Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen

Dear Sirs and Brothers: 

It would appear that the UTU International office has finally spun so much disinformation that the proverbial egg is now on UTU's own face. This is in reference to a post that appeared on www.utu.org on Friday August 5, 2005 titled "How to smoke out a pair of skunks". UTU's post was apparently written in reply to the BLET post titled "UTU seeks sell out of BNSF Engineers". In its post of August 5, UTU went to great lengths to avoid the actual facts of the BLET post. Instead UTU followed its classic Frank Wilner style by throwing distraction and misrepresentations at the issue, ultimately making several cheap name calling personal attacks against BLET, IBT and myself. As Abe Lincoln was quoted to have said, "You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time." Nothing could be more on point in this latest pack of UTU distortions.

In its post, UTU makes multiple references to a "proposal" that BLET and the undersigned officer made in an attempt to avoid line sales on BNSF. UTU went so far as to personally attack the undersigned for making the so called "proposal", while avoiding any discussion on BLET's original complaint. That complaint being the proposal that UTU wrote and submitted to BNSF that would have eliminated yard engineers in the Portland Yard while allowing ground men to operate locomotives in conventional fashion. While it is true that BLET "proposed" that both unions adopt an agreement that retained one engineer and one conductor to avoid the sale of the involved assignments, UTU overlooked one key fact in BLET's so called proposal.

BLET did not write an agreement proposing the elimination of one groundman on the affected jobs at Portland as UTU purports. Instead, BLET proposed that both unions adopt the agreement that BLET and UTU have already implemented on BNSF eliminating one groundman to avoid a line sale. Yes that is correct, back before Paul Thompson decided that no one in UTU could discuss "Crew Consist", UTU and BLET jointly negotiated an agreement with BNSF that reduced crew size to one engineer and one conductor to avoid a line sale in Texas. That agreement was approved by the UTU International is now in affect on the former ATSF portion of this railroad. (see attached.) You will note that it was UTU that negotiated and agreed to reduce its own crew size to avoid a line sale, the key portion of both agreements being found in Section 7:

Section 7. Except as provided in this agreement, all schedule rules and agreements will apply to these assignments. While there are references to both engineers and conductors in this agreement, its adoption is contingent on the signature by each organization for the portions where they hold jurisdiction-

Imagine that - both unions at the same table, retaining their respective craft jurisdictions, each side having the right to agree or disagree, could it be "craft autonomy"? That's what BLET proposed to avoid the Portland sale, and no amount of UTU spinning by "Frank-and-Paul" can change those facts. In its haste to distract from the plan that UTU wrote by itself to eliminate the engineer, (a craft that they do not represent on BNSF), UTU looked for someone else to blame in its classic form. Unfortunately, this time they forgot that they are the ones that agreed to reduce ground crew size in the past to avoid line sales and adoption of that UTU agreement is all that BLET "proposed".

Not only was the jointly negotiated BNSF/UTU/BLET Agreement implemented by both unions in Texas, a similar agreement was agreed to by the parties to avoid a line sale in Whitefish, Montana. While UTU General Chairman Fitzgerald now denies initialing that proposal, we have attached an initialed copy of that UTU proposal that we received prior to sending the BLET copy out for ratification to jog his memory. In this climate where no one in UTU can discuss Crew Consist, we understand John's "amnesia", but it doesn't change the fact that UTU signed the agreement in Texas and later initialed the same agreement in Montana. How silly of BLET to suggest that we look at that same proposal again to avoid a later line sale.

Without getting into each and every tired old accusation that UTU has peppered its post with, you can rest assured that BLET did no negotiating behind closed doors to attack the ground men's craft. Once notified of the proposed sale, we asked for a joint meeting with UTU and BNSF to discuss the possible adoption of the attached agreements. Ironically, unlike any agreements that UTU has negotiated on its own, the agreements that BLET proposed considering actually have hard fast language preventing the Carrier from selling the covered portion of the operation so long as the agreement is in effect. UTU obtained no such protection in its remote control sell out, in fact yards where UTU represented employees operate RCO are also up for sale and UTU has no agreement to prevent the sales.

As for our request to meet jointly, UTU did not even respond, instead they met alone with BNSF behind closed doors in our absence , returning to their offices after the meeting to draft an agreement that was clearly intended to eliminate a craft for which UTU holds no jurisdiction on this property. UTU General Chairman Fitzgerald summed it up in his letter defending the proposal where he stated, "In sum, the undersigned represents the interest of ground service employees. I do not represent the interest of engine service employees....". While UTU's "E" membership may not realize it, Mr. Fitzgerald's statement is more true than any of them realize. Even so, it is no justification for UTU's latest attempt to grab conventional operations from the engineer's craft. Ironically, General Chairman Fitzgerald wrote to BNSF on August 2, 2005, just days before the post on utu.org, asking if the joint "one engineer/one conductor" agreement that BLET proposed was still available to avoid the sale of the Pasco, WA yard. Its ok when UTU suggests it, but when BLET suggests it, the hypocritical name calling begins.

We certainly empathize with UTU in its current plight. They were very comfortable in the Carrier's bed during implementation of "remote control" in yard service; so comfortable that this new Carrier run at Crew Consist offends them. Apparently, they never thought that the classic Carrier whipsaw would point at them again, but that is where it appears to be pointed. In spite of BLET's offers to bargain jointly, either on property or nationally, UTU refuses, instead attacking everything BLET and IBT along the way. While former UTU "Enterprise" President Boyd openly stated during the remote control grab that UTU had learned its lessons on saying no during the caboose wars and the last crew consist war, "Just say NO!" appears to again be the enterprise logo.

UTU can dust off all of the tired old pot shots over MRL that they want, but the fact remains that the involved former BN trackage was sold the last time UTU "Just said No", and for what? UTU ultimately agreed to new crew consist language on the northern lines of Burlington Northern and BNSF crews on those lines are the same size now as those on MRL. History now stands to repeat itself. The Carrier has said it will sell large portions of this property if UTU will not discuss crew size and all indications are that they will. Apparently even the lessons history provides are being ignored, instead UTU puts out spin after spin blaming BLET and IBT for all of the industry's woes. All of this from a union that has publicly said that it will negotiate on one man road crews in this bargaining round so long as it is the engineer that goes by the wayside.

The bottom line in all of this is that while BLET did not write an agreement that eliminated a ground craft position, UTU did write an agreement that eliminated the engineer. BLET was not invited to the table in UTU's effort, but the proposal that BLET suggested was jointly created and required both unions' approval. No amount of petty name calling and misrepresentations by UTU can hide these facts. One thing is for certain, Paul Thompson is no "Honest Abe" and he wont fool all of the people all of the time.

Fraternally,
/s/ Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman

cc:     Advisory Board, BLET National Division
         Members, BLET Western General Chairmen's Association
         Kent Confer, BLET Mobilization Coordinator

UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION (From August 5, 2005- posted at http://www.utu.org)

How to smoke out a pair of skunks

The BLET has an outright fabrication on its website, with an equally dishonest headline: "UTU seeks sell-out of BNSF engineers."

The BLET wrongly charges that UTU proposes to eliminate locomotive engineer jobs on the BNSF in Washington and Oregon.

The truth is that BNSF Railway is seeking to eliminate -- with the assistance of their lapdog union, the BLET -- job protections that the UTU painstakingly achieved for its members.

We smell a pair of skunks -- and their names are BNSF Railway and BLET.

Here is what the BNSF, with the assistance of its lapdog BLET, is seeking to eliminate:

•A crew consist agreement requiring two UTU-represented employees -- a switch foreman and a switchman -- on each crew;

•A rule granting UTU-represented employees the exclusive right to operate remotely controlled locomotives;

•A rule granting UTU employees the exclusive right to perform all ground service work;

•Rules stipulating that a UTU-represented employee (conductor or foreman) is the employee in charge of the crew.

What is going on here is that the BLET has no job protection for its own members, and is trying to sell out the job protections the UTU has achieved for its members.

Fact: The BLET has no rule requiring BNSF to use a BLET-represented employee on any crew.

Fact: The BLET has no rule requiring BNSF to use a BLET-represented employee to operate RCL locomotives.

Fact: The BLET has no rule entitling a BLET-represented employee to perform switchman's work.

Fact: The BLET has no rule stipulating that an engineer will be the employee in charge of a crew.

Fact: The BLET could have had a guarantee of 50 percent of all remote control assignments. That guarantee was offered by the UTU if the BLE merged with the UTU. Instead, the BLE chose to merge with a truck driver's union.

So what has BLET General Chairman Dennis R. Pierce done to remedy the failure of BLET to protect its own members? Pierce climbed in bed with BNSF management and proposed eliminating a UTU-represented remote control position and replacing that position with a locomotive engineer.

Pierce's screw-another-craft proposal came after the BNSF threatened to sell off various yards to short-line operators, who would not be required to honor existing labor agreements. The BNSF said it would relent if the BLET and UTU agreed to concessions to reduce labor costs by 25 percent.

The UTU, knowing the BNSF is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut, said, "Hell, no. We won't be intimidated." The UTU knows how the BNSF operates -- such as the BN's failed attempt years ago to use its subsidiary, Winona Bridge, to beat UTU crew-consist agreements.

But the BNSF is a crafty devil, ready to exploit differences between the UTU and the BLET through a divide-and-conquer strategy.

This is just as BN did by selling off Montana Rail Link years ago -- with the BLET jumping into bed with the carrier and freezing the UTU out of representation. Of course, the UTU struck the BN and made it stick in court, eventually winning a good measure of labor protection for trainmen who lost their jobs on BN.

But when BNSF tried its scam again -- by threatening to sell yards to short-line operators -- the BLET again took the bait while the UTU again told the carrier to pound salt.

That bait was taken -- hook, line and sinker -- by the BLET's Pierce, who made what he calls a "compromise." The BLET, said Pierce, "suggested that the carrier operate with two-man crews in the yard -- one BLET-represented locomotive engineer and one UTU-represented remote control operator."

These yard assignments currently consist of one locomotive engineer and two yardmen, or two remote control yardmen assignments.

If you reduce the crew to two -- an engineer and a UTU-represented remote control operator -- where is Pierce's compromise?

The compromise is a BLET sell-out of one UTU-represented train service position while preserving the engineer on the assignment.

And, on a two-person remote control assignment, with two UTU-represented RCL operators, where is Pierce's compromise?

Again, the compromise is a BLET sell-out of another craft, leaving one engineer and one UTU-represented RCL operator.

Disgracefully, the BLET's so-called compromise eliminates UTU positions protected by crew-consist agreements and remote control agreements in favor of the engineer.

Those being the facts, the BLET is now trying to blame the UTU.

It was only after the UTU became aware of the BLET's attempt to sell-out a UTU-represented employee that the UTU made its own proposal to the BNSF.

The UTU proposed two RCL operators, with one RCL operator being a conductor qualified as an engineer.

This would have satisfied UTU's crew-consist agreements, protected UTU-represented employees and addressed BNSF's concerns.

The BNSF turned down the UTU proposal in favor of the BLET's because the BNSF is attempting to open up crew consist -- and the BLET is an all-too-willing partner in this carrier treachery.

What we have is another tawdry example of how the BLET operates -- disguising its own ineptness in failing to protect engineers by seeking to sell-out another craft -- and then blaming the UTU. It's like the child who murdered his parents and then who pleads for mercy on account of his being an orphan.

As with the Lake Erie Plan, as with its capitulation in the Montana Rail Link deal, as with the sell-out of conductors on VIA Rail, as with its collaboration with carriers in helping to eliminate the fireman's craft in the 1960s, as with its scabbing when attempts were made to restore firemen, and as with its scabbing against the UTU on the Soo Line in the 1990s, the BLET is back to its foul ways.

Had the BLE and UTU come together under the UTU's craft-autonomy protection, carriers would not be able to play the two organizations against one another. Instead, the BLE chose to align itself with a truck drivers' union.

The BLET is just unable to stop selling out other crafts. The leopard can't change its spots. What a shame, because all of rail labor is the loser as a result.

August 5, 2005
 

WOW! Mr. Wilner is an amazing spin doctor. Too bad reality doesn't enter his thoughts.
Below are listed the various agreements and proposals that have already been negotiated.

June 2, 2004

Mr. Paul Tibbit, GC
United Transportation Union
Dear Mr. Tibbit:


This letter will cover the terms and conditions that we have agreed upon for operation of the Venus -- Hale industrial trackage as an internal short line. These terms are being reached as a new, experimental arrangement, in the mutual interest of both parties, and as an alternative to the sale or lease of this trackage.

We have agreed that the following terms will apply:

1. This agreement will apply only to the assignments that work on the industrial trackage in the Venus vicinity, presently designated as RTEX 0101, RTEX 0091 and RTEX 0121 and RTEX 0071.

2. All four of these assignments will operate as Conductor-only. All four of these assignments may be operated as remote-control operations (RCO). Present plans, however, are to operate only the RTEX 0091, the Red Bird industrial job, In that manner.

3. A utility man position will be established, and may work with any of the jobs involved in this agreement. The utility man may be required to use a company vehicle to go between the areas where he is needed to work with these assignments, or he may, at his own option, use his own vehicle. If he uses his own vehicle, he will be allowed auto mileage as expenses at applicable IRS mileage rates.

4. If any of these road switcher assignments are required to utilize remote control equipment in the performance of their duties, the crew shall consist of one engineer and one conductor, and they will utilize the RCO equipment in the performance of their duties. Only RCO-qualified employees will be eligible to bid for or work on the positions on road switcher assignments utilizing remote control equipment. For vacancies on any such RCO assignments, only RCO-qualified employees on the extra list are subject to call.

5. Training for the positions on the assignments that utilize remote control equipment will be done under BNSF's FRA-certified training program and OPS 166-03.

6. Each employee working on the assignments covered by this agreement will be paid a special internal shortline rate of $195. Overtime, paid at time and one-half, will apply after 8 hours; no other arbitraries, special allowances or special CA Code payments will be applicable to these assignments. At the company's option, any of these road switcher assignments may be allowed a rate of $260 for 10 hours or less, with overtime, at time and one-half, applicable after 10 hours on duty. These rates will be subject to future general wage increases and cost-of-living allowances. For purposes of vacation pay, personal leave days and other provisions that contemplate payment at basic day rates, the basic day payment In road switcher service will remain applicable.

7. Except as provided in this agreement, all schedule rules and agreements will apply to these assignments. While there are references to both engineers and conductors in this agreement, its adoption is contingent on the signature by each Organization for the portions where they hold jurisdiction.

8. Employees who become RCO-qualified to perform service in this operation will not be forced to protect RCO operations at Alliance, and they will not be force-assigned to any other RCO assignments beyond the normal application of seniority rules.

9. This agreement will be effective upon 5 days' written notice (which will be issued after necessary training is completed), and will continue in effect until July 1, 2008. On that date and thereafter, this agreement will be of no further force or effect, and applicable schedule rules and agreements will apply. During the period that this agreement is in effect, BNSF will not sell, lease or otherwise "short-line", under Sec. 10901 or similar provisions, the lines and territory where this agreement applies.

10. It is agreed that this agreement, except for purposes of its own enforcement, is completely non-referable, and will never be cited by anyone before any forum for any purpose whatsoever.
 

Please indicate your acceptance of these understandings by signing this letter.

Sincerely
/s/ Wendell Bell                                     Accepted:
                                                              /s/ PW Tibbit
                                                             General Chairman - UTU

                                                               (signature illegible)
                                                                Vice President-UTU

                          

June 2, 2004


Mr. Pat Williams, GC
Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

Dear Mr. Williams:
This letter will cover the terms and conditions that we have agreed upon for operation of the Venus - Hale industrial trackage as an internal short line. These terms are being reached as a new, experimental arrangement, in the mutual interest of both parties, and as an alternative to the sale or lease of this trackage,

We have agreed that the following terms will apply:

1. This agreement will apply only to the assignments that work on the industrial trackage in the Venus vicinity, presently designated as RTEX 0101, RTEX 0091. and RTEX 0121 and RTEX 0071.

2. All four of these assignments may be operated as remote-control operations (RCO). Present plans, however, are to operate only the RTEX 0091, the Red Bird industrial job, in that manner.

3. If any of these road switcher assignments are required to utilize remote control equipment in the performance of their duties, the crew shall consist of one engineer and one conductor, and they will utilize the RCO equipment in the performance of their duties. Only RCO-qualified employees will be eligible to bid for or work on the positions on road switcher assignments utilizing remote control equipment. For vacancies on any such RCO assignments, only RCO-qualified employees on the extra list are subject to call.

5. Training for the engineer's positions on the assignments that utilize remote control equipment will be done under BNSF's FRA-certified training program and training will be afforded to a sufficient number of engineers to both fill the assignments and provide relief. Engineers in this training will be compensated at the yard engineers rate of pay plus one Code RE payment per tour of duty if actually handling RC equipment.

6. If any of these road switcher assignments are required to utilize remote control equipment in the performance of their duties, the engineer will be paid a special internal shortline rate of $195. Overtime, paid at time and one-half, will apply after 8 hours; no other arbitraries, special allowances or special CA Code payments will be applicable to these assignments. At the company's option, that engineer may be allowed a rate of $260 for 10 hours or less, with overtime, at time and one-half, applicable after 10 hours on duty. These rates will be subject to future general wage increases and cost-of-living allowances. For purposes of vacation pay, personal leave days and other provisions that contemplate payment at basic day rates, the basic day payment in road switcher service will remain applicable.

7. Except as provided in this agreement, all schedule rules and agreements will apply to these assignments. While there are references to both engineers and conductors in this agreement, its adoption is contingent on the signature by each organization for the portions where they hold jurisdiction.

8. Employees who become RCO-qualified to perform service in this operation will not be forced to protect RCO operations at Alliance, and they will not be force-assigned to any other RCO assignments beyond the normal application of seniority rules.

9. This agreement will be effective upon 5 days' written notice (which will be issued after necessary training is completed), and will continue in effect until July 1, 2008. On that date and thereafter, this agreement will be of no further force or effect, and applicable schedule rules and agreements will apply. During the period that this agreement is in effect, BNSF will not sell, lease or otherwise "short-line", under Sec. 10901 or similar provisions, the lines and territory where this agreement applies.

10. It is agreed that this agreement, except for purposes of its own enforcement, is completely non-referable, and will never be cited by anyone before any forum for any purpose whatsoever.
Please indicate your acceptance of these understandings by signing this letter.

Sincerely,                                                                             Accepted :
/s/ Wendell Bell                                                                    /s/ Pat Williams
                                                                                            General Chairman - BLET
 

July 15, 2004

Mr. John Fitzgerald,
GC United Transportation Union

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
:This letter will cover the terms and conditions that we have agreed upon for operation of certain assignments in the Whitefish area as a result of discussion after Burlington Northern Santa Fe's (BNSF's) determination that the line from Stryker to Eureka and the Kalispell branch would be sold or leased.
We have agreed that the following terms will apply:

1. This agreement will apply to the assignments that work on the Stryker Eureka line and the Kalispell line (the territory presently served by LNMW 808 and LNWE 802, respectively).

2. Per paragraph 10 below, when these conditions become effective, the identified locals will be abolished. In their place, on a one--for-one basis and serving the same territory, road switcher assignments under the road switcher agreement will be established; it is agreed that the establishment of such assignments, serving the specified territory, is permissible. The Kalispell line road switcher assignment can be headquartered at either Whitefish or Kalispell.

3. Because the crews on these road switcher assignments will be utilizing remote control equipment in the performance of their switching duties, following the initial training and implementation only RCO-qualified employees will be eligible to bid for or work on the positions on these road switcher assignments. For vacancies on these assignments, only RCO-qualified employees on the extra list are subject to call.

4. Training for the conductor's positions on the road switcher assignments will be done under BNSF's FRA-certified training program and OPS 166-03. Training will be afforded to a sufficient number of conductors to both fill the assignments and provide relief.

5. On each of the road switcher assignments, the crew shall consist of one engineer and one conductor, and they will utilize the RCO equipment in the performance of their duties. It is understood and agreed that the remote control operation will not be utilized within switching limits or when switching is not being performed. As the GCOR Rules provide, "The conductor supervises the operation and administration of the train." In addition, "The engineer is responsible for safely and efficiently operating the engine. Crew members must obey the engineer's instructions that concern operating the locomotive."

6. Each employee working on these road switcher assignments will be paid a special allowance per tour of duty equal to one hour at the straight time hourly rate of the applicable position in addition to all other earnings, including Conductor-only allowance. In no event will there be more than one such payment to an employee per tour of duty.

7, Except as provided in this agreement, all schedule rules and agreements will apply to these assignments.

8. While there are references to both engineers and conductors in this agreement, Its adoption is contingent on the signature by each organization for the portions where they hold jurisdiction.

9. The above identified assignments will be prohibited from performing any yard/road work In Whitefish, Montana that is not presently allowed under existing applicable agreements including the May 20, 1993 Crew Consist Agreement.

10. This agreement will be effective ________________ and the assignments covered by it will not be established until the necessary training is completed. It will not be cancelled by either party before July 1, 2006. During the period that this agreement Is in effect, BNSF will not sell, lease (or otherwise "short-line") the lines and territory where this agreement applies.
 

Please Indicate your acceptance of these understandings by signing this letter.

Sincerely,                                                                             Accepted
/init/ WB                                                                               /init/ JDF
                                                                                            General Chairman . UTU
 

July 15, 2004

Mr. Dennis Pierce, GC
Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen

Dear Mr. Pierce:

This letter will cover the terms and conditions that we have agreed upon for operation of certain assignments in the Whitefish area as a result of discussion after Burlington Northern Santa's (BNSF's) determination that the line from Stryker to Eureka and the Kalispell branch would be sold or leased.
We have agreed that the following terms will apply:

1. This agreement will apply to the assignments that work on the Stryker - Eureka line and the Kalispell line (the territory presently served by LNMW 808 and LNWE 802, respectively).

2. Per paragraph 10 below, when these conditions become effective, the identified locals will be abolished. In their place, on a one-for-one basis and serving the same territory, road switcher assignments under the road switcher agreement will be established; it is agreed that the establishment of such assignments, serving the specified territory, is permissible. The Kalispell line road switcher assignment can be headquartered at either Whitefish or Kalispell.

3. Because the crews on these road switcher assignments will be utilizing remote control equipment in the performance of their switching duties, following the initial training and implementation only RCO-qualified employees will be eligible to bid for or work on the positions on these road switcher assignments. For vacancies on these assignments, only RCO-qualified employees on the extra list are subject to call.

4. Training for the engineer's positions on the road switcher assignments will be done under BNSF's FRA-certified training program and training will be afforded to a sufficient number of engineers to both fill the assignments and provide relief. Engineers in this training will be compensated at the yard engineer's rate of pay plus one Code RE payment per tour of duty if actually handling RC equipment.

5. On each of the road switcher assignments, the crew shall consist of one engineer and one conductor, and they will utilize the RCO equipment in the performance of their duties. It is understood and agreed that the remote control operation will not be utilized within switching limits or when switching is not being performed. As the GCOR Rules provide, "The conductor supervises the operation and the administration of the train." In addition, "The engineer is responsible for safely and efficiently operating the engine. Crew members must obey the engineer's instructions that concern operating the locomotive."

6. Each employee working on these road switcher assignments will be paid a special allowance per tour of duty equal to one hour at the straight time hourly rate of the applicable position in addition to all other earnings. In no event will there be more than one such payment to an employee per tour of duty.

7. Except as provided in this agreement, all schedule rules and agreements will apply to these assignments.

8. While there are references to both engineers and conductors in this agreement, its adoption is contingent on the signature by each organization for the portions where they hold jurisdiction.

9. The above identified assignments will be prohibited from performing any yard/road work in Whitefish, Montana that is not presently allowed under existing applicable agreements.

10. This agreement will be effective and the assignments covered by it will not be established until the necessary training is completed. It will remain in effect until cancelled, but will not be cancelled by either party before July 1, 2006. During the period that this agreement is in effect, BNSF will not sell or lease (or otherwise "short-line") the lines and territory where this agreement applies.

Please indicate your acceptance of these understandings by signing this letter.

Sincerely,                                                                 Accepted:
/init/ WB                                                                   /init/ DRP
                                                                                General Chairman . BLET
 

J. D. FITZGERALD                     The Academy. Suite 217                                             Telephone: (360) 694-7491
General Chairman                         400 East Evergreen Blvd                                              Fax:: (360) 694-2049
                                                    Vancouver, WA 98660                                                E-mail: JDFITZ386@aol.com


UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION
GENERAL COMMITTEE of ADJUSTMENT GO-386
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Montana Western Railroad,
Colorado and Southern Railroad and Portland and Puget Sound Railroad

 

Of Counsel
M. M. WINTER
G.O. HARTSOCK

August 2, 2005

W.A. Bell
General Director - Labor Relations
BNSF Railway Company
P.O. Box 961030
Ft. Worth, TX 76161-0030

Re: Bell Letter of July 25, 2005 Involving Trackage in Pasco, WA Area

Dear Mr. Bell:

In regard to the above reference, this will serve as inquiry.

Would it be correct that should the BLET and UTU Committees having jurisdiction come to terms with BNSF regarding operations on that trackage, such sale/lease would be shelved.
By terms, the undersigned means an operation of road switcher assignments manned by a conductor and engineer with the requirement the engineer be RCO qualified and able to work from the ground or behind the engine console.

Please advise if that option remains open as expressed during our meeting in Ft. Worth on T-6 and Rivergate in Portland/Vancouver Terminal.

Awaiting your response, I am,

JDF/aas

cc:     D.R. Pierce
         G.K. Virgin
         R.K. Kerley
         A.M. Johnston
         J.L. Schollmeyer