Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

M. David Dealy                                                                                                 July 31, 2003
Vice President Northern Lines                                                                           File: Layoff on Call
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
P.O. Box 961030
Fort Worth, Texas 76161-0030

Dear Mr. Dealy:

This is in regard to our on going discussions regarding layoffs on call and the handling they are given by the Carrier, Our position is, and has always been, that layoffs at the time of call are just like any other layoff and that they should be treated accordingly as long as they are not abused.

We believe this fact is supported by the numerous agreements and understandings which deal with the matter, and the fact that crew callers and other railroad employees have been well schooled in the manner in which layoffs on call are handled as regards time held from the board, etc. This is further indicated by the fact that "layoff on call" is a well understood part of the general railroad parlance and vernacular, and as such, has never had a punitive association, except in cases of abuse.

In fact the layoffs on call that are normally brought to our attention involve personal emergencies which occur immediately at the time of call, situations where inaccurate lineups or lack of extra board engineers has resulted in employees being called hours in advance of the time when a call for duty is expected, or employees ordered for service ahead of scheduled time off. We submit that the smart choice in all instances where an employee wishes to layoff on call is to simply let the employee off, without the threat of discipline. We do not believe that requiring an employee who obviously does not feel he/she, is capable of or should be going to work enhances the safety of the railroad. In fact we believe this requirement injects a level of risk into our operation which is unacceptable. We have had many discussions recently concerning the need for situational awareness and we have agreed that we do not want employees on the property who are not fully focused on their assignment responsibilities. Forcing employees into a disciplinary setting for laying off on call when they do not feel that they are capable of going to work fully focused accomplishes just, the opposite.

Moreover, the Carrier's current attendance policy requires that employees remain marked up for service or face disciplinary consequences for lay offs exceeding the current quota. If anything, this policy has contributed to an increase in lay off on call situations. Where employees would have marked off well in advance of even the predicted call time in the past, they are staving marked up to their assignments until the last minute hoping that they won't have to lay off. When any of the above-described circumstances enters the picture, laying off on call is the only alternative. This catch 22 does nothing to insure that we have fully focused employees on the property, rather, it does just the opposite. We had hoped to have more productive discussions on this matter at our recent meeting in Las Vegas, but unfortunately, we did not. As the matter has previously been discussed in the SACP venue, we would like to follow on at our upcoming SACP meeting next week.

We look forward to seeing you there and further discussing this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Dennis Pierce
General Chairman

SJB

cc:    BNSF General Chairmen
        BLE Local Chairmen, Former BN Northlines