Dave Dealy                                                                                             April 27, 2006
BNSF - VP Operations                                                                           Re: Manpower/Lay Off Policy
P. O. Box 961034                                                                                  Sent via USPS
Fort Worth, TX 76161-0034

Dear Dave,

This letter is in reference to our ongoing discussion concerning the Carrier's various policies intended to address attendance as well as employee lay offs. While we understand the need for BNSF to maintain a workforce sufficient to handle the demands of the service, we must go on record that we do not agree with the steps that BNSF has taken in its efforts to accomplish that end.

We have complained for some time that the Attendance Guidelines by their very design are flawed not only in the way that attendance is measured, but in the way that officers utilize the measurements. We have complained for several years that the software used to manage the program rolls weekdays into weekend days, in many cases pushing four days of the week into the weekend measurement. We have complained that local management in many locations is refusing to grant exceptions under the policy to employees with bona fide medical necessities. While we complain regularly, the policy continues to be applied in all but draconian fashion at many locations.

We have also complained for some time concerning the Carrier's requirement that lay offs be approved by exempt officers of the company. On the one hand, employees were told to manage their own lay offs and to stay within the 75%/25% threshold or be faced with discipline. On the other hand, BNSF then returned to requiring all lay offs to be approved by exempt officers of the company, clearly taking back control of any requirement to "manage" lay offs. Making matters even worse was a recent decision on the part of the Carrier wherein only Terminal Managers and higher can approve lay offs. We were given commitments by you at our Safety Summit II meetings that if the Carrier saw it necessary to require management approval of lay offs, then management officers would be made available to accomplish that. We do not see that those assigned this task are accomplishing it, we have attached a recent complaint from the Powder River Division that clearly shows that very little effort is being made to manage that process.

We must also remind you that many of the General Chairmen, both BLET and UTU, had offered to meet with the Carrier to discuss changes to the approval process for advance lay off requests. Instead, BNSF recently implemented a new policy governing advance lay offs by General Notice that is viewed by many to be a unilateral change to our Collective Bargaining Agreements. The Carrier's attempts to deny employees the right to even request more than 6 personal leave days in a 90 day rolling measurement period is not in compliance with the language or intent of our Agreement.

Not only does this latest policy conflict with existing agreements, it all but mocks the aforementioned Attendance Guidelines policy. That policy, even with its many flaws, allows employees to take up to 25% of weekends and weekdays off in the same "rolling 90 day measurement" period referenced in the General Notice. To suggest that employees can lay off up to 25% of the time and not be subject to discipline, and, then to modify the lay off process to make it all but impossible to lay off at all is disingenuous at best. These policies combined make it all but impossible for employees to take paid leave, even though the attendance policy encourages the use of paid leave by not counting it as an absence. Conversely, employees who are now routinely denied access to paid leave are plainly told to lay off sick instead, creating an increase in lay offs that are counted as absences. Placing the employee in this "catch 22" hardly benefits the Carrier or employee in the long run. In addition, the spike in attendance charges that will result from this change should come as no surprise to anyone.

We made an all but identical complaint when the Carrier issued its Lay off On Call (LOC) policy, but that too was to no avail. The attendance policy rewards no one for how much they work, it only counts time off of the board. For that reason, those who would have otherwise laid off well in advance of call, must by BNSF policy stay marked to the board for as long as possible. We advised BNSF from the start that this policy would cause an increase in LOC but we were ignored. Instead, the Carrier issued a policy attempting to make LOC a disciplinary event, even though the increase in LOC should have come as no surprise.

Management of crew boards on many Divisions is at an all time low. In some instances crews are spending more hours in a single round trip than most Americans work in a week. As part of that, crews are being left on trains for inordinately long hours after expiring under the Law, and, in some cases are required to wait for motel rooms to even start their rest. Return trips are no different, and some wonder why these crews are not there on their rest to repeat that process.

We understand that the problems associated with having more business than we have employees are cyclical, but we cannot agree with the steps being taken by the Carrier to get through our obvious manpower shortages. All demoted engineers were promoted on many of our seniority districts across the property by February this year while neither traffic or manpower needs are near what they will be at peak times this summer. We can all see that this shortage threatens BNSF's ability to meet the service demands, but coming down on the employees who have in large part worked above and beyond the call during the past two years of similar shortages will not improve things. These employees are not machines, and expecting them to perform as though they are creates an expectation that will not help BNSF to meet its goals.

In closing, we have attached a recent news article wherein CEO Rose described the transportation system as nearing crisis. We do not disagree with Mr. Rose, in fact we are very concerned that some form of crisis will occur sooner than later if the Carrier does not address the demands of the service with sufficient employees rather than expecting the current employees to work even more than they already do. The policies that we complain of are no more than that. They are intended to force employees to work more by making access to time off harder to come by and that is unacceptable to the undersigned.

We are willing to meet with you and the other officers of the senior management team to work on mutually crafted solutions to what confronts us all in the coming months, but we have not seen much of a desire on the part of BNSF to involve the Organizations in its efforts to get through this crisis. Instead, policy after policy is implemented with not so much as a courtesy copied forwarded to the Organizations, we only learn of the changes when our phones start buzzing with complaints from the field.

Whether we meet through the Safety Summit II process, or in any venue that you are willing to utilize, please recognize that we are not just here to criticize, we are willing to work towards solutions that generate improvements. The difference between criticism and constructive criticism is that the latter generally includes an effort to improve the situation. We the undersigned are willing to work towards that end, but without willing partners at BNSF we have little chance of accomplishing much in the way of improvements. With all due respect, we see the operation on the brink of collapse at many locations today due to manpower concerns. Absent some improvement in the very near future, we must agree with Mr. Rose's comment in the attached press release, "Things are going to get worse before they get better." We see that as avoidable, but only if the parties work on mutual solutions rather than the Carrier imposing unilateral policies on the employees.

Please feel free to contact one or all of the Chairmen in the event you would like to discuss any of the issues we have presented.

Sincerely,

/s/ A Morrison                                             /s/ DR Pierce
BLET General Chairman                             BLET General Chairman

/s/ P Williams                                              /s/ RC Gibbons
BLET General Chairman                             BLET General Chairman

cc:                     All Local Chairmen, BLET
                         Don Hahs, National President, BLET
                         Steve Speagle, Assigned Vice President, BLET
                         UTU General Chairmen, BNSF
                          John Fleps, BNSF
                          Mark Kotter, BNSF
                          Chris Roberts, BNSF
                          Steve Goodall, BNSF

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen

Mark Kotter                                                                                                                                      April 24, 2006
Regional VP-Central Ops. BNSF                                                                                                       File: Layoff Policy
P.O. Box 961034
Fort Worth, Texas 76161

Dear Mr. Kotter:

Attached you will find several complaints we have received from our Representatives at Sterling, Colorado and Alliance, Nebraska. The primary complaints deal with our member's inability to reach the Carrier Officers on the Powder River Division who have been assigned as contact persons for individuals wishing to layoff, and the Carrier's failure to provide sufficient layoff opportunity so that paid leave days may be taken.

We have met on this matter several times and each time have been assured that when Carrier policy dictates it is necessary to contact a Carrier Officer to lay off, that Carrier Officer will maintain availability to Engineers wishing to lay off . This evidently has not occurred. In fact it appears that when you have decreased the number of Officers who are allowed to approve layoffs, you have actually reduced the availability of those Officers and have made it more difficult or indeed impossible for an employee to reach a designated Officer. This is unacceptable.

It also appears that you are not allowing sufficient days to accommodate paid leave layoffs. Paid leave is a fact, and it is also a fact that sufficient days must be provided so that employees may access their accumulated and earned paid leave. Your failure to provide access to paid days off, and allowing Engineers to he off only in cases of illness or fatigue sends absolutely the wrong message that the only way to get a day off is by claiming illness or fatigue.

Rather than enhancing employee availability, we believe that all of the above actually makes matters worse, and definitely places employees in a situation where they must run counter to the attendance policy and risk discipline in order to get a day off

Please advise when these matters and the other issues in the attached letters will be addressed. As always, we will be available to meet and discuss these issues at any time you desire to do so.

Sincerely,
/s/ Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman
SJB

Attachment

cc:                         Janssen Thompson, Gen. Mgr. BNSF
                             Matt Brandt. LC Div, 727
                             Brent Keys, LC Div. 622
                            All LC's BNSF

Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and Trainmen
Division 727 Sterling, CO Matt E. Brandt Local Chairman
 Sterling, CO 80751

Dennis Pierce                                                                                             April 14, 2006
GC GCA
BLET BNSF-MRL

Dennis:

BLET Division 727 Sterling CO is asking for your guidance or assistance with an ongoing issue occurring in Sterling CO. concerning layoff contacts and procedure. I have brought up the issue at least a half dozen times at meetings with GM Janssen Thompson and am always given lip service it seems by one superintendent or other that the situation will be corrected but it is getting worse.

In Sterling we have no carrier officer available most of the time and the layoff restriction level we are set at by the crew office is set at an extreme level of two engineers out of about 60. These two approved engineer spots are generally gobbled up 90 days in advance and make laying off for emergency, sickness, personal, etc. almost impossible on short notice. Employees are spending many hours of frustration and anxiety trying to contact an officer to lay off for any reason other than FML. Any employee without FML risks discipline every time they need off because of this contact restriction and lack of contacts for approval.

When denied a layoff in Sterling we are prompted to call a number in the Denver terminal 303-480-6447 that is almost never answered or calls returned. This number is a terminal trainmaster number in Denver and according to Terminal supt. Fred Run it is to be forwarded to their cell phones when out of the office but I do not believe it ever is.
As you we probably aware officers can not approve a paid day off on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, only to keep the clamps on us availability wise but we can not even get paid days or other type layoffs any day of the week due to no officers available the great majority of the time in Sterling. We feel paid days off even if only on Mon-Thursday should be available as should laying off sick, fatigue, personal, etc.

Sterling engineers, myself included, feel the carrier's lack of providing a contact for immediate layoffs is intentional and unreasonable in Sterling CO and needs to be addressed; yet my efforts over the last year have proved fruitless. Any guidance or assistance your office could provide would be very much appreciated.

Fraternally,
/s/ Matt Brandt LC BLET 727
 

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
Division 622
Allaince NE 69301

April 3, 2006

Dennis Pierce,

At a town hall meeting held here in Alliance on March 29, 2006 Jannsen Thompson was asked why a company officer can approve a non-compensated day off on a weekend but not a compensated day. (This practice has been going on at least a year,) his first response was vague: and off subject Although when pushed for a more direct answer he indicated that using this practice, combined with the Attendance Guidelines deterred engineers from laying off on weekends. Of course it does, this practice channels engineers towards a disciplinary situation.

I believe this practice to be highly unfair and outside the spirit of Attendance Guidelines. In fact, I believe restricting personal leave days and floating vacation days to week day use actually violates the collective bargaining agreements that secured them in the first place. Of course the company will say that they do not restrict the use of the days because they allow a certain allotment each day, an allotment that is so low it is ridiculous and also unfair. At this time, I believe the allotment to be only six engineers above the scheduled vacation and rest days. I believe that the allotment should be at least 27 based on the following:

East Pool Engineers        I05
Extra Board Engineers     60
Helpers                           15
Total                               175 x 25%=43.75 or 44
Average daily regular
vacation slots assigned -   23
                                        21
Current allotment                6
Proposed allotment            27

West pool and South pool have assigned rest days and are "covered" therein by the 75/25 Attendance Guidelines. East pool, Extra board and helpers do not have assigned rest days and should be given the same opportunity for days off, compensated or not. So I propose that the allotment be divided up accordingly: east pool. extra, board. and helpers should have 21 slots available to them each day while the west pool and south pool remain at six available to them.

The practice of letting the company determine whether I am compensated or not for a day off I have earned should end immediately and the daily allotment should he increased to give all engineers the same opportunity for time off, compensated or not, under the Attendance Guidelines. Furthermore it's a slap in the face for every engineer in Alliance to be fed the same pacifying rhetoric at every town hall meeting about how the company failed to plan for this, failed to foresee that and then be expected to just smile and buck up and bail than out either forcibly or voluntarily. Where do their unfair practices fit into the BNSF Visions and Values Statement?

In conclusion. we realize the railroad is a 7 days-a-week job, but most of us have family or personal obligations and functions that occasionally occur on weekends.The majority of us also understand it's unrealistic and unprofitable to have every weekend off and do not expect such. With all this being said, the membership of Division 622 respectfully asks your office to intervene on our behalf, in any manner you see fit, to stop the company from. further use of these unfair practices.

Fraternally and on behalf of entire division,

/s/ Mike Pancost
Div. 622 Sec/Tres.

/s/ Kenny White
Acting Local Chairman
Div. 622

/s/ Lance Thomas
Vice Local Chairman
Div. 677

/x/ Mike Long
Vice Local Chairman
Div. 622
 

BNSF boss says transport system nearing crisis

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- The head of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. warned Thursday (March 23) of a coming crisis in the nation's ability to move goods because of an aging and increasingly congested transportation system, according to this report by Katherine Yung published by the Dallas Morning News.

"In 10, 15 or 20 years, there is a crisis coming in how we move commerce," said Matthew Rose, chairman and chief executive of Fort Worth-based BNSF, the nation's second-largest freight railroad.

"I just don't see how that's going to be avoided," he said.

Mr. Rose and other executives at BNSF on Thursday showed off the railroad's effort to install a second set of tracks along its main transcontinental route between Los Angeles and Chicago.

After years of suffering from excess capacity, BNSF, like other railroads, is struggling to handle an unprecedented increase in shipments, caused primarily by a surge in imports from China and rising demand for coal produced in Wyoming and Montana.

The railroad is investing $2.4 billion this year, a 10 percent increase over 2005, to maintain its tracks and expand its ability to carry more freight.

In a sign of just how much business is booming, BNSF's top priority this year is increasing the speed of its trains so it can handle more shipments, Mr. Rose said.

Many of the railroad's nearly 40,000 employees now have about a third of their incentive compensation tied to whether the company can improve this year's average train speed by 5 to 10 percent over 2005 levels.

BNSF is also focused on improving its customer service, which has slipped in recent years as it has absorbed huge increases in shipments.

"We fully acknowledge our service isn't what it ought to be," Mr. Rose told reporters Thursday during the media tour. "Customers
right now are frustrated.

To improve its performance, BNSF is taking a number of steps, including adding cars and locomotives, re-examining how it can operate more efficiently and adding a third set of tracks along key routes.

With less than 50 miles to go, the railroad already is close to meeting its longtime goal of adding a second set of tracks along its 2,214-mile Los Angeles-Chicago line.

With the flood of imports from China showing no sign of letting up, BNSF and other railroads are under tremendous pressure to expand their capacity.

The industry is backing a proposed 25 percent federal tax credit for rail infrastructure capacity improvements.

Of the $8 billion in capital that U.S. railroads will spend this year, only 20 percent will go toward expansion. The rest will be invested in maintaining rails, ties and other equipment.

But railroads are only one part of the transportation network. Longer term, experts say, the U.S. also must upgrade its highways and waterways, many of which were built during the Eisenhower administration.

However, the chances of finding the money and the political will to undertake this overhaul remain slim during a time of war and competing needs for programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

"Things are going to get worse before they get better," Mr. Rose said.

He said a crisis would result in higher shipping prices.

(The preceding report by Katherine Yung was published by the Dallas Morning News on Friday, March 24, 2006.)
March 24, 2006