Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

 
Dear Sirs and Brothers:  

This is in reference to the numerous questions that have been received by this office regarding application of employee contributions to Health and Welfare benefits found in the December 16, 2003 National Agreement. As all of you know, BLET’s agreement included employee contributions retroactively going back to July 1, 2001. The retroactive costs for those in the BLET Plan are to be taken from the back pay/lump sum check that will be received this week. Conversely, UTU’s agreement made other adjustments of similar value to avoid retroactive costs for their Plan, with regular monthly employee contributions beginning in November of 2003 forward. We have attempted to obtain written clarification from the BLET National Division on how retroactive costs would be handled for those who have stayed in the UTU plan while working as engineers during the retroactive period, or for those who have changed plans between July 2001 and now. Unfortunately we have not received any written clarification as of this writing, nor do we expect it before the back pay is calculated and retroactive costs are deducted.  

Due to the large differences in benefits and employee contributions between BLET and UTU’s plans, we had fully expected that the plan of record would be used to determine employee costs going forward and going backward. In other words, those employees working as engineers or trainmen who are currently paying 119.00 due to their being in the UTU Plan would not be subject to any retroactive Health and Welfare costs if they were actually participating in the UTU Plan for the entire retroactive period. As we have said, UTU has made it clear that their plan had no retroactive costs. As information on the actual process involved, each operating employee is locked into UTU or BLET’s plan each calendar year, January 1 through December 31st. This annual determination is based on an “active craft” measurement taken sometime in the preceding August of each year. Once the plan is locked in place on January 1, the employee may not move between the two plans until the following year. As we have said, we expected that the plan of record would be the determining factor as to the employee’s liability for cost sharing. If the plan that the employee was in during each calendar year included cost sharing for that year or a portion of that year, then the employee would be subject to the corresponding retroactive costs. However, if that same plan had no costs for the involved year, there would be no retroactive costs.  

The Carrier has advised that while they are using a “Plan” based measurement to determine current employee contributions, they do not intend to use this method to determine retroactive employee contributions. Instead, a “preponderance of service” craft based monthly measurement will be used to determine retroactive responsibility from July 1, 2001 until June 31, 2003. In other words, if any employee worked predominantly in a craft represented by BLET in any one of the involved months, then retroactive contributions would be due for that particular month regardless of what plan the employee was actually in. Conversely, if the employee’s service during one of the involved months was predominantly in a craft represented by UTU, then no costs retroactive contribution would be due.  

As stated above, we do not necessarily agree that the agreement supports the Carrier’s methodology and our expectations have been forwarded to the BLET National Division. Quite plainly, we cannot find agreement support to charge any employee a monthly contribution if the plan that he/she was in at the time had no such charge. Plan designation is locked in place for a year at a time and no employee may move between plans on a monthly basis. Again, we cannot see that it is appropriate to charge employees based on the preponderance of service each month in the retroactive period, while the actual plan and corresponding benefit level had already been determined and locked down. For that reason, any employee who is charged a retroactive monthly contribution for a month that he was not in the BLET plan may file a claim for the value of the monthly contribution, and, absent settlement at the National level indicating otherwise, we will progress the claims.  

In closing, while we have developed what we believe to be a sound position in this matter, please recognize that this Office is not the signatory party to the National Agreement. For that very reason, BNSF has deferred handling of this matter to the National level for settlement. While we have yet to receive any settlement between the parties from the BLET National Division, we do understand that they have been discussing the matter. In addition, please recognize that UTU is involved in those discussions and we cannot speak to their position or intentions for those that were in the UTU plan during the retroactive period. Pending a settlement by the involved parties, we are forwarding this advice to protect the claims of the involved employees. However, if the BLET and/or UTU come to a “national settlement” in this matter, all claims of record will be settled according to the conditions of that settlement.

 I hope that this assists you in your handling of this matter, we do know that this issues has generated many calls and questions to the Local Chairmen. Please contact the office if you have any questions,

 Fraternally,

 /s/ Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman

cc:    BLET General Chairmen, BNSF
        Don Hahs, International President, BLET
        Ed Rodzwicz, First International Vice President, BLET
        Bill Walpert, General Secretary Treasurer, BLET
        Steve Speagle, Assigned International Vice President, BLE
        Jim Nelson, BLET Secretary Treasurer, BNSF/MRL GCA