelled.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 EXPLANATION: Temporary instructions prohibiting remote control operator from operating the remote control locomotive from the locomotive cab have been deleted and are no longer in effect. Additional changes have been highlighted as follows: operator Control Unit has been changed to Remote Control Transmitter. 35.3.4 now allows operation of the remote transmitter from a stopped motorized vehicle. 35.3.6 now requires the remote control operator at the coupling to be the primary (has control) operator during the coupling operation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

35.0 REMOTE CONTROL OF LOCOMOTIVES

35.1 REMOTE CONTROL OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS

35.1.1 Employees assigned to a remote control crew are governed by these instructions and must have a current copy accessible while on duty.

Remote Control Operators (RCO) will be issued an Operator's Manual, which governs the operation of a Remote Control System.

All rules or instructions contained in other company publications will remain in effect unless specifically exempted in these instructions.

35.1.2 Prior to operating a Remote Control Transmitter (RCT), a job/safety briefing must be held among all crew members. All remote control crew members must be informed and clearly understand which crew member will be controlling the movement. Before the control of the Remote Control Transmitter is transferred from one crew member to another, the receiving Remote Control Operator must be notified and acknowledge they are in a position to assume control.

35.1.3 A crew member must not go between or work on the end of rail equipment coupled to a remote control locomotive on when a remote control locomotive is on the same track until each member of the crew has been informed of the work to be performed. The Remote Control Operator must ensure that the Remote Control Transmitter's speed control is in the STOP Position and the directional control is-in neutral. The Remote Control Operator must acknowledge that he/she understands than another employee will he going between equipment by announcing via radio "set and centered." The speed and direction controls must not be repositioned or control of the Remote Control Transmitter transferred to another operator until each crew member has advised the Remote Control Operator that they are "in the clear."

35.1.4 Each Remote Control Operator must have in their possession an operative holstered hand-held radio equipped with a microphone.

35.1.5 Except when the primary Remote Control Operator is riding the the leading locomotive, remote control movements are to be considered "shoving" movements, regardless of direction or position of remote control locomotive.

35.1.6 Each remote control locomotive must have a tag placed on the control stand indicating the locomotive is being used in a remote control mode. The tag must be removed and secured with the Remote Control Transmitter when the locomotive is placed in manual mode.

35.2 SETUP AND TESTING

Prior to operating a Remote Control System, the Remote Control Operator must ensure the equipment is properly setup and tested in accordance with prescribed procedures. If two Remote Control Transmitters are to be utilized in a "shared" or "pitch and catch" operation, both must he tested.

35.3 OPERATING THE EQUIPMENT

35.3.1 Only qualified operators or students who have been trained in remote control operations may operate a Remote Control Transmitter.

35.3.2 A Remote Control operator shall control only one locomotive consist at a time with a Remote Control Transmitter and shall not operate simultaneously any other locomotive.

35-3.3 When using "shared" or "pitch and catch" operations, the procedure for changing operators is specified in the operators' manual.

35.3.4 Operation of the Remote Control Transmitter must not be performed from a moving motorized vehicle.

35.3.5 Dropping of cars is prohibited during remote control operations except at locations specifically authorized by special instructions.

35.3.6 When using a remote control locomotive in "shared" or "pitch and catch" operations to make a coupling, the Remote Control Operator located at the coupling must be the primary operator.

35.4 SECURING EQUIPMENT

35-4.1 Remote control locomotives and Remote Control Transmitters must not be left unattended unless secured and/or disabled. For remote control system purposes, "unattended" means remote control locomotive is not se- up (linked) to an operating Remote Control Transmitter in the possession of a crew member.

When leaving equipment for meal period, break, etc. , the Remote Control Operator will secure remote control locomotive as required and turn the Remote Control Transmitter power off.

When ending tour of duty, the Remote Control Operator must place the locomotive in the MANUAL mode unless being relieved by another Remote Control Operator. If another Remote Control Operator is relieving a Remote Control Operator, a job/safety briefing must be held between the employees.

35.4.2 Spare Remote Control Transmitters must be stored with power off and battery removed.

35.5 REMOTE CONTROL AREA

35.5.1 Special instructions will designate areas of remote control operations. Signs advising that remote control operations may be in effect will be posted at access locations to Remote Control Areas.

35.5.2 The Remote Control Operator in control of a remote control locomotive must be notified of any track removed from service or working limits established for the protection of another craft. The Remote Control Operator must conduct a job/safety briefing with all members of the crew.

35.6 REMOTE CONTROL ZONE (RCZ)

35.6.1 Special Instructions will designate limits of Remote Control zones. Signs advising that Remote Control Zones may be in effect will be posted at access locations to Remote Control Zones. Only the Remote Control Operator may activate a Remote  Control Zone. Remote Control Zone limits do not include tracks within CTC or interlocking limits (CTC or interlocking rules apply).

35.6.2 When a Remote Control Zone is activated, the Remote Control operators are relieved of point protection for pullout movements (locomotive on leading end) only. Rule 6.28 requirement to stop within half the range of vision is waived. After Remote Control Zone is activated, Remote Control Operator must ascertain that switches/derails are properly lined and track(s) within zone are clear of trains, engines, railroad cars and men or equipment fouling track before initial pullout movement. This process must be repeated each time the Remote Control zone is activated.

35-6-3 When Remote Control Operator ends the tour of duty:

• The Remote Control Zone must be deactivated.
• The Remote Control Zone may remain active if a job safety/briefing is conducted with the relieving Remote Control    Operator.
   or
• The Remote Control Zone may remain active if the subdivision special instructions specify the hours the Remote Control Zone is active.

35.6.4 Before entering a Remote Control zone, all employees that are not part of the remote control crew must determine whether the zone is activated. Employees may receive this information from the Remote Control Operator or from the supervisor in charge of yard movements. When the Remote Control Zone is activated, track(s) within the zone must not be fouled with equipment, occupied or switches operated until the Remote Control Zone has been deactivated.

TERMS

Remote Control Area - Area designated by special instructions for remote control operations.

Remote Control Operator (RCO) - A certified Remote Control Operator who may operate a locomotive with or without cars by means of a Remote Control Transmitter.

Remote Control Transmitter (RCT) - Hand operated device that gives operator speed and braking control of remote control locomotive.

Remote Control Zone (RCZ) - Track(s) identified within a Remote Control Area where Remote Control Operators are relieved of point protection during pullout movements when Remote Control Zone is activated.

"Shared" or "Pitch and Catch" - Process used for changing primary control of Remote Control Transmitters between crew members. Change of control may only be performed while remote control locomotive is stopped.

APPROVED:
C R ICE
EXEC VICE PRESIDENT & COO

SYSTEM GENERAL ORDER(S) FOR THE SYSTEM DIVISION IN EFFECT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3,6,35,91-92,.97-99,l01,103-105
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 13, 2003

Mr. Don Lipsky
Galesburg, IL 61401

Dear Don,

In the early morning hours of 2/25/03 I witnessed Chris Loveland running a cut of cars back and forth on the,48 lead with out pitching to Russ Duffy (Duffy was inside the cab of the locomotive).

I changed radio channels and confirmed no pitches were being made. He had about ten cars and shoved a couple of them toward 48. He made a cut and went north on the 48 lead. He then shoved down on 44 leaving a couple cars. He pulled North on the 48 lead again. The he backed up to get the two cars he left on the lead, Finally he pitched to Duffy and they headed North on the 48 lead. Parkhill asked Chris what he was doing and Chris told him Russ is protecting my shove. Russ was. never in control of the Northward move until the end when they left the 48 lead and returned to the 33 lead through the crossover.

Sincerely,

March 13, 2003

Mr. Don Lipsky
Galesburg, IL 61401

Dear Don,

On the morning of 3/6/03 1 had to wait for the 308 (I don't know what the remote job is) to set a bad order over to the 33 lead- Mike Fox and Eric Brock were working the job. Mike was on the ground and Eric was on the locomotive. I noticed Mike was not using the controls on his remote box so I changed over to their radio channel and sure enough Mike was giving instructions to Eric who was controlling the movement from the locomotive. They were taking a train out through the cab pocket and had to set the rear car to the 33 lead. Mike lined the switches and gave instructions to Eric. The BO they set out was the TTPX 805139 and they made this move around midnight. This was the 308 of 3/5/03

Sincerely,

March 13, 2003

Mr.. Don Lipsky
Galesburg, IL 61401

Dear Don,

On the morning of 3/11/03 I noticed a train being shoved in on the East Running Track. The guy tailing the move was in the van. I switched radio channels and the guy in the van was giving verbal signals to the guy on the locomotive. It was job number (take your choice GALR680 or YGAL3082,10A) The job was being worked by EE Brock and JA Bledsoe. They were shoving train GALCWI on 3/11/03 at 0140. 1 heard them give car lengths and no pitch was required to cut the locomotive off the train.

I don't get to monitor the trimmer channel often, I am beginning to think this is a pretty common practice. Also from talking to the switchman, I found out that the company has given no new instructions since the arbitration to comply with Vernon's ruling.

Sincerely,