Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen

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

Dear Mr. Siegele:

This is in reference to how the Carrier is applying so called "progressive discipline" under the PEPA policy. As you are aware, the Carrier's unilaterally implemented policy states that five incidents of any kind within a twelve month period may subject an employee to dismissal. However, it has recently come to our attention that the Carrier is including events in this count that are not reflected on the employees personal record or "hard card". As you are aware, by agreement no entries may be made on an employees personal record unless the employee has accepted discipline through waiver, or following an investigation, subject to the agreement and the appellate process.

We have recently been advised by members of your staff that it is the Carrier's intention to include events in the "five strikes" application described above that are not on an employee's personal record and have never been given due process. The Carrier's application of the policy in this manner violates our collective bargaining agreements and this is to provide notice that we expect that only those events properly placed on an employees personal record will be considered in the assessment of "progressive discipline". From what we understand, the Carrier has begun relying on several different types of events where no due process was given as cornerstones to subsequent "`progressive discipline". In some cases, no formal charges were ever issued, letters of warning with no verification of receipt or of the facts in the letter are being used by the Carrier as a one of the five "strikes. In other cases, Alternative discipline under the Carrier's PEPA policy, called "Alternative Handling" or "SIAP" by the Carrier, is being counted as a strike even though that form of handling is also absent due process.

We must also address the fact that "Alternative Handling" comes in two forms. "Alternative Handling" as described above is found in the Carrier's PEPA policy and when utilized, does not count as a disciplinary event. "Alternative Handling" is also used to describe contractually covered handling of discipline charges under the "Safety Summit" Agreement. In any event, we have been given assurances in the past by your staff and various operating officers that we have no dispute over the fact that these two types of so called "Alternative Handling" are completely separate. Unfortunately, with new management officers involved, we are very concerned that this understanding is not being applied consistently.

As to the two different forms of Alternative Handling themselves, please remember that in drafting the Safety Summit Agreement, special consideration was given to ensure that alternative
handling events would not be used for any other purpose than to determine future eligibility for alternative handling. For that reason, Alternative Handling given under the terms of the labor agreement can never be entered on an employees personal record or used as a step in the application of the Carrier's progressive discipline scheme.

Conversely, the alternative handling incorporated in the Carrier's PEPA policy is also never to be entered on the employees personal record without first affording the employee with an opportunity to have his or her case decided through a fair and impartial investigation. Again, alternative handling under the Carrier's PEPA policy is also a "non-disciplinary" event that is absent due process. To suggest that handling that was afforded as "non-disciplinary" when offered can later be used as a disciplinary event to support progressive discipline borders on the absurd. Accordingly, the Carrier is without the right to use such an event as a "strike" in the application of its progressive discipline. Perhaps more frustrating is the fact that until recently, that is how the PEPA policy was applied to the employees we represent, this latest change is not only contrary to our agreements, it is contrary to past application.

In addition, the Carrier's theory that letters of warning are somehow akin to the Alternative Handling described in PEPA is even more absurd. Again, letters of warning that are not associated with charges to attend investigation do not lead to any form of "Alternative Handling". Even under the Carrier's own policy, the employee must choose the "Alternative Handling" referenced in the PEPA policy and no such suggestion or confirmation is found in any letter of warning. Instead, the Carrier chooses by issuing the warnings to exclude these events from "disciplinary" handling or from "Alternative Handling". At no time can the Carrier later use or refer to such letters as "Alternative Handling" or use them in the five "strike" count.

As we have stated, this letter is to advise the Carrier that the Organization does not agree with these practices and request that you discontinue the inclusion of events that are absent due process in the application of progressive discipline. We will expect that any outstanding cases involving this type of application will be resolved in conference.

Sincerely,
/s/ Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman

MOW
cc:         All BLET Local Chairmen, BNSF Northlines
             All BLET General Chairmen, BNSF
             All UTU General Chairmen, BNSF
             Jason Ringstad, Director Labor Relations, BNSF