Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

M. H. Siegele                                                                February 2, 2004
AVP/BNSF                                                                  File: Engineer Duties/
2600 Lou Menk Drive                                                   Remote Operation
P. 0. Box 961030
Fort Worth, TX 76161-0030 

Dear Mr. Siegele:

This is in reference to your letter dated January 21, 2004, written in response to our January 12, 2004 letter. These letters were both written as part of the correspondence following our complaint of December 16, 2003, concerning employees working in a craft other than locomotive engineer operating locomotives in switching operations while using the conventional control stand.  

While I had hoped that your response to my last letter would close this file, it does not. Even though the two of us discussed oar intentions as well as your response prior to you writing the letter, your response raises as many questions as it answers. While it is obvious to us that you know the answers to the questions that you have raised, I will answer them nonetheless.  

As for your implication that I do not know the “breadth” of my particular jurisdiction, we both know full well which former properties’ agreements are under the jurisdiction of this GCA and where those agreements apply. This “jurisdiction” has not changed since this General Committee of Adjustment was consolidated in 1977. In fact, you assign the members of your staff to work with this Committee based on these same former properties’ jurisdiction. I have made no attempt to speak for any portion of the BNSF property not under my jurisdiction, the General Chairmen that hold those jurisdictions are quite capable of doing that themselves. My suggestion that you apply the General Notice issued on the Twin Cities Division “system wide” was exactly that, a suggestion. Whether you choose to avail yourselves of any of my suggestions is up to you. Please note that my jurisdiction does include portions of five (5) operating Divisions that had not issued the notice at my last writing and I still believe that all involved would benefit from such a posting.  

Your attempts to misrepresent my suggestion are, at first glance, no more than an attempt to avoid the actual complaint in my last letter. Your choice to avoid that complaint is also up to you. I believe that our position on the use of employees working in a craft other than locomotive engineer to operate conventional locomotives is well established. I do not need to belabor it other than to add that the complaint on the Chicago Division described in my last letter has never been addressed to a satisfactory conclusion. Your suggestion that the parties have entered into referable claims settlements that would allow the Carrier to instruct employees on duty working UTU represented positions to operate conventional locomotives in a switching operation with “penalty claims” as the appropriate remedy is totally unsupported. Again, I would simply ask that you take the steps necessary to prevent this from happening again, if you can, perhaps this matter can be closed.

I get no pleasure from the fact that any of these letters have become necessary, nor is it my intention to carry on some endless exchange of correspondence with you on this matter. However, if you would spend as much time addressing my actual complaint as you did interjecting an “ad hominem” concerning my ability to know my own jurisdiction, this matter would have been closed long ago. In closing, I do thank you for taking the time to document your recollection of the events that preceded our written complaint. Although the list is not definitive, it does make it very clear that our written actions were warranted as our verbal warnings had not addressed the matter sufficiently.

 Sincerely,

/s/ Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman

 Enclosures
cc:     John Fleps
        Matt Rose
        Carl Ice
        Dave Dealy
        Don Hahs, National President, BLET
        Harold Ross, General Counsel, BLET
        Steve Speagle, Vice President Assigned, BLET
        BLET General Chairmen, BNSF Properties
        BLET Local Chairmen, BN Northlines

  Via fax and U.S. mail  

January 21, 2004  

Mr. Dennis Pierce, General Chairman
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
801 cherry Street, Suite 1010
 Fort Worth, Texas 76102            

Dear Mr. Pierce:  

I want to answer your letter of January 12, 2004 where you address a number of issues including our follow-up to your recent complaint about a situation that occurred at Willmar, MN on December 11, 2003. While you are complementary of the way we responded to your complaint about the December 11 incident at Willmar, you state that you have learned of similar occurrences on other divisions, and you alert us to, "...please remember that we have polled the General Committee and they have authorized us to withdraw absent satisfactory resolution. If further incidents occur on those Divisions that have not taken any action to prevent them we will be left with no choice but to contact President Hahs for his authority as well."  

At the start, I am somewhat unsure of the breadth of your particular jurisdiction and the definition of what you would consider to be ‘further incidents... on those Divisions that have not taken any action to prevent them    I am equally concerned about your suggestion that some divisions, ‘. . .have not taken any action to prevent them....” So should we conclude you now speak for all of BNSF’s general chairmen?

 I am equally sensitive to your definition of “further incidents” that, in your opinion, could precipitate contacting President Hahs purportedly for the purpose of securing final authority to engage in what in all likelihood would be an illegal strike. The facts matter, and some of the so-called incidents that have been brought to our attention and resolved over the phone or through email, involve a number of different issues, some of which are “routine and tangentially related to each other.  

Willmar (General Chairman Pierce represents engineers here)

In the incident at Willmar on December 11, 2003, the yardmaster, another scheduled employee, made the decision to use the utility employee, who was a demoted locomotive engineer, as a locomotive engineer. Even though the yardmaster may have thought he was making the right decision, we agree with you that he was wrong, and clearly, the first-out extra board engineer is entitled to an appropriate claim payment.

 Sioux City (General Chairman Pierce represent engineers here)

The Sioux City incident was somewhat different in that the an employee working on a remote control assignment decided on his own to board another locomotive and move it out of the way of his remote control engine by operating the locomotive from the control stand. That employee was a demoted locomotive engineer. After this incident was reported to us, we scheduled a formal investigation; however, before the formal investigation was held, the employee accepted alternative handling.

Denver (General Chairman Morrison represents engineers here)

Sometime during the first quarter of 2003, a (scheduled) yardmaster took it on himself to board a locomotive and move it a short distance. This issue was addressed by the local management.

 Denver (General Chairman Morrison represents engineers here)

BLE General Chairman Morrison reported an incident that occurred on November 17, 2003 where the foreman on a remote control crew, who was a demoted engineer, put a remote control locomotive in conventional mode and moved the unit a very short distance. After our investigation, the foreman was disciplined and received alternative handling.  

Denver (General Chairman Morrison represents engineers here)

In late December, we received a report that a member of a remote control crew on the ground was passing signals to the other remote control operator who was in the cab of the locomotive. After we investigated this incident, we determined that both remote control operators were on the point of the locomotive, less than ten feet apart. One remote control Operator got off the locomotive to throw a switch, and as he was getting back on the locomotive, he gave a “come ahead” signal to the other operator. After understanding what really happened, everyone concluded that there was no impropriety here.

On December 9, 2003, an engineer assigned to a yard job expired under the Hours of Service law before his shift ended. The local officials used a hostler (a demoted engineer) who was on-duty to work as a locomotive engineer for the remainder of the shift.

 Taking this approach subjected BNSF to a valid claim from the first out extra board engineer in Aurora who should have been called to protect the vacancy. While we don’t condone this approach to filling engineers’ vacancies, I understand that many times in the past similar events have been adjusted through penalty claims filed by BLE. These claims are generally handled at the local level or elevated to general claim conferences and settled on their merits.

In October 2003, a road crew expired under the Hours of Service Law outside of the switching limits, and a supervisor at Corwith instructed a demoted locomotive engineer who was working on a remote control crew to operate the locomotive and yard the train. The General Manager and his staff followed-up with those supervisors immediately, and we have had no further incidents of this nature.  

The point in chronicling these incidents is twofold. First, to the best of our knowledge, each one of these issues was fully addressed with the appropriate general chairman who raised the issue, and as far as we know, each incident was closed. Second, and equally important is the fact that most of these “incidents” fall in a wide spectrum, largely the stuff we handle from day-to-day within the normal collective bargaining process, and in some cases, we agreed that the incident that was reported did not represent any kind of agreement violation.

 You also suggest that some divisions have not taken any action to prevent certain ‘incidents” that you apparently define using a very broad, all-encompassing classification. First, we completely disagree with the assertion that some divisions have not taken any action in connection with the proper use of remote control equipment.

 Back on May 22, 2003, BLE complained that BNSF’s System General Order No.105 did not follow the findings of Referee Vernon’s award. On May 30, 2003, I responded (copy attached) and explained our strong view that BNSF’ s policy is fully consistent with all aspects of Mr. Vernon’s award. Beyond System General Order No. 105 — which, we believe, is more than sufficient by itself — we have instructed all supervisors to use the following information as a job safety briefing for System General Order No. 105 (which is now Special Instruction No. 23):  

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. Remote Control Operators may use the Remote Control Transmitter (previously referred to as OCU) for any purpose while in the locomotive cab, subject to the following guidance:  

1. Remote Control Operators should conduct operations consistent with accepted operating practices for ground service personnel in conventional operations. This means that Remote Control Operators may position themselves in the cab when a ground service employee would be in the cab during conventional operations. Remote Control Operators should work from the ground when a ground service employee in conventional operations would work from the ground. (emphasis added)  

2. When working in the locomotive cab, a Remote Control Operator with control over the movement should not receive hand or radio signals directing the movement from other crew members on the ground, except in an emergency. A Remote Control Operator in the cab should use the “shared” or “pitch and catch” feature on his/her Remote Control Transmitter if it is necessary for an RCO on the ground to direct movement.  

3. Remote Control Operators are reminded that they may not operate the locomotive in conventional mode while working on a remote control assignment. Only certified locomotive engineers or hostlers, while assigned to a conventional locomotive operation, are allowed to operate a locomotive in conventional mode.  

Apparently, your desire is for BNSF to publish the job briefing language that accompanied Special Instruction No. 23 in a general notice at all locations you represent on the entire BNSF system in the same manner as we have done on five divisions (Kansas, Powder River, Springfield, Texas, and Twin Cities). We will take this request under advisement and discuss it with the appropriate leaders in Transportation. In the meantime, I have discussed your concern with the Chicago Division. They discussed many of these issues at a recent staff meeting, and they will be publishing this general notice before the end of this month.  

As I said back on December 18, 2003 (copy attached), we have no intention of repudiating our collective bargaining agreements, and we take these matters seriously. We will do our very best to comply with our collective bargaining agreements with BLE; however, I think you have to understand that with a company as big as ours, there may be times when, despite our field leaders’ best efforts, an employee (sometimes a demoted engineer) takes it upon himself to do something in a way that is inconsistent with our collective bargaining agreements and instructions. When that 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 BLE’s duty to help avoid interruptions in 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: Matt Rose
     Carl Ice
     Dave Dealy
     John Fleps
     Ray Stephens
     Mark Kotter
     Chris Roberts
     Dave Tolle
     Dan Bodeman
     Don Hahs
     Pat Williams
     Rick Gibbons
     Austin Morrison

 Attachments