Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

 
M. H. Siegele   
AVP/BNSF   
2600 Lou Menk Drive
P. 0. Box 961030
Fort Worth, TX 76161-0030 

Dear Mr. Siegele:  

This is in reference to our December 16, 2003: letter of complaint concerning the conventional operation of locomotives by other than employees properly assigned as locomotive engineers. I am in receipt of your reply dated December 16, 2003 and we have discussed these matters at length in the past few weeks. I have attached Twin Cities Division General Notice No. 177, dated December 17, 2003, as well as a letter written by Assistant Vice President of Operations Ray Stephens on the same date. I have also attached the instructions that were issued to all Yardmasters on the Twin Cities Division. Per our conversation with Twin Cities Division General Manager Bruce, it is my understanding that similar instructions were issued to all front line supervisors.  

From these attachments it does appear that the Carrier has made a good faith effort on the Twin Cities Division to respond to our complaint. I commend and thank Assistant Vice President Stephens and General Manager Bruce for their direct responses. I have full confidence that they are determined to prevent any further occurrences on the Twin Cities Division that could generate a similar complaint. They have made it clear that the they will not tolerate officers or scheduled employees taking it upon themselves to violate the posted instructions.  

Unfortunately, we have learned that similar occurrences have occurred on other operating Divisions of the Carrier since this matter began. We have discussed incidents in Denver, Colorado as well as incidents in Chicago, Illinois. While I have been advised that the Powder River Division has adopted a General Notice identical to the Twin Cities notice, we have seen no such actions on the Chicago Division. Although the Chicago incident that we discussed involved a non-remote/conventional assignment, it is similar to our original complaint in that the need for a locomotive engineer arose within a shift and other than a locomotive engineer was instructed to operate the locomotive. To date, local management maintains that they will continue this practice and has offered no resolution to this complaint, nor has your office. I do not differentiate between locomotives assigned to be operated in conventional mode or remote control mode. When the need for an engineer arises, be it a remote assignment or a conventional assignment, one will be called from the ranks of locomotive engineers or our complaint is not resolved. in Chicago, local management apparently still reserves the right to assign those duties to employees working in the Hostlers craft.  

From all appearances the Carrier’s insistence on eliminating the locomotive engineer in yard service through remote control implementation has blinded them to the requirements of our agreements. This is not a case of employees in another craft occasionally exceeding their work rights, it involves the Carrier’s outright decision to take a UTU represented employee off of his Hostler’s position and reassign him to work with a different UTU represented ground crew while operating a conventional locomotive. The end result is no different then the incident that we initially complained about in Willmar where a utility man was instructed to do the same.  

You animate in your written response that our strike threat would only be appropriate where the “company as a whole repudiates its obligations”. Absent some evidence that instructions have been issued on that Division that will address our complaint, the officers on the Chicago Division have done just that, they have repudiated their obligations. I would ask that you immediately advise of the steps that will be taken to address this matter.  

Again, I do recognize the efforts of AVP Stephens and GM Bruce on their territory and I appreciate them. If you are serious about insuring that no further incidents occur that would require us to withdraw from service, I would suggest that you follow that example by issuing similar instructions system wide. I have discussed this with the other BLET General Chairmen on the property and their patience has worn just as thin as mine in this regard.  

As I stated in my first letter, we have just recently entered into a profit sharing agreement with BNSF. Your goal and ours in doing so was to motivate the engineers on this property to do everything in their power to make BNSF the most profitable company possible and we intend to work towards that end. That said, that profitability cannot and will not come at the expense of our agreements. My letter advising you that we would set a date to withdraw from service, absent resolution, was not our first discussion involving these matters. Had the assurances that we were given in the past been worthwhile, my last letter would not have been necessary. While you have made great strides since my December letter, there are still locations that haven’t gotten the message. When you have addressed those locations perhaps we can consider this matter closed. Until then, 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.

 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

December 18, 2003

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

Dear Mr. Pierce:    

Thanks for your December 16, 2003 letter concerning an incident at Willmar, Minnesota on December 11, 2003 where a remote control device failed and our local supervisors instructed a utility employee who was a demoted engineer to work as a locomotive engineer on that same yard job with the remote control crew working as a traditional ground crew. After looking into this, I believe I understand your concerns.  

In the incident at Willmar on December 11, 2003, the yardrnaster, 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, he was wrong, and clearly, the first-out extra board engineer is entitled to an appropriate claim payment.  

The earlier incident at Sioux City 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.  

Dennis, we have no intention of repudiating our collective bargaining agreements, and we take these matters seriously. I thought you and I had a healthy conversation with Mark Bruce earlier today where Mark acknowledged that using the utility man as a locomotive engineer was improper.  

We are working with our line officers today to issue instructions to our field officers concerning the proper way of filling vacancies for locomotive engineers, and we will provide you with a copy of those instructions. 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 the management’s best efforts, an employee 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, roiling 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. Incidentally, we appreciate the strength of your objections; you need not fear that we might contend that you or BLE has acquiesced in contract violations like those you’ve brought to our attention in these instances.

 Anyway, I hope our efforts here represent an acceptable resolution. Please let me know immediately if you see it differently.

 Sincerely,

/s/ Milton H. Siegele

cc: Matt Rose
     Carl Ice
     Dave Dealy
     John Fleps
     Ray Stephens
     Mark Kotter
     Chris Roberts
     Mark Bruce

December 17, 2003  

All Transportation Supervisors:  

Over the last few days, we received a serious complaint from BLE concerning incidents where we acted inconsistently with our collective bargaining agreements. While the intentions of the individuals involved may have been honorable, we need to correct these situations immediately.  

We had one situation where a demoted engineer was working with a remote control crew. When the remote control equipment malfunctioned, the yardmaster decided to convert the remote control job to a traditional job and instructed the demoted engineer assigned to a utility position to work as a locomotive engineer. In this case, it was improper to use the demoted engineer as the locomotive engineer on the job. Instead, we should have called the first-out extra board engineer.  

In another situation, a demoted engineer who was working on a remote control job decided on his own to operate another locomotive from the control stand to move the locomotive out of the way. Once again, this was not appropriate.  

Remote control operators (and any other ground service employee like a utility man) may not operate the locomotive in conventional mode while working on a remote control assignment.  

It is imperative that you immediately communicate this information to all employees under your jurisdiction. If there is any doubt as to how to fill engineers’ vacancies properly, please contact Labor Relations.  

Yours very truly,  

/s/ Raymond E. Stephens
AVP Operations North Region

Yardmaster instructions involving RCO

Subject: RCO malfunctions or inoperable conditions  

In the event an RCO locomotive becomes inoperable you must follow these steps:  

1.    Continue with another serviceable RCO locomotive.  

2.   If an RCO locomotive is not available and time permits, a Locomotive Engineer must be called through the Crew Support Center. Your on duty supervisor must be notified at this point.  

3.   If the applicable boards are exhausted all applicable collective bargaining agreements must be honored when attempting to find a qualified Locomotive Engineer, (canvassing).  

4.   RCO ground employees are not permitted and will not be authorized to operate the locomotive by any conventional means. Only certified locomotive engineers or hostlers are allowed to operate a locomotive in conventional mode.  

It must be understood that in no case will an on duty utility person or any operating employee, who is a certified engineer, be used in conventional means as an engineer on an RCO assignment.

Signature of yardmaster ________________

GENERAL NOTICE No. 177 / TWIN CITIES DIVISION                      Page    1 of   2

DADPPRN2                                                                   12/19/03

WILLMAR MN                        ******           Post     ******            12/19/03
                                                                                                              13:11:11 CT  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 December 17, 2003

BNSF Railway Co.
TWIN CITIES DIVISION  

GENERAL NOTICE No. 177

 TO ALL CONCERNED,  

SUBJECT:  Twin Cities Division Remote Control Operations  

In addition to System Special Instructions #8, dated July 13, 2003, Item 23, the following will apply:  

1. If remote control feature of an RCO operation fails and there is a need to go into conventional operations, all applicable collective bargaining agreements must be strictly adhered too. Conventional operation requires an engineer called from the applicable decision table through Crew Support Center, Topeka.  

2. RCO ground employees are not permitted and will not be authorized to operate any locomotive by any conventional means. Only certified locomotive engineers or hostlers, while assigned to a conventional locomotive operation, are allowed to operate a locomotive in conventional mode. If there is a need for any reason to operate the RCO engine in conventional mode, contact the appropriate authority. Failure to comply with these instructions may result in formal discipline.  

3. Remote Control Operators will conduct operations consistent with accepted operating practices for ground service personnel in conventional operations. This means that Remote Control operator(s) may position themselves in a locomotive cab as a ground service employee normally would during conventional operations. Remote Control Operators shall work from the ground as a ground service employee normally would in conventional operations.

 4. When working in a locomotive cab, a Remote Control Operator with control over movement will not receive hand or radio signals directing 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 the Remote Control Transmitter if it is necessary for an RCO on the ground to direct movement.  

5. The Remote Control Operator at the coupling is required to be the primary operator during a coupling operation.

 Example 1:   A crew of two Remote Control Operators is involved in switching operations. The operator at a coupling should be the primary operator who will make a coupling. If the other operator is in control, stop short of coupling and transfer control to the operator located at coupling.

 Example 2:    A crew is working with an attached Utility Employee who is assisting in setting out a block of cars and will be at the location of coupling when the cut of cars are put back together. Either Remote Control Operator may be the primary operator as neither are located at the coupling and are receiving signals from the Utility Employee.

APPROVED:
M.D. DEALY
V.P. OPERATIONS     

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

John J. Fleps                                                                        December 16, 2003   
Vice President-Labor Relations                                            File: Engineer Duties/
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway                                  Remote Operations
P. 0. Box 961030
Fort Worth, TX 76161-0030

 Dear Mr. Fleps: 

This is in reference to a recent incident in Willmar, Minnesota where an employee working in a craft other than locomotive engineer was instructed to perform the duties of an engineer by operating a locomotive using the conventional control stand on the locomotive From what we have been advised, although assignment WLM 3213 began its shift at 11:30 PM on December 11, 2003 using remote control operations, the remote control device failed at approximately 3:00 am. Rather than call one of engineers available to perform these duties, local management made the decision to instruct an employee on duty in the switchman’s craft to convert the locomotive to conventional operation and finish the shift in that fashion.  

I should not have to remind you of the commitments that were given to BLE that incidents such as this one would not happen. Unfortunately, it has become more and more obvious that the commitments given to us by you and your staff are all but being ignored by the operating officers in the field. This is the second incident in just the past few weeks wherein an employee working in ground service operated a locomotive using conventional controls on the property represented by the Committee. In the last case, although the ground crew member took it upon himself to convert the locomotive to manual, it took a phone call from this office for local management in Sioux City to do anything but look the other way. Our Local Chairman was actually accosted by the UTU membership in Sioux City for registering the complaint, as local management laid the need to act on the matter on his shoulders in full.  

I have tried on multiple occasions to find a way to express to you and your staff) just how seriously we view violations such as the one in this complaint. The right to have positions that perform engineer’s duties filled by an engineer who has been called from the engineer ranks is one that we do not intend to surrender. This position holds whether employees assigned in ground crafts happen to hold seniority as engineers or not. Again, all engineer vacancies and positions that operate locomotives in conventional fashion are to be filled from the engineer ranks, not the ranks of any other craft. Thee Carrier made assurances all through the Vernon Arbitration that this would be the case and I fully expect that you will live up to these assurances.  

While you and your staff have indicated that you agree with our position, I am not convinced that our position is even known by the all officers of the operating department. The two complaints noted above are not the first infractions of this nature that have been brought to you or your staff's attention by this Office. In addition, the other BLE General Chairmen on this property have registered similar complaints, with you assuring us in each incident that it would not happen again. In those cases we relied on your verbal commitments that these acts would cease. it is apparent that we can no longer rely on those assurances.  

For these reasons and due to the continual violation of which we complain, I have asked BLE International President Hahs for his authority to poll the Local Chairmen of this Committee to authorize withdrawing from the service of the Carrier. President Hahs has granted this request, and as of today’s date, the voting members of this General Committee of Adjustment have voted in the affirmative to authorize such a withdrawal. Absent some immediate resolution of this dispute that comports with the agreement between the parties, I have no choice but to request time concurrence of President Hahs and set a date for a withdrawal from service.  

Rest assured that even if the instant dispute is resolved, we will act as firmly and swiftly as the Act allows if these violations continue. There will be no delay to poll the Committee in the future, rather we will immediately seek President Halls’ authority to withdraw from service.

It is unfortunate that we have to take steps as dramatic as these as I have just been advised that the BLE membership on this property has opted to enter into profit sharing with the Carrier. For each progressive step that we take forward in our efforts, we seem to take two steps backwards. I will await your immediate written reply advising of the steps that will he taken by the senior management team to insure that engineer’s duties are not assigned to other crafts.  

Sincerely,  

/s/ Dennis F. Pierce
General Chairman  

cc: Milton Siegele
     Matt Rose
     Carl Ice
     Dave Dealy
     Don Hahs, International President~ BLE
     Harold Ross, General Counsel, BLE
     Steve Speagle, Vice President Assigned, BLE
     BLE General Chairmen, BNSF Properties
     BLE Local Chairmen, BN Northlines