Brotherhood
of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen
Brotherhood
of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen
| Dennis R. Pierce |
GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT |
VICE
CHAIRMEN |
|
| General Chairman |
801 CHERRY ST., SUITE 1010 Unit 8 |
J.H. NELSON SECRETARY-TREASURER GALESBURG, IL 61401 |
| ALL LOCAL CHAIRMAN | May 18, 2006 |
| BNSF NORTHLINES AND MRL | File: 2005 Year End Report |
Dear Sirs and Brothers:
This letter is to provide the Divisions of this General Committee of Adjustment
with an annual report of the General Committee's activities. In keeping with the
provisions of the BLET Bylaws. I am providing National President Hahs with a
copy as well for his information and records. While we apologize for the delay
in forwarding the annual Committee report for 2005, we have been very busy in
the past few months.
In 2005. we continued our efforts to fully implement the 2003 Contract,
specifically the trip rate portion. At this writing. we have less than a dozen
pools that have not implemented trip rates, and our current plan is to have
those pools finished by the 30 month cut off date in the Agreement. As we
advised last year, we certainly understand the frustrations that come with trip
rate implementation, rest assured that we have taken every precaution possible
to insure fair and consistent application. While the resulting trip rate values
may not be exactly what single individuals made in the test period, we are
taking the steps necessary to insure that the value truly reflects the averages
of all employees during the test period. With any conversion based on averages,
some will see an increase while others will see a decrease, that is unavoidable
when the new rates are, by agreement, based of the middle of the road average.
2005/2006 also came with a change of vendor for our "Flexible Spending
Accounts", or FSA's as described in the 2003 Agreement. For 2006, United Health
Care is managing the program. While there was an increase in participation from
2005 to 2006, the program is still being under utilized by those who qualify. As
we described last year, the program allows an employee to set pre tax money
aside much like a 401K. Those monies are then available for approved medical
expenses incurred in the calendar year, expenses in most cases that would have
been covered with post tax money otherwise. With a maximum FSA contribution of
$5,000.00 for medical expenses, the resulting tax savings could be as high as $
10,000.00 at year's end depending on the applicable tax rate.
As for our 2005 dispute resolution efforts. PLB 6540 (Wallin/BNSF) was convened
on March 29, 2005 for what was expected to be the last hearing before that
board. BNSF would not agree to list additional cases to that PLB after the March
hearing so several cases were prepared and sent to the First Division instead.
PLB 6491 (WalIin/MRL) was also convened on March 30, 2005. Awards have been
rendered on the seven cases heard by that Board and they were circulated with
Award No. 10 from PLB 6540 in arbitration Circular 0512. As for the cases noted
above that were sent to the First Division. 32 cases were ultimately sent to the
Division in 2005 and they are all awaiting Awards.
Towards the end of the summer of 2005, the Carrier agreed to again list cases to
PLB 6540, and a hearing was held in October of 2005. Ten cases were heard and we
are still awaiting awards on most of them. PLB 5939 was also just recently
convened in February of 2006 with 10 cases heard by that Board. We are still
awaiting Awards on those cases, as soon as they are finalized they will also be
distributed to the Committee. All told, from January of 2005 to February of
2006. 61 discipline cases were prepared and submitted to some form of
arbitration.
As noted above, there was a period in 2005 where BNSF would not agree to list
cases to our existing PLB's. This GCA has always distributed its arbitration
cases to both PLB's and to the First Division, but we have predominantly used
our own PLB's when feasible. The Carrier not only refused to utilize our
existing PLB's in early 2005. but they would not agree to any of the other
Referees that we were agreeable to. For that reason, and as described above,
several cases were prepared and listed to the First Division of the National
Railroad Arbitration Board.
As information, the First Division is always available to the Committee as a
venue to resolve disputes through arbitration, but when cases are listed there,
they are handed up to the National Division for final handling. As when a Local
Committee passes the case to us, when a General Committee passes the case to the
National Division we do so giving them full authority to resolve the cases
pursuant to the BLET National Bylaws. One of the key components of the rules of
handling at the First Division is that once the Organization lists a case to be
heard by the First Division. the Carrier and the Organization have 75 days to
prepare and submit their submissions. When it became apparent that we would not
be convening any PLB's as expeditiously as we desired in 2005, we set out to
prepare several cases for handling at the First Division prior to listing them.
To accomplish that, the Committee utilized the services of Brother Marcus Ruef
to assist in the preparation of some of the cases. Some of the involved cases
included arguments near and dear to all of you, one of those was our first case
to be arbitrated on the Lay Off on Call (LOC} policy. The final submission in
that case was the result of a combined effort by Brother Ruef, First Vice
General Chairman Wilson and myself. This Committee benefited greatly from the
experience that Brother Ruef brought to the preparation of this case as well as
all of the cases that he assisted on. His assistance also made it possible for
the Committee to prepare several cases on short notice in 2005, prior to listing
them to the First Division and starting the Carrier's 75 day clock. While our
effort may not have been a total "blitz", it most certainly required the Carrier
to spend its time typing rather than initiating new issues.
While it is not certain where the majority of our cases will be heard in 2006,
for now it looks as though it will be a blend of PLB's and the First Division.
some of you may have read the questions that were raised regarding Brother Ruef
working for various GCA is. we are including the position recently taken by
President Hahs in the matter. You will note that no wrongdoing was found to have
occurred on the part of Brother Ruef. President Hahs has also made it very clear
that the decision to utilize Brother Ruef's services is up to each General
Committee. While we will not get into the politics behind the complaint against
Brother Ruef, you can rest assured that this Committee stands by its decision to
use his services to assist in the preparation of our arbitration cases. Our
efforts here are to prepare quality arbitration cases and all of the full time
Officers of the GCA work in the preparation of those cases. The Committee has
also started a program to train the Alternate Vice Chairman to prepare cases so
that they are not only experienced in board ease preparation, but also so that
the Committee itself has several officers capable of doing this work. The
efforts of the Officers of the GCA. be they full time or Alternates. along with
the assistance of outside resources when necessary, are all managed to best
represent the interests of the membership of this GCA and we will continue
managing our cases in that fashion.
As for notices still outstanding, the following notices have been served and are currently pending resolution.
Our ongoing meetings with BNSF's senior management/operating team also continued
in 2005 under the -"Safety Summit II" venue. While we have made limited progress
at these meetings we have produced a few agreements that may be of interest to
some of our Divisions. A "4-10/3-12" yard service proposal was put together late
in 2005 and is now available for your consideration. With the loss of many of
your yard jobs to RCO, we understand that this proposal will only he of value at
a limited number of locations, but if you are interested in considering the
proposal, please contact the office. We are also working on an agreement that
would provide extended rest between trips in pool service, in lieu of an overlay
agreement, but software development in TSS is holding that project up. While a
modified 7/3 Overlay Agreement was also negotiated by this group and is
available for extra boards, the Carrier is now refusing to offer it to any pools
who do not also adopt the Full Foot of the Board Agreement. The Full Foot of the
Board Agreement is fashioned after the old "chain gang" style board where a
man's turn conies off of the board with him when he lays off, much like on the
extra board. While the Full FOB Agreement has been available for over three
years. with the exception of one, no Division of this GCA has adopted it for
obvious reasons. Division 727 has requested the Full FOB for a unique pool
arrangement in Sterling, but ironically the Carrier will not agree to implement
it there yet. Safety Summit II meetings are currently scheduled to continue in
July of this year, we will pass on any progress that we make in those meetings.
2005 also included our filing of Section Six Notices on the MRL property to
begin the current bargaining round on that property. At this writing, the
parties have been meeting since the first of the year and have reached a
tentative agreement for the MRL property. We are preparing the proposal for the
ratification process now and we will pass on more information on the proposal
once it is ready for distribution.
As for the BNSF bargaining round, while the BLET GCA's on BNSF continue to seek
on property meetings with BNSF, no such bargaining meetings were held in 2005
and none are currently scheduled. While our Committees have retained their
authority in the bargaining round, BNSF has given its authority to the NCCC and
we have seen no willingness to bargain in the round outside of the National
negotiations.
On the National Bargaining side, the BLET National Bargaining team met several
times in 2005. Some of those meetings were under the umbrella of the RLBC, some
were BLET only to discuss "craft specific" for which BLET retained its
authority. As Chairman of the Western General Chairmen's Association, I am
honored to also serve on the BLET National Bargaining Committee and attended
most of the National Bargaining Team meetings. With the bargaining round still
open and unresolved. parts of the Team's strategy are best left unpublished, but
there are certain directives that the Bargaining Team followed that can be
shared.
When the round began, UTU would not agree to work in concert with BLET at the
bargaining table. That choice to go separately resulted in a bargaining
situation that many have referred to as the "race to the bottom"; two competing
unions working in their own directions in an age where technology could someday
affect jobs. fighting to preserve the jobs of the employees that they represent.
This race to the bottom environment was never my first choice, nor was it the
choice of the majority of the other members on the National Bargaining
Team. Nonetheless, it was the bargaining environment that we were confronted
with when the round started and our actions at the bargaining table were in
large part driven by that environment.
The first and primary directive that the National Bargaining Team worked from
was this; If it is even remotely possible that technology stands to eliminate
operating positions, then BLET must work to insure that the locomotive engineer,
the only craft that we have the jurisdiction to bargain for, will he the "last
man standing". While the membership has made it very clear that no one wants to
be alone on an over the road train, they have also made it clear that they do
want to survive and he on the train and that is what the team's directives were.
This "primary" objective was qualified by a second directive, that being that
any agreement that BLET entered into would have to include true attrition based
implementation of any new technology for trainmen. To that end, President Halls
was adamant that no trainmen's positions would be wholesale eliminated with the
introduction of any new technology. Rather, current trainmen who could not he
forced to promote to engineer could continue to work until they retired as
trainmen.
While these two pieces were the primary focus, it was clear to the team that two
other very important issues had to be addressed as part of any agreement. The
first was the impact of any crew size reduction to Railroad Retirement. It is
obvious that any dramatic reduction in the number of employees paying into the
system could harm Railroad Retirement. That would be the same whether the
reduction was either due to changes at Amtrak or changes related to crew size.
Preserving Railroad Retirement, without pushing that burden onto the employees,
was another cornerstone of BLET's position. The second of these two secondary
issues involved the UTU push towards the "single craft". The BLET Team never set
out to enter into any agreement that could be used to lead us to the "single
craft". This issue was one of the most complicated to achieve in application,
but at no time were the risks associated with the "single craft" ignored.
As the meetings progressed, it became obvious to most that the NCCC was offering
BEET the "last man standing" while offering virtually the same thing to UTU
represented employees. Whether it be through the creation of the "single craft"
with trainmen's seniority and contracts prevailing, or through future technology
advances. the NCCC was willing to work towards giving the last man standing to
UTU if only they would bargain. While NCCC efforts to negotiate with UTU may
have kept engineers at the throttle in the end, there was no guarantee that
engineers would working in the existing craft of "locomotive engineer', or under
the engineer's contracts or seniority rosters. At the same time. the NCCC said
that they were willing to give the last man standing to BLET if we would
bargain. Again, the Carriers were pushing both unions into a race to the bottom
to see which union was willing to do a deal.
Mid year in 2005. all of the members of the Bargaining Team agreed that before
the negotiations went any further, BLET should reach out to UTU one last time to
try and stop the race to the bottom. This decision was one of the few decisions
that the entire bargaining team supported. but they did all agree that UTU
should he contacted. President Hahs then sent President Thompson a letter asking
him to work with BLET in the bargaining round. Although the offer was not
accepted at first, it ultimately led to the two unions agreeing to work together
in the round and that is where we are now. While the BLET discussed many options
ideas with the NCCC in its meetings prior to reaching an understanding with UTU,
we never got beyond incidental exchanges of ideas and concepts. Regardless of
what some may now claim, our negotiations never came close to an initialed
product, major obstacles remained between the parties up to the point that
discussions on our craft specific issues ended.
Many will speculate on whether or not BLET and UTU can truly work hand in hand
with the history between the two unions, but at this point we have little choice
but to try in our view. This National Bargaining report began by recognizing
that the environment that required BLET to at least negotiate on the last man
standing was built in large part on UTU's refusal to work together. We must also
recognize that those negotiations were initiated by the NCCC, not BLET. So long
as UTU and BLET agree to work together. that environment has changed and so has
BLET's effort. This is opinion, but should anything happen that would disrupt
the two unions working together. then the membership of BLET had best be
prepared to do what is necessary to survive at the bargaining table. The
bargaining round is where the war between the two unions will be fought, IF it
must be fought. and that battle will not be for the timid. Time will tell where
the recent changes take us, but if the two unions both present a true showing of
good faith towards each other and the collective membership just one time, it
could well change the way we do business for some time to come and end the
battle at the bargaining table.
In closing, while 2005 was another busy year, 2006 is shaping up to be even
busier. We would ask again that each of you keep you email accounts current and
that you check them regularly so that we can insure that you have the latest
information on any given issue. As we have said before, this GCA must work
together as a unit for us to be successful and we offer our commitment to that
end.
Fraternally
/s/ Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman
cc: J. H. Nelson. ST
BNSF
Northlines/MRL Vice General Chairmen
BNSF
BLET General Chairmen
Don
Hahs, BLET National President
Ed
Rodzwicz. BLET First National Vice President
Bill
Walpert, BLET National General Secretary Treasurer
Steve
Speagle, Assigned BLET National Vice President
Brotherhood
of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen
A division of the Rail Conference-International
Brotherhood of Teamsters
Don M. Hahs
National President
National Division
1317 Ontario Street, Mezzanine, Cleveland OH, 44113-1702
Phone: (216) 241-2630. Fax: (216) 241-6516. www.ble-t.org
April 17. 2006
Kyle J. Bagby, Local Chairman
Division 81 - BLET
Lees Summit, MO 64082
Dear Sir and Brother:
This acknowledges receipt on April 6, 2006, of your letter dated April 3, 2006.
In your correspondence you claim that Brother Marcus Ruef conducts an outside
business with BLET or its general committees in preparing arbitration
submissions on a fee for service basis, as stated in a March 17, 2006 campaign
letter for one of the BLET national vice president positions in the upcoming
internal elections. You write, "Mr. Ruef seems unaware that conducting such an
outside business with BLET or its general committees is in violation of federal
law." After advising me of the content of Section 501 of the Labor management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), you "request() that the
organization state whether it intends to proceed as requested within ten days
from the date of receipt of this letter."
From your comments, I gather you are claiming that Brother Ruef has violated 29
U.S.C. §501(a) and accordingly desire that the National Division (ND) file a
complaint in federal district court under §501(b}. You further demand that the
complaint request the court to enter a judgment prohibiting continuation of
"existing contractual arrangements with Mr. Ruef's outside business," whatever
you mean by that wording, and "recover any profit received by him, or any other
member, officer, or employee." Before any investigation is conducted and the
necessary legal analysis made, you direct that I state in writing no later than
April 16, 2006, whether or not the demanded lawsuit will be filed.
Under the circumstances, the decision upon your request cannot be made within a
ten-day period, if at all. All I have been provided with is your assumption that
you have established a prima fade case, a case which you try to establish with
legal conclusions. Based upon the assistance and advice provided me by our
lawyers, it is quite clear that the ND may not invoke §501(b), for it is well
held that the section may only be invoked by "such member," who "may sue such
officer. agent, shop steward. or representative in any district court of the
United States or in any State Court of competent jurisdiction to recover damages
or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief for the benefit of the labor
organization.''
Even if the ND were to bring a civil action against Brother Ruef at this time,
what independent federal or state statute gives it a cause of action for which
it could file a complaint against him? You have not cited one, and we arc
unaware of any cause the ND has against him under any statute.
On the other hand, if you did bring an action under §501(b), you must receive
permission to do so by the court upon a "showing of good cause.'' I have been
told by legal counsel that this is not as simple as you seem to suggest. Among
other things, you would have to precisely describe the allegedly improper
dealings between Brother Ruef and the general committees for which he or, as you
state, the corporation he has set up, sometimes writes arbitration submissions.
As you describe the situation, the transactions are between him and the
committees; therefore, it would seem that the monetary relief sought would have
to be for the membership of those committees, not the ND. Moreover, we know that
Ruef is an employee of the ND and not an officer of it, but there is nothing in
the material you provided to even guess that he is an "officer, agent, shop
steward or representative" within the meaning of these terms as used in the
LMRDA. Since he is being paid by the committee and preparing submissions for it,
it would seem to me that he would have to be an officer, agent, shop steward or
representative of it. In any event. you have given me no assistance, legally or
factually, to help me make that decision. Will you be able to do so before a
federal district court? Also, based upon the material before me, though .Mr.
Ruef may have set up a corporation for certain legal or other purposes, possibly
as a vehicle for payment of taxes, I can only surmise that he is not an
employer, for all we know is that he is the only person employed by it.
With this background. I turn to what we believe to be your two major points.
First, you appear to argue that Ruef's employment is limited to the ND and that
he cannot do work, particularly of a different kind, for another. It seems that
this would hold true even if the work does not reduce or cause a decline in the
fulfillment of his duties for the ND. In fact, Brother Ruef does not have any
employment contract with the ND. There is no job description or any writing that
requires him to work exclusively for the ND or prohibits him from doing this
kind of work. In addition the Bylaws do not state or even infer that any
employee must work exclusively for the ND. In fact. a perusal of previous
interpretations of the organic law by my predecessors in this office hold that
employees and even general chairmen are not engaged in 24/7 occupations. In
short. there does not appear to be any prohibition against any ND employee from
working for another on weekends and an hour or so in the evenings, so long as
the work does not interfere with his main employment or cause his or her
performance to deteriorate; is not the same work he does for the ND; is actually
rendered; and is not so substantial to become his main employment. Brother
Ruef's job with the ND does not include writing arbitration submissions. Rather,
that task has been left with the general committees, which under our organic law
are semi-autonomous entities. Following your logic, any complaint under these
facts would more likely involve the activities of the chairmen who use committee
funds for such services.
Finally, you suggest that Ruef's writing submissions for some committees may
affect his decision malting on the First Division by creating conflicts of
interest. You do not supply any factual basis for this conclusion or even
outline the reasoning, For all we know, none of those committees may send any or
all of their cases to the First Division, but instead use public law hoards or
special boards. Mr. Ruef would not be a member of those boards, even though he
wrote the submissions given to the arbitrator. Additionally, as I am certain you
know, each case before the First Division is an adversarial proceeding between
the claimant employee(s) and the carrier employer and in almost all disputes
does not involve more than one committee. Even where there are employees from
more than one carrier, the committees are on the same side. It is quite
difficult, if not unrealistic, to make the assumption that the ruling in any
case as to which Ruef has written a submission for one committee would
necessarily have an adverse effect upon other committee not even involved in
that dispute, particularly in view of the fact that there is a neutral chairman
who in the real life situation is the decision maker.
On your second point, you assert that Brother Ruef is violating §501(a] of the
LMRDA. Much of what I have written above is applicable to this contention.
Brother Ruef does not appear to fall into any category listed in that section.
although he may receive some personal or monetary benefit by working for the
committee, he is actually performing legitimate work for the monetary amount
paid him. I must assume that sum was authorized by the general committee. Unless
the expenditure was made for no work or was highly unreasonable for the work
performed. I cannot summarily find that acceptance of the sum constitutes a
breach of the fiduciary duty set forth in §501(a). Also, except for your
conclusory remarks, Mr. Ruef is not dealing with the ND as an adverse party. He
seems to be providing the committee(s) and its members for whom he may write a
submission with a benefit that they would not otherwise have. Other than making
more money than he is paid by the ND, I presently cannot find that Ruef' has a
personal interest adverse to the ND or to the general committees that may appear
before the First Division.
On the whole, your protest raises an organizational restructuring issue, that
is. you are contending that the organization should enter into exclusive
employment contracts with its employees so that they have no outside earnings,
or that the ND should expand its arbitration department to handle all
arbitrations, whether they be before the First Division, public law boards or
special boards of adjustment. Notwithstanding such arrangements. if all
arbitration disputes were handled by the same employees, and all submissions
were written by them, similar allegations of conflict or bias could be raised in
my judgment. Moreover, the allegations here might be considered by some to be a
device merely to derail Ruf's candidacy. These motivations are not matters to
which §501 pertains and would not be the basis for any action that might be
provided by the provision.
At this tune. based upon the record before me and the current status of the
civil law, I would be remiss in both my capacity as National President and in
the judicial type of position you have cast me, if I were to state at this time
that Marcus Ruef has violated some federal or state law and that the Brotherhood
of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, therefore, will and can properly bring
legal action against him in federal or slate court. Such statement would be
prejudicial to Mr. Ruef and would destroy any semblance of impartiality on my
past.
Fraternally yours,
/s/ Don M. Hahs National President
cc:
James P. Hoffa. General Pres--.IBT
John F. Murphy, International VP-IBT
E. Rodzwicz, FVP-BLET
W. C. Walpert, NST-BLET
C.R. Rightnowar. General Chairman-BLET