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 the attendance policy to engineers working 7/3 rest cycle boards. As you are aware, pursuant to agreement language, engineers assigned to overlay/rest cycle boards are not in violation of attendance guidelines so long as they stay marked up on work cycle days. They are only subject to application of attendance guidelines when the specific provisions of the same agreement are met. This occurs whenever an engineer lays off for a second time on non-scheduled rest days and the second layoff occurs within thirty days of the previous layoff. Once this provision is triggered, an engineer may become subject to the attendance guidelines, but pursuant to the agreement language, will be "treated as if in unassigned service" under the policy.

We have reviewed several recent discipline cases and find that the Carrier is varying from the agreement language on two fronts. The Carrier's software was not designed to properly measure the "30 day look ahead", instead it is looking at months not days. As we advised over a year ago, in many cases this discrepancy extends the look ahead period beyond the 30 days allowed in the agreement. In addition, when the 30 day look ahead trigger has been applied, the Carrier is not treating these engineers as if in unassigned service. The attendance guidelines state that each TY&E employee in unassigned service fulfills his or her responsibility to maintain full-time status, in general, by laying off not more than twenty-five percent of weekdays and weekends in any three month period. The policy is specific in this regard, in fact it is the Carrier that argues that all employees should be aware of these specifics. However, in many of the cases that we have reviewed, we find that the Carrier is not allowing engineers to be unavailable twenty-five percent of weekdays and weekends in the three month period under review. Instead, the Carrier is treating these engineers as if they were in mixed service (assigned/unassigned) during the three month measurement period with some months only allowing for one "any" day off Our agreement is also specific, these employees are to be measure as "unassigned" service employees and the Carrier's application is clearly contrary to the agreement. The fact that this improper measurement artificially deflates the amount of time off available to these engineers "creates" violators, even though under proper application of the agreement and the policy they would not be.

Many months ago we met with a member of your staff and discussed our concerns with both of these issues yet the Carrier's software has not been corrected nor were new instructions issued to the field. We have also raised this issue at investigations, objecting to the arbitrary manner in which the Carrier is applying the agreement provisions applicable to attendance. Please understand that the discipline being assessed in these cases is not supported and in our view will not stand any third party review. While it is unfortunate that our verbal discussions and complaints have been ignored, this is it to provide written confirmation of our previous positions and to request that you instead treat these engineers who truly meet the thirty day look ahead as agreed to by measuring them as if in unassigned service during the entire three month period.

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