UTU & Dues Maintenance

Dear Sirs and Brothers;

This is in reference to the recent agreement reached between the National Conference Committee and UTU concerning dues maintenance, exclusive representation and dues retention. We have attached a copy of UTU's recent agreement establishing a method for UTU GCA's to invoke the above described items. We have also included UTU President Thompson's cover not only describing the agreement, but encouraging all UTU Locals to adopt the provisions. As you would expect, the impact of these agreements on both UTU and BLET represented operating employees is significant. While we have not been able to obtain answers from either BNSF or UTU on all the questions that we have received, we will attempt to at least share as much as we know at this point.

For starters, please recognize that this GCA previously entered into agreements with the majority of our UTU counterparts wherein both parties agreed that they would not implement agreements imposing dues maintenance or exclusive representation on our respective properties. We have attached those agreements for ready reference. It should also be noted that UTU^'s recent agreement with the NCCC includes a side letter that recognizes our on property agreements. In discussing the matter with our involved UTU counterparts, it appears that we are in agreement that our previous joint efforts will effectively keep us from being affected by this latest push by the UTU International for dues maintenance and exclusivity. If anything changes, we will provide an update immediately.

There are certain exceptions to this understanding, specifically affecting those that work on former BN districts that were consolidated with ATSF districts since merger date. UTU and BLET had not entered into joint agreements on the former ATSF avoiding dues maintenance or exclusivity. On December 1, 2004 former ATSF UTU General Chairman Houston served notice on BNSF (attached), invoking the dues maintenance/exclusivity portion of the recent UTU national agreement as requested by President Thompson. Many questions remain unanswered by BNSF or UTU regarding the resulting impact to those working the ground at the locations and on the rosters consolidated since merger, most of them coming from the Kansas City terminal. We have asked repeatedly that UTU and BNSF delay implementation at least until these questions can be answered. As Crew has no methodology or technology in place to even apply the provisions of the agreement, we have also asked that UTU and BNSF delay until the agreement provisions can be properly applied by Crew. On both accounts, UTU has refused those requests.

'The BLET conductor and trainmen members are no better than free riders or "no-bills." The seniority maintenance fee provisions of the letter of intent the UTU entered into with the carriers are designed to make sure that the loyal membership of UTU does not subsidize these free riders and no-bills, making the indemnification provisions well worth it, just as such a provision is worth it in union-shop agreements"

The term "no-bill" is the term chosen by UTU to describe trainmen who belong to a union that does not hold theⁱr contract. If those same UTU terms are applied in reverse to engineers who belong to a union that does not hold their contract, then President Thompson himself becomes the most senior no bill on the engineers roster that he currently holds seniority on.

We only share this so that the "spin^" that UTU's International is putting out is called for what it is. We have always believed that the choice of which Union operating employees belonged to was exactly that, their choice. After merging with IBT, BLET offered trainmen no more than UTU has offered engineers for years, representation. When too many UTU members started to exercise their choice by choosing to transfer to BLET, UTU took action to take away that choice, claiming that BLET had started the battle. We have included former BLET President Dubroski's letter to former President Little in 1999 commenting on UTU's "War Chest Being Raised to Battle BLE." It must also be remembered that UTU is not in the AFL-CIO largely due to its attack on BLE. While each party has its own opinion on who fired the first shot in the fight between BLET and UTU, it is quite clear to us here that IBT/BLET's recent offer of representation was not it.

Ironically, it was the Carriers through its agent, the NCCC, that recently helped UTU counteract BLET's offer of representation. They did this by jointly instituting an agreement that would take away a trainman^'s right to chose between the two unions due to exclusivity and dues maintenance. For many of us, it is apparent that this latest chain of UTU/NCCC events is truly the "ill conceived conspiracy". NCCC only stands to gain when BLET and UTU continue in battle after battle, and NCCC's decision to again come to the aid of UTU comes as no surprise. Even less surprising is NCCC's latest Section 6 Notice seeking UTU^'s infamous "single craft" for operating employees. Again, it is clear to us where the real "ill conceived conspiracy" is.

In closing, we would ask you to consider the following. When was the last time that the employees benefited when the employer picked their union? We will continue to provide information as it becomes available, please contact the office if you have any questions or concerns.

Fraternally,

/s/ Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman

cc:       cc:     Don Hahs
          Steve Speagle
          BLET General Chairmen, BNSF

We are working on a program to help each Committee police these previsions, and for this reason, we need each of you to cooperate in keeping us notified when and where these provisions are placed into effect. Each of you can start immediately in attempting to get these items ready to be implemented on portions of your property as close to November 1, 2004 as possible.

"Seniority Maintenance" requires each employee in a train service class/craft (including locomotive engineer trainees) who does not hold membership in the UTU to pay a monthly seniority maintenance fee to UTU in order to accumulate train service seniority. Unlike the BLET's "Seniority Maintenance Fee provisions, the only time an individual will be required to pay our "Seniority Maintenance Fee" is when they are actually working in a craft or class represented by the UTU.

In closing, as I have mentioned in the history of these provisions, If Mr. Hahs wants to stop the direction he has been taking the BLET, UTU will back off each of the above when we are furnished information in writing that BLET: (1) will stop the reduced and or free or cut-rate dues to UTU-represented employees and back this up with documents assuring this practice will be stopped on all local divisions; (2) terminate all "Seniority Maintenance Fees` for locomotive engineers; and, (3) will terminate any type of "Seniority Retention" provisions and "Exclusive Representation." BLET's failure to completely address all of the above will result in continued implementation of all the items in the Letter of Intent as quickly as possible.

(a) Each employee in a train service class/craft (including locomotive engineer trainees) represented (for RLA purposes) by the UTU who does not hold membership in that organization will be required to pay a monthly seniority maintenance ("SM") fee to UTU in order to continue to accumulate train service seniority. The SM fee shall be based on the costs of negotiations, c1aim/grievance/discipline handling, and internal governance as indicated in UTU's Fees Objector Policy and/or the most recent LM-2 Report filed by UTU with the United States Department of Labor but in no event shall it exceed the full amount of monthly dues payable to UTU and its subordinate units by a member of such organization. The SM fee required under this paragraph will be payable by an employee on a monthly basis beginning with the first full calendar month that immediately follows completion of his/her SM service period. An employee's SM service period_. for this purpose shall mean the (30) calendar day period that commences with his/her first day of compensated service in a UTU represented train service class/craft (including locomotive engineer trainees) that occurs after_. the date this provision is implemented at the location involved. If an employee covered by this paragraph is promoted to engine service and is subsequently set back to train service at a location where this provision has been implemented, a new SM service period (as defined above) will be applicable to such employee.

(b) The UTU shall furnish to the carrier written notification of the amount of the applicable SM fee(s) dues under this paragraph by July_. 1 of each calendar year, which amount will remain in effect until^-the the succeeding July 1. The initial notification of the SM fee amounts) under this paragraph will be made within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this Letter of Intent is implemented at any location and will remain in effect until the succeeding July 1. The applicable SM fee will be payable at the same time as dues are payable by a UTU member. Any non-member of UTU in tram service who fails to pay the SM fee when due shall be promptly notified of that non-payment by the UTU by certified mail. If such default has not been cured within thirty (30) calendar days after the date of such. notice, the UTU shall provide the earner written notification of the non-payment and that individual's seniority in the train service class/craft involved shall be frozen effective on the first calendar day after expiration of the 30-day notice period.

c) The SR fee required under this paragraph will be payable by an employee on a monthly basis beginning with the first full calendar month that immediately follows completion of his/her SR service period. An employee's SR service period for this purpose shall mean the thirty (30) calendar day period that commences with his/her first day of compensated service in engine service that occurs after the date this provision is implemented at the location involved. If an employee covered by this paragraph is set back to train service and is subsequently promoted to engine service at a location where this provision has been implemented, a new SR service period (as defined above) will be applicable to such employee.

d) If an employee whose train service seniority has been extinguished pursuant to subparagraph (b) is subsequently set back to train service because of insufficient seniority to hold an engine service position, he/she shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority roster involved. Such employee:

i) shall be deemed to have forfeited all agreement-based fⁱghts and/or benefits for which_. he/she was entitled or eligible based upon his/her former train service seniority; and

ii) who is or becomes subject to statutory-based employee protective conditions, for the duration of the applicable protective period, shall be treated as having all of his/her former train service seniority rights.

4. Existing Provisions. Article IX - Seniority Accumulation of the May 8, 1996 National Agreement, Document A (and any arrangements now effect pursuant to its terms and any existing arrangements granting exclusive representation to UTU shall be suspended on the date this Letter of Intent is implemented at the location involved. Such suspension shall be rescinded on the date this Letter of Intent is terminated under Paragraph 7.

b) For purposes of this paragraph, a location shall mean a defined territory no smaller than one or more entire seniority districts withal the jurisdiction of one or more General Committees and shall encompass all UTU seniority rosters therein, Implementation at a location will be subject to ratification by majority vote of all affected Local Chairmen, all of whom will be bound by an affirmative vote.

7. Term. This Letter of Intent is made effective November 1, 2004 and shall remain to effect until January 31, 2006. The Letter of Intent shall automatically terminate at that time unless extended by mutual written agreement of the parties. Either party may request commencement of discussions to extend the term of the Letter of Intent at any time_, within ninety (90) calendar days of such Termination Date. If such request is made, both parties commit to good faith discussions.

9. Reservation of Rights. This Letter of Intent is not intended to restrict any of the existing rights of a carrier or the UTU or to create additional carrier or UTU responsibilities except as specifically provided herein.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

between

BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
GENERAL COMMITTEES OF ADJUSTMENT
(former CB&Q, GN, NP, SP&S, SLSF, AT&N, FW &D, C&S, JTD)
and

THE UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION
GENERAL COMMITTEES OF ADJUSTMENT
(former CB&Q, GN, NP, SP&S, SL&SF, AT&N, FW&D, C&S, JTD)
and

THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD CO.

In consideration of pending disputes between the parties signatory hereto concerning their rights to appeal claims on behalf of members of either of the two Organizations and employees of the Carrier, it is the intent of the parties to resolve such disputes and eliminate and/or preclude implementation of any agreement between Burlington Northern and either BLE or UTU which require payment of a fee or dues for maintenance or accumulation of seniority in Engine or Train (ground) service, and; to provide the right for representatives of both Organizations to appeal and pursue claims on behalf of their respective members. THEREFORE, IT IS UNDERSTOOD:

1. This understanding recognizes the right of Local and General Chairmen of the United Transportation Union (UTU) to appeal claims on behalf of Engineers who are members of the UTU, and the right of Local and General Chairmen of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) to appeal claims on behalf of firemen, hostlers and ground service employees consistent with the respective agreements governing such appeals.

(a). No claim arising while working in a craft or class represented by the BLE may be submitted to arbitration on behalf of an individual(s) by other than the BLE General Chairman without the BLE General Chairman first being given opportunity to submit, in writing, the interpretation of BLE rule(s) in evidence.

(b). No claim arising while working in a craft or class represented by the UTU may be submitted to arbitration on behalf of an individual(s) by other than the UTU General Chairman without the UTU General Chairman first being given opportunity to submit, in writing, the interpretation of UTU rule(s) in evidence.

2. Claims for employees working under BLE agreements/schedules must be submitted only by the claimant or a BLE Local Chairman. Claims for employees working under the UTU agreements/schedules must be submitted only by the claimant or a UTU Local Chairman. Claims submitted on a joint time slip by any member of a single crew on behalf of other members of that crew will be considered the same as if submitted by an individual claimant.

3. (a) The Burlington Northern and BLE General Chairmen signatory hereto agree that no agreement will be entered into between these named parties which will deny the rights of UTU to appeal and handle claims for engineers to the extent specifically provided herein.

(b) The Burlington Northern and UTU General Chairmen signatory hereto agree that no agreement will be entered into between the named parties which will deny the rights of BLE to appeal and handle claims for firemen, hostlers, and ground service employees to the extent specifically provided herein.

4. Burlington Northern and the UTU and BLE General Chairmen signatory hereto agree that no agreement will be entered into between any of these named parties which will require any member of one of these Organizations to pay dues or fees to the other Organization for the purpose of maintaining or accumulating seniority in a craft or class represented by that Organization.

NOTE: This does not preclude UTU or BLE from entering into agreements which require an individual accepting an official position with the Carrier to pay dues or fees to either UTU or BLE, or both, for the purpose of continuing to maintain and/or accumulate seniority in the craft(s) represented by them, respectively.

This understanding signed this 27th day of March, 1996
will be effective on 3-27-96, and will not be changed or canceled except in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, or by mutual concurrence of the parties signatory hereto.

FOR BURLINGTON NORTHERN:
/s/ Daniel J. Kozak
Assistant Vice-President-Labor Relations

FOR THE ORGANIZATIONS:

/s/ Various General Chairmen
General Chairman-UTU

/s/ Various General Chairmen
General Chairman-BLE

2.Claims for employees working under BLE agreements/schedules must be submitted only by the claimant or a BLE Local Chairmen. Claims for employees working under the UTU agreements/schedules must be submitted only by the claimant or a UTU Local Chairman. Claims submitted on a joint time slip by any member of a single crew on behalf of other members of that crew will be considered the same as if submitted by an individual claimant,

3. (a) The Burlington Northern Santa Fe and BLE General Chairmen signatory hereto agree that no agreement will be entered into between these named parties which will deny the rights of UTU to appeal and handle claims for engineers to the extent specifically provided herein.

(b) The Burlington Northern Santa Fe and UTU General Chairmen signatory hereto agree that no agreement will be entered into between these named parties which will deny the rights of BLE to appeal and handle claims for firemen, hostlers, and ground service employees to the extent specifically provided herein.

4. Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the UTU and BLE General Chairmen signatory hereto agree that no agreement will be entered into between any of these named parties which will require any member of one of these Organizations to pay dues or fees to the other Organization for the purpose of maintaining or accumulating seniority in a craft or class represented by that Organization.

This understanding signed this 1st. day of April 2004
will be effective on April 1 2004, and will not be changed or canceled
except in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, or by mutual concurrence of the parties signatory hereto.

FOR THE CARRIER:

UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION
General Committee of Adjustment
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (SF Proper)
Central Kansas Railway
Brakemen- Conductors - Engineers -Yardmen

JA Huston, General Chairman                                                                                                                                                    8900 Marty—Suite 100
RW Henderson Vice Chairman                                                                                                                                                  Overland Park, KS 663204
RL Pence, Secretary                                                                                                                                                                        (913) 848-3660
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Fax (913) 648^.7470

Mr. John F. FLeps Email & U.S. Mail
Vice President - Labor Relations

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.

2600 Lou Menk Drive

P.O. Box 961030

Fort Worth, TX 76131-0030

RE: Exclusive Representation and Seniority Maintenance

Dear Sin

This letter is in reference to the Letter of Intent dated November 1, 2004, from Robert F. Allan, Chairman National Railway Labor Conference, addressed to Mr. Paul C. Thompson, President, United Transportation Union and serves as notice from this Committee of our desire to implement the Exclusive Representation and Seniority Maintenance provisions contained in the Letter of Intent dated November 1, 2004, at the following locations:

1.                                         Chicago (Corwith) Yard
2.                                         ILL. Division 1 & 2 (Fort Madison to Chicago all service & Galesburg to Chicago, all service)
3.                                         ILL. Division 1 & 2 Division Yards (Willow Springs, Hodgkins, Joliet/LPC)
4.                                         ILL. Division 1 & 2 Division (Galesburg Road Extra to Chicago)
5.                                         ILL. Division 3 & 4 (Fart Madison to KC all service)
6,          ILL. Divisions 1 & 2 and 3&4 (Galesburg to KC all service)
7.                                         ILL. Division 3 & 4 Yard (Fort Madison)
8.                                         Kansas City (Argentine) Yard
9.                                         Former Eastern Division (KC to Wellington, KC to Arkansas City & KC to Newton)

All Local Chairmen

BNSF Railway Company Santa Fe General Committee of Adjustment

Re: Seniority Maintenance

Dear Sirs and Brothers:

You are all aware of the UTU's Letter of Intent that was signed by the National Carrier's Conference Committee on November 1, 2004, which allows the UTU to charge BLET members seniority maintenance fees, seniority retention fees, and allows them to implement exclusive representation of any time claims or discipline cases that happened while working in any UTU represented craft or class.

All our brothers working under the Eastern and Western Lines Schedule Agreement are already being faced with this situation as UTU General Chairman Jim Huston has notified the Carrier that effective December 1, 2004, that he will implement the aforementioned conditions on over 40 locations across the former Santa Fe under his jurisdiction. The other two grand divisions consisting of the Coastlines and the Northern and Southern Divisions have not notified the Carrier to implement these maintenance fees at this time.

That being the case our members are going to be faced with some very hard decisions. Under the letter of instructions that *as addressed to all General Chairmen from UTU President Paul Thompson, seniority maintenance fees will only apply to those that are working in any craft that is under the jurisdiction and representation of the UTU. My take on that means that our younger members that fall on the bubble between working as an engineer and trainman will be the prime targets for the assessment of double dues. These young brothers and sisters are going to be faced with the situation of being forced to pay dues into an organization not of their choosing. If they wish to have their trainmen's seniority continue to grow and accrue they will be required to pay UTU dues against their will. The older seniority engineers will not face this problem unless they choose to exercise seniority to the ground in accordance with our Ebb and Flow Agreement.

It breaks my heart to see this happening to our younger members. These brothers and sisters used their own judgments and made the choice to join the BLET as their representative not because they were promised everything would be paid or anything else of that nature but because they believed in what we stand for and how we endeavor to protect the rights of our membership. They continue to stay our members because we prove to them that we do the best we can for our membership. The BLET does not try to force anyone to remain as a member of our Organization. Our handling of their claims and discipline cases is what convinces these brothers and sisters to remain as members of our Organization. They enjoy the protection they receive from the BLET.

Brothers, I have received a few phone calls from some of the affected Local Chairmen asking about what we as a Committee intend to do. My response to these concerned brothers is that we as a Committee are not going to respond in a retaliatory manner. This Office has no intention of imposing exclusivity, seniority maintenance, or seniority retention fees on the members of the UTU. This office believes in the "Freedom of Choice" and will continue to operate that way. For this office to force someone to belong to our Committee just because we can does not make that forced member happy about the situation. He is not an asset to our Committee. The only reason he is a member is because he is being made to do so. My belief is that each of the employees of the BNSF have the right to choose who they want to represent them. Being coerced into belonging to one Organization or the other does not strengthen your other members because of more numbers. It weakens your willing membership due to the hate and discontent that these forced members bring.

Brothers, in closing I'm asking each of you to assist these younger members in any way you can during these trying times. These members are going to be faced with some very tough choices in the days to come. Deciding on whether to stay in the BLET when being forced to pay dues to the UTU is going to be a decision that would be hard on any of us. Not being allowed to exercise personal choices is something that people who live in America have not had to face before. If asked about what you would do in the same situation give a heart felt explanation. Ask yourselves what you would do in the same situation and give advice to these members if asked. Support their decisions and remind them that whatever their decision is we will be there for them if possible. Our hands may be tied but we will do whatever we can for them.

In closing, I want to reiterate that it has never been the position of this Committee or this office to create a financial hardship for any of our members. We believe in ^"Freedom of Choice^" and will support the decisions of all these affected brothers and sisters. Again, thank you for allowing me to address this issue with each of you. All you L/C that are not facing this issue at the present time remember our L/C and members that are. Volunteer to help them anyway that you can. I remain;

Fraternally yours,

/s/ Pat Williams
General Chairman

Cc: All BNSF BLET General Chairmen
Mr. Don Hahs, President BLET
BLET Advisory Board

UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION

BURLINGTON NORTHERN CONSOLIDATED COMMITTEE (Former NP Lines)

September 15, 1995

Circular Letter No. 10-95

To: Local Chairpersons and Secretaries representing Enginemen General Committee GO-001 (former NP, GN, SP&S)

Dear Sisters and Brothers:

This letter is to advise that the BLE and Carrier contend that only BLE Local Chairman can appeal an engineer's claim to the General Superintendent. As we understand their position, this applies only to initial appeals taken at the Local Chairman and Local Carrier Officer level.

The BLE and Carrier make this false contention based on their new interpretation of the sixteen year old BLE time limit rule, quoted, in part, below.

If claim is to be appealed; such appeal must be submitted in writing by the Local Chairman to the Superintendent within sixty days from the date of receipt of notice of disallowance from the Carrier.

This new position violates existing agreements between UTU and BN stipulating that Engineers, Firemen, and Hostlers possess the right to have the UTU Committee pursue their grievances.

The UTU and predecessor Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen have a solid reputation for aggressively pursuing claims and grievances in behalf of our engine service members. We understand the Carrier's desire to eliminate the UTU Local Chairman's ability to pursue claims in behalf our Engineer members, but fail to comprehend the reason why another labor organization would agree to participate with the Carrier in this endeavor.

We are currently appealing this representation issue and will take whatever actions necessary to quickly exterminate the Carrier's scheme to grant the BLE "exclusivity" at the local level in defiance of our rules and agreements. We will continue to handle cur Engineer members' claims and grievances with the Carrier at the General Committee level in the usual fashion. In order to deny Carrier the opportunity to procedurally challenge claims appealed in behalf of our engineer members at the local level, it is essential to immediately adopt the following procedures.

January 21, 1991

TO: Mr. G.T. DuBose,
Chairman National Negotiating Committee

Mr. J.M. Brunkenhoefer,
Member National Negotiating Committee

Mr. L.W. Swert,
Member National Negotiating Committee

Mr. C. L. Little,
Member National Negotiating Committee

When UTU was formed into the strongest and greatest rail union ever, through the voluntary efforts of four former proud and efficient independent craft rail unions, the BRT was the largest. The BLF&E was second in number of members due to the fact that thousands of locomotive engineers wanted efficient representation which was not available through the BLE. After the unification, those engineers remained loyal UTU members and contributed much, both in dues money and in participation to make the UTU the complete and strangest rail union ever.

The BLE has whined and cried for years that all engineers should belong to their group and make it a strong and efficient union. The UTU kept those engineers, through economical, honest and efficient handling of their claims, grievances and overall well being and representation through the efforts of dedicated and qualified Local Chairmen and General Chairmen. Throughout the years it has always been understood and even required, that even with UTU representatives handling their business, the BLE still retained the right to interpret its own agreements and practices.

The BLE has tried for years to get those thousands of happy and loyal UTU members to come to them (with their dues money) and have never succeeded. Now a dark and terrible plague has settled over UTU and its loyal members.

Through your absolute incompetence, those thousands of members will be gone. Of course the BLE wanted an agreement provision that would give them the sole and exclusive right to handle claims and grievances for engineers. Certainly, they would continue to serve notices and ask for it. What union wouldn't want thousands of new captive, if unhappy, members paying dues into their shrinking operation. Until the the day of infamy, January 15, 1991, they never succeeded. However, on that day the Presidential Emergency Board rendered its recommendations to the President, and to the parties as to agreement provisions that should result and any union member in the country can understand the recommendations and reason thereof for the fatal blow to the UTU's over 7,000 loyal engineer members.

"At the hearings the UTU bargaining committee did not offer any objection to the change proposed by the BLE or any information on the interest of the UTU in continuing such grievance representation.

Since the UTU representative did not offer objection to the BLE proposal, this Board recommends, in accordance with the practice in virtual^ly every other industry in the United States, that the BLE have exclusive representation for all purposes of all employees in the craft or class to which it has been certified or recognized".

There can be no explanation for your incompetence. You each were honored by the members of this Union (as we all have been) to serve and represent their interest. With that honor comes the obligation to protect their interests and their most basic interest is that of representation. Each one of us who are signatory to this letter are being confronted with questions as to why the UTU Committee took no action or interest in preserving the rights of our membership to be represented by the UTU, the Union of their choosing. You and your Committee were entrusted by our loyal and dedicated members to represent them, not to give away their representation, by either by intent or complete incompetence. Your actions or rather, lack of actions can possibly result in the loss of 7,000 to 9,000 UTU engineer member's resulting in a loss in international dues of approximately $100,000.00 per month. This does not take into account local dues, legislative dues and General Committee dues plus TPEL. in fact, every UTU enginemen's committee stands to be put out of business because each of you failed to act or respond. Two of you have already explained that: 1. It was not your job to rebut other unions' positions, and 2. You covered it in ^"your submissions.^" Research of the submissions indicates differently.

Incidentally, carrier officers are, as we are, flabbergasted in your incompetence and inexcusable "asleep at the switch." The Emergency Board has no idea as to the thousand of engineers involved or the reason those engineers demanded legal representation by the UTU.

Movements of charges being preferred against each of you under our Constitution are being talked about all over the country. Even class action damage suits against you for your dereliction to duty and total incompetence are being discussed by our local officers and members.

It should be recognized that Don Caner, a member of your National Negotiating Committee, was not responsible, nor involved in your incompetence. He was handling - the UTU Yardmasters submissions only, and you will note he made needed compromises and came out with a good agreement for-his yardmasters.

Why don't you do the only thing you could do as an apology to those engineers and the members of UTU as a whole RESIGN. You have proven you are not qualified to hold any office in the United Transportation Union.

INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENTS
HOLDING ENGINEER SERVICE SENIORITY

Paul C. Thompson

Byron Boyd Jr.

(3 other names that are illegible)

UTU (E) GENERAL CHAIRMEN

(Signed by 19 General Chairmen)

January 24, 1991

Mr. Paul C. Thompson, Vice President
United Transportation Union

Shawnee Mission, TX 66203

Mr. Byron A. Boyd, Jr., Vice President
United Transportation Union

Seattle, WA 98115

Mr. Larry R. Davis, Vice President
United Transportation Union

Downingtown, PA 19335

Gentlemen:

Recently, I received a copy of your joint January 21, 1991 letter addressed to:

Mr. G. T. DuBose, Chairman National Negotiating Committee

Mr. J. M. Brunkenhoefer, Member National Negotiating Committee

Mr. L. W. Swert, Member National Negotiating Committee

Mr. C. L. Little, Member National Negotiating Committee

along with an unsigned note seeking my signature and requesting I forward same to another General Chairman of my choosing. I do not know why such was forwarded to me as I do not represent engine service employees. Regardless and irrespective of my field of representation, I refuse to be a party of a "chain letter" or "petition" condoning someone else's thoughts and/or condemning statements. While I am totally irritated and nauseated with the report of the Presidential Emergency Board, I cannot in all good conscience, lay the blame and/or accusation of "incompetence" on any officer based upon the limited knowledge of what transpired. Simply put, I was not privileged to be in attendance at the P.E.B. sessions and therefore cannot assume and judge the efficiency of the negotiating committee. While these actions are not readily before me, your letter is, and it is this subject that I feel must be addressed.

Let me first state that I have known you Larry and Byron for a few years, and Paul hardly at all. Nonetheless, I felt that through our discussions you had the union and all the membership at heart. Your letter proves otherwise! After a cursory reading, it is quite evident that such is purely self-serving and your concerns rest only with "E" members' dues and not their lobs. All that can be gleaned from your letter is a (sic): "loss of 7,000 to 9,000 UTU. engineer members resulting in international dues of approximately $100,000.00 per month ..." While the loss of dues is alarming, and noteworthy, I fail to see in your statements any remorse or concern for their jobs. Is this all you see wrong with the P.E.B.? Hopefully not, but your letter fails to acknowledge and address the disastrous effects the P.E.B.has recommended for Trainmen; to wit: Crew Consist. While enginemen are potentially faced with belonging to another union, trainmen are facing the ultimate adverse affect - loss of their jobs! I do not witness your concerns for these thousands of members. If dues are your main concern, will not the elimination of trainmen also produce a loss of dues?

Aside from Crew Consist, the "false raise" will be eaten alive by the increase in basic day mileage for road trainmen who, for all intents and purposes, did not realize a raise under the 1985 Agreement.

Additionally, we are subjected to foregoing COLA to fund our Health and Welfare which our forefathers already paid for. Further, road and yard barriers are decimated and on the verge of being non-existent. In light of these disastrous effects, you are only concerned about dues money!

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1370 ONTARIO STREET
CLEVELAND. OHIO 44113-1702
TELEPHONE (216} 241-2630
FAX: (216) 241-6516

Mr. Charles L. Little ,

International President

United Transportation Union
14600 Detroit Avenue

Cleveland OH 44107-4250

Dear President Little:

The first draft of this letter began by congratulating you on your re-election as UTU President It went on to inform you that - in my report to the Officers and members in attendance at our recent Southwestern and Eastern Regional Meetings - I stated that I had planned to ask the UTU to work with us in addressing the post-85 issue in the upcoming round of bargaining. However, after reading the news release entitled "`War Chest' Being Raised to Battle BLE" published on the UTU's web site last Friday, the initial wave of anger I felt was quickly replaced by a feeling of thankfulness that I hadn't wasted very much time in putting together my first draft.

I learned a long time ago the futility of trying to persuade people of something about which their interest lies in not being persuaded. Your vow of a "fight-to-the-finish with the BLE" and your intention to wage "an `A' card campaign" against us when your NMB action fails - as it surely must - only proves to me what I have suspected all along ...that the potential for either the destruction of one or both Organizations or a non-Union Class I railroad will not deter you from attempting to eliminate the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and its leadership.

It is most unfortunate that you have chosen to use your electoral mandate to continue to pursue your destructive campaign, rather than explore how the UTU can overcome the stigma of your past actions, and be readmitted as an honored partner in the House of Labor. Be that as it may, there are a few other things in your news release that I am compelled to address before closing.

First, if my memory serves me cor^rectly, the total number of Locomotive Engineers in the United States and Canada belonging to the UTU is less than half the number of Locomotive Engineers on the Union Pacific railroad, according to figures you provided last year. Second, in once again misrepresenting the financial position of the BLE, you talk about our "worst fears." I am deeply saddened that you cannot be swayed from a course that wastes precious resources the members of both Unions provide to represent them; however, I can assure you that I have no "fears" in repelling your latest attack Third, it appears that fully one-third of your own Delegates reject your course of action, because they voted to deny you your "war chest." Perhaps that is something you should "fear," as you try to whip up enthusiasm for your kamikaze mission.

Dennis R. Pierce		GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT BNSF/MRL	VICE CHAIRMEN M. 0. WILSON S. J. BRATKA D.W. MAY
General Chairman		801 CHERRY ST., SUITE 1010 Unit 8 FT. WORTH, TX 76102-4237 TEL (817) 338-9010 · FAX (817) 338-9088	J.H. NELSON SECRETARY-TREASURER GALESBURG, IL 61401

ALL LOCAL CHAIRMAN	January 20, 2005
BNSF NORTHLINES AND MRL	File: UTU Dues Maintenance Agr.