Protecting Engineer Seniority

This is in reference to your letter dated July 14, 2003, written in response to our letter of July 6, 2004 concerning the use of locomotive engineers as UTU represented “training coordinators”. While I thank you for your letter and appreciate your efforts to resolve this matter, there are a few issues raised in your letter that need to be addressed.

Although you advised in your letter of July 14 that Engineer Stafford had been instructed to report as a locomotive engineer, that has never happened. We were also advised at our meeting that a. new training coordinator had been selected for Great Falls and Mr. Stafford would no longer be used in that capacity. As of this writing, Engineer Stafford has yet to mark up and protect his engineer’s assignment in Havre, Montana. Rather, he has remained laid off to work and be compensated as a UTU represented Training Coordinator in Great Falls, Montana since June 4, 2004.

In fact, we have now been advised that the Engineer’s Extra Board at Havre was cut by one man yesterday just to allow Mr. Stafford to be released from promotion at Havre. He immediately placed in Shelby, Montana as a trainman, while remaining laid off to work as a “training coordinator”. This board reduction at Havre happened without regard for the fact that the extra board cycle time at home for the Havre Engineer’s Extra Board averaged only 11.7 hours from July l9th through July 25th. There were also 46 augmentations to the Engineer’s Extra Board due to its depletion during the same period making it apparent that no board reduction was called for.

It is also a matter of record that prior to reducing the Engineer’s Extra Board at Havre to release Mr. Stafford, local management asked the BLET Local Chairman at Great Falls to give them relief from your instructions that Mr. Stafford mark up as an engineer. When no further relief was granted, the extra board at Havre was reduced to facilitate Mr. Stafford’s release and, again, allow him to avoid promotion.

While you comment that the strike threat is only appropriate when the Carrier has “repudiated its obligations”, we have yet to see that the Carrier, as a collective group, has made any attempt to comply with its obligations up to this point in regards to My. Stafford. He was allowed to avoid promotion from June 4 until yesterday, and only due to a manipulation of the extra board at Havre is he now released from his promotional responsibility. While the Carrier may control the staffing of the Havre extra board, the fact that local management would reduce that board, all things considered, and risk a manpower shortage at Havre just to facilitate Mr. Stafford, hardly appears to be a long term attempt to resolve our complaint.

In addition, you advised in your letter that you are in the process of making Engineer Snyder in Seattle an exempt officer of the company to allow him to avoid engineer promotion. As we advised in our last letter, if any engineer is truly an exempt officer of the company, all promotional responsibilities are waived. However, we must remind you of our conversation wherein we pointed out that you are putting Engineer Snyder’s 2005 vacation at risk by making him an exempt for a short time just to avoid promotion. That is due to the Carrier’s position that time worked as an exempt this year cannot be used to qualify for vacation in a scheduled craft in the following year. As you are applying that position to all other employees who return from exempt status, we expect that you will also apply it to Engineer Snyder. We also shared our surprise that UTU has agreed to allow an exempt officer of the company to perform “scheduled” service as a training coordinator that is collectively bargained under a UTU contract. While that part is beyond our control, it does not go unnoticed. Unfortunately, Engineer Snyder's status as of this writing is unchanged, he is still laid off on the “Trainmaster Authority Board” at Interbay to work as a “Training Facilitator” and is not shown to be in exempt status. I would again ask that you take immediate action to comply with our agreements by instructing Engineer Snyder to return to service as an engineer if he is not made an exempt officer immediately.

All things considered, it appears that the Carrier is working harder to avoid the agreements between BLET and the Carrier mandating promotional responsibility as an engineer than it is working to comply with them. As we discussed at our recent meeting, any changes to our agreements must be negotiated between BLET and the Carrier. Agreements and/or arrangements reached with UTU do not, can not and will not relieve any engineer of his or her promotional responsibilities under our agreements.

While you have again assured us that Mr. Stafford will protect his promotional responsibility when it tolls again, surely you see that the track record of local management in this regard is less than sterling. We understand that he may even be forced back to Havre today and we expect that he will discontinue any and all service as a UTU training coordinator immediately if he is. Anything less than that will make the Carrier’s true intentions painfully clear. In addition, although you advised some 13 days ago that Engineer Snyder was being made an exempt officer of the company, that has not happened either. While your letter implies that we rushed to issue a so called “strike threat”, please remember that we have worked with all involved parties for over 8 months to resolve the issue of engineers avoiding promotional responsibility by working as UTU represented trainers of one fashion or another. The “strike threat” as you call it may have been new, but our complaint, our position and the Carrier’s continued attempts to avoid both are not. While I again thank you for your letter, it will be the Carrier’s actions following this letter that determine whether or not the Carrier as a whole has repudiated its obligations in regards to our complaint. You can rest assured that we will be paying very close attention to those actions.

Thanks for your letter of July 6, 2004 concerning the use of locomotive engineers as training coordinators under the terms of an agreement between The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) and the United Transportation Union (UTU). Since we met and discussed these matters yesterday, this letter will serve as confirmation of what we discussed.

The case involving TYE employee Green involved a unique fact pattern. As I recall, while working in ground service at Whitefish, Montana, Mr. Green was called-up to engine service based on his seniority as a locomotive engineer. Before he worked as a locomotive engineer at Havre, Montana, the local officers decided to train him as a remote control trainer under our agreements with UTU. At that time, I believe I expressed my concern that this seemed to be highly unusual because Mr. Green was not qualified as a remote control operator at the time. Because of our mutual concern, Mr. Green was required to take his position as a locomotive engineer at Havre, Montana.

In the second so-called incident, TYE employee Stafford was working as a training coordinator at Great Falls, Montana in April 2004 under our agreement with UTU. While working as a training coordinator, he was called-up to engine service. Shortly after he was called-up to engine service, he was cut back to ground service, so the situation resolved itself.

Most recently, TYE employee Stafford was working as a training coordinator at Great Falls, Montana, and 8-10 weeks into a class of new hire employees, Mr. Stafford was called-up to engine service. Mr. Stafford has been instructed to report as a locomotive engineer.

In the situation involving TYE employee S.E. Snyder from Seattle, we are in the process of making Mr. Snyder an exempt employee, and over the longer term we will try to find a new UTU training coordinator.

Dennis, while we have no intention of repudiating our collective bargaining agreements, I hope you will understand that with a company as big as ours, there are times when something happens in a way that is inconsistent with our collective bargaining agreements. When this happens, I believe the Railway Labor Act requires that we make good faith efforts to work through these issues peacefully on a case by case basis, just the way we work through other issues like this every day. Given BLET's duty to help avoid interruptions to commerce, rolling out the strike threat would only be appropriate where the company as a whole repudiates its obligations: that's obviously not happening anywhere at BNSF.

Sincerely,

/s/ Milton Siegele

Cc:        John Fleps
            Don Hahs
            Steve Speagle
            Ray Stephens
            Randy Luther
            Gene Shire
            Charles Shewmake

This is in reference to our ongoing discussions concerning the use of promoted engineers as UTU represented “Training Coordinators”. Although we have shown great patience to date in our efforts to resolve this issue, that patience has worn thin.

We first discussed this matter in the fall of 2003 when the Carrier and UTU attempted to allow Engineer Green to avoid his promotional responsibilities in Havre, Montana to work as a UTU represented “RCO Trainer” in Whitefish, Montana. BLET made its position very clear in that incident. Promoted Engineers are not to be called or allowed to work in any UTU represented crafts while in the engineer’s quota, nor can they avoid promotion to the quota by working in any such service. That includes all positions in ground service covered under BNSF/UTU collectively bargained agreements. In the 2003 incident, Engineer Green was ultimately demoted and the issue temporarily subsided.

Without regard to our position in the above described incident, Engineer Stafford was allowed by the Carrier and UTU to avoid his promotional responsibility in Havre, Montana in April of this year to work as a UTU represented “Training Coordinator” in Great Falls, Montana. This position is also a ground service position negotiated and represented by UTU. In fact, by BNSF/UTU agreement, training coordinators are to be selected from “active ground service” employees. For that reason, it is no different than any other ground service position in so far as engineer’s promotion is concerned. Those ground service employees holding engineer’s seniority are expected to protect their engineer’s promotional responsibility and there is no exception for the specific service generating this complaint. While the April incident also temporarily subsided when Engineer Stafford was demoted from the engineer’s quota, BLET’s position in this matter has never wavered, nor will it.

Without regard for oar discussions or for our position, Engineer Stafford was again allowed to avoid promotional responsibility in Havre, Montana on June 4, 2004. This Office immediately notified your Office as well as Montana Division Director of Transportation Duryea. We were assured that Mr. Stafford would protect his engineer’s promotional responsibility, but to date, those commitments have again been ignored. As of last Friday, your Office advised that Engineer Stafford had been promoted to an “exempt” management position to continue training new hire trainmen. You further advised that UTU had agreed to allow him to continue as their designated “Training Coordinator”, even though he had become an officer of the company. While we do not understand how Engineer Stafford could be an officer of the company while serving as an officer of UTU, he would be exempt from our promotional rule only if he truly is an officer of the Company. If the Carrier and UTU are willing to go to these lengths to allow Engineer Stafford to avoid promotion, we would request that you advise of such in writing. Absent written notice to that effect, Engineer Stafford is expected to protect his promotional responsibilities when and where they occur. BLET’s Agreements govern these promotional responsibilities and we do not intend to idly stand by and allow UTU and the Carrier to make or “negotiate” arrangements that violate and circumvent our agreements.

We must also point out that during our discussions on this matter with all Local Chairmen at our recent GCA meeting, we discovered that Engineer S.E. Snyder in Seattle has been allowed by the Carrier to similarly avoid his promotional responsibility since February without our knowledge. He too is performing service as a UTU negotiated and represented “Training Coordinator” while engineers who are junior to him are promoted at that same location. We view this incident no differently than those previously identified and hereby request that you take the steps necessary to comply with the governing BLET promotional agreements immediately.

As our discussions to date have not provided resolution to this dispute, I am requesting, and urging you to meet with me or my representative within ten (10) days from receipt of this letter pursuant to Section 2-6th of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, to confer regarding the improper use of promoted engineers in “ground service” positions. In the event you decline to meet and/or exhibit the intent to resolve this issue once and for all, we will have no alternative but to poll this General Committee of Adjustment concerning a withdrawal from service pending favorable resolution of this matter. As our discussions in this matter have already carried on for several months, I have discussed the matter with Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen National President Don Hahs. If we are unable to reach favorable resolution following this notice, he has authorized me to go forward with a poll of the Committee.

It is unfortunate that these steps have become necessary, especially considering that this Committee was given commitments by the Carrier in 1997 that engineers would not be used to perform service as ground service employees. (Attached) It is also a matter of record that when a similar complaint was registered by the former ATSF BLET General Chairman, your office agreed with BLET and the involved engineers were required to protect their engineer’s seniority. I would ask that you give our complaint serious consideration and act in accordance not only with our agreements, but also consistent with the previous handling noted herein. By copy of this letter to BLET National President Hahs, I am advising him of our attempts to meet and resolve this dispute once again. I await your timely response.

This letter is in response to your letters of August 11 and 19, 1997, and our meeting of August 20, 1997, pertaining to a recent incident where an engineer was called as a conductor at McCook, Nebraska.

We reviewed the facts and circumstances leading to the incident, including a derailment, the exhaustion of all of the conductor’s and brakeman’s pools and extra boards at McCook, and a person in training as a crew dispatcher. Nevertheless, Engineer Buresh should not have been called as a conductor and we regret any problems that this may have caused. At Lincoln, shortly after the incident, Crew Management took immediate corrective action and sent the attached directive to all crew office personnel.

You also expressed concern that an incident such as this can occur at other locations. Copies of this letter are being sent to Ms. Maxine Timberman and Mr. Bill McGinn so that they are apprised of the situation.

We understand your concern about the seriousness of this issue. We also appreciate your patience and willingness to work with us on resolving it.

This refers to my letter to you dated August 11, 1997, concerning an instance where an engineer was called from the engineer’s extra list for service as a conductor at McCook, Nebraska.

In that letter we advised that based on information available to us that crew office manager Mike O’Neill may have been responsible for the inappropriate call. It has come to our attention now that the person responsible for issuing the instructions to use the engineer as a conductor was either a corridor superintendent or a crew planner from the NOC in Fort Worth.

As it is not our intent to portray the incident in any manner other than factual we are bringing this to your attention at this time to afford you opportunity to identifsr the proper persons having responsibility. Please add this information to your file for consideration of the above referenced issue.

It has been brought to my attention that on one occasion our office called an Engineer, asking him to work as a Conductor in which he agreed. At NO TIME will you be allowed to use Engineers as Conductors for any reason. In addition, instructions to do so by anyone, MUST be given to me prior to acting on.

This letter is in response to your correspondence of August 11, 1997, pertaining to crewing issues at Lincoln, Nebraska. Based on our telephone conversation, we will meet with you on August 20, 1997, at BNSF offices in Fort Worth, Texas at 9:00 A.M. We look forward to seeing you at that time.

Enclosed find information relative to a recent incident where an engineer was called and used as a conductor at McCook, NE.

As you can see by the enclosed information, Mr.. O’Neill, Crew Office Manager, with responsibility for this particular territory has disregarded the instructions of which you advised in your response dated April 5, 1997, As you will recall your letter responded to mine dated March 24, 1997.

Mr. Kozak, it is obvious that our patience and reasonable approach and attempts to resolve this issue have been futile. Therefore, I am requesting, and urging you to meet with me or my representative within ten (10) days from receipt of this letter pursuant to Section 2-6th of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, to confer regarding the improper use of engineers as conductors/trainmen. In the event you decline to meet and/or exhibit the intent to resolve this issue, we will have no alternative but to contact the International President of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and request authority to pool the General Committee concerning a withdrawal from service pending favorable resolution of this matter.

By copy of this letter to BLE President C.V. Monin I am advising him of our intentions to meet to resolve the matter and of our expected subsequent actions in the event the suggested meeting does not occur or proves unfavorable.

In reference to your letter dated March 24, 1997 (File SL#15-Arb. Awd. 458), concerning engineers used as conductors on nine different occasions since March 1, 1997, out of Lincoln, Nebraska.

After further investigation, it appears that Lincoln Crew Calling Office, in error, did in fact use engineers as conductors. Mr. M. K. O’Neil, Crew Office Manager, has assured this office that he has personally made the necessary corrections in the call office to prevent this from reoccurring in the future. He and his staff have discussed this matter with each crew dispatcher, and internal instructions have been distributed to each call desk.

It has again been brought to our attention that engineers are being called from the engineers quota, usually the extra list, to operate as conductor. In that regard I have enclosed information which shows that on nine (9) different occasions since March 1, 1997 (24 days) engineers have been called and used as conductors out of the Lincoln Terminal.

Mr. Kozak, I am confident you are aware that this issue was first brought to the attention of the carrier in 1988 and, upon repeated notification of recurrences to members of your staff, instructions have been issued to appropriate field officers clearly advising that such use of engineers is prohibited. It is extremely disconcerting that this issue could continue to arise, given that past handling. Furthermore, the record of this issue leaves no doubt that this Organization and its past Chairmen have been extremely patient. That patience, however, does not appear to have been given due regard, nor can it continue.

Therefore, I must now advise that such actions by the carrier can no longer be tolerated for the same reasons which have been included in all previous correspondence and discussions of this matter. It is expected that your handling of this matter will bring about an end to this problem, not merely another temporary period of compliance by field officers.

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

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

BNSF Milton H. Siegele Assistant Vice President Labor Relations	The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company
	PO Box 961030 Fort Worth TX. 76161-0030 2600 Lou Menk Drive Garden Level Ft. Worth TX 76131-2830 Phone: 817-352-1068 Fax: 817-352-7319

BNSF Dan Kozak Assistant Vice President Labor Relations	The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company
	PO Box 961030 Fort Worth TX. 76161-0030 Phone: 817-352-1024