Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen

Mr. R.L. Luther                                                                        September 17, 2004
General Director, Labor Relations                                             File: Trip Rates/Deadhead Recovery
BNSF RailwayP.O. Box 961030
Ft. Worth, TX 76161-0030

Dear Mr. Luther: 

This is in reference to your letter dated June 23, 2004 written in reply to our letter of July 28, 2004, written in reply to your letter concerning your intentions to cancel “deadhead recovery” agreements on runs where flip rates have been implemented.

 Without belaboring the positions set forth in our last letter, I agree with your statement, “Many, if not most, of the so called “deadhead recovery” agreements in place were negotiated by the parties at the local level.” It is for that reason that I cannot accept your attempt to cancel those “locally” negotiated agreements by serving notice on this office. It is a matter of record that local management officers and local BLET officers have long been permitted to enter into so called “local” agreements across the property. Some of those agreements were approved by your office and ours, some were not. Almost all of those local agreements include cancellation clauses that allow either of the parties that bargained them to also cancel them. For years, the practice on the property has been for those same signatory officers to serve cancellations on each other, not for your office to serve some blanket notice on this office. It is also my understanding that where UTU General Chairmen requested, you provided local notification to Local Chairmen to cancel their local agreements as well.

 Again, without arguing either parties position on the value of “deadhead recovery” agreements, if local management wishes to cancel the agreement(s) that they or their predecessors negotiated locally, they are completely capable of doing just that. Some of the involved local agreements may contain language speaking to more than just deadhead recovery, and in some cases, those agreements were negotiated as local quid pro quo’s. That is why we suggested that the local parties who originally negotiated the agreements meet to discuss the necessity of continuing the agreements, with all parts of the equation considered. If in the end, local management’s decision is to exercise their cancellation clause, then they can serve notice to do so. In any event, that notice must be provided to the local union offices who negotiated the agreement. As you are aware, neither your office or ours has every local agreement out there. Surely you recognize that for all of these reasons, we cannot accept your cancellation of locally negotiated agreements, that we may or i-nay not even be aware of, by any notice to this office. If local management chooses to ignore or violate those local agreements prior to canceling them, I would assume that time claims will he progressed.

As for those deadhead recovery agreements that were negotiated by this office, OPS 94-07 for example, we are willing to meet and discuss the Carriers desires. However, absent an agreed upon modification to the involved agreement language, we are both bound by the conditions until they are changed under the Act.

 As we offered in our last letter, and have since offered by phone, we are willing to sit down and discuss this matter. In fact, we would prefer that as compared to this continued paper chase. Please advise if you are willing to meet and discuss the matter.

 Sincerely, 

/s/ Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman 

cc: BLET General Chairmen, BNSF
     BLET Local Chairmen, BNSF Northlines
     Randy Knutson, General Chairman, UTU
     John Fitzgerald, General Chairman, UTU
     Robert Kerley, General Chairman, UTU
     Milton Siegele, BNSF Labor Relations
     Roger Boldra, BNSF Labor Relations
     Nick Markos, BNSF Labor Relations
     Rob Karov, BNSF Labor Relations
     All others on your cc list 

August 23, 2004 

"File:  16801 Trip Rates 

Mr. D. R. Pierce
General Chairman BLET
801 Cherry Street, Suite 1010
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
 

Dear Mr. Pierce:

Reference to your letter dated July 28, 2004, your file: Trip Rates/Deadhead Recovery, regarding the cancellation of “deadhead recovery” agreements on runs where trip rates have been implemented.

Many, if not most, of the so-called “deadhead recovery” agreements in place were negotiated by the parties at the local level. Our office does not have a complete listing of each and every one that is in effect; thereby, necessitating my letter of June 30, 2004 wherein I advised you that all of these local arrangements were cancelled due to the implementation of trip rates on those runs. The main reason for canceling these local agreements was that with the implementation of trip rates, there no longer was a large discrepancy in pay between deadheading and working; therefore, the need for a deadhead recovery agreement became obsolete. Simply put, the pay for performing a deadhead on a run with trip rates has increased dramatically from what was paid previously and is, now, equal to a working trip.

 You contend that when one now deadheads, he is not entitled to certification pay nor the special pay differential, thereby, creating a difference in pay between working and deadheading. But, that was true prior to implementing trip rates! Deadhead recovery agreements were originally designed to allow employees to move up in the pool to recover any loss in earning because their deadhead pay was either a basic day or time consumed which usually equated to far less than what actual miles run paid. Now, with the implementation of trip rates the pay difference between a deadhead and a working trip has been equalized, thereby, eliminating the need for a deadhead recovery agreement. Clearly, such arrangements have out grown their usefulness. Moreover, the continual manual manipulation of crews by the Crew Management Team creates a cumbersome and outdated system for pool operations.

Based on these facts, I see no valid reason to retain any local agreement governing “deadhead recovery” as I set forth in June 30, 2004 letter. However, if you feel there is a true need in retaining one of these said agreements, then any request for such an arrangement should be made to this office in order that it can be evaluated prior to re-establishment.

 Sincerely,

/s/ RL Luther 

cc: MA Kotter
      C. Roberts
     SA Goodall
     MH Siegele
     MC Bruce
     ML Plott
     RW Lease
     BD Andrew
     RD Jackson
     WJ Thompson
     FD Clifton
     GA Smallwood
     RA Boldra
     DL Markos
     RS Karov
     JA Faust
     KL Parton
     DF Isom
     ML Hughes