Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

March 2, 2000                                                                                                 File: Art. XV — 1996 Contract

Milton H. Siegele Jr.
Asst. Vice President/LR
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
P.O. Box 961030
Ft. Worth, TX 76161-0030

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your letter dated January 17, 2000, in which you notify this office that based on PLB 6003 Award No.47 (UTU) that BNSF is discontinuing payment of a second Special Pay Differential when an engineer qualifies for an additional day’s pay during a continuous trip or tour of duty account various Schedule Rule violations.

This office cannot concur with your position. You have based your decision on an interpretation of a UTU agreement which this organization is not party to. More to the point, Neutral Kline based his decision on an agreed to Q&A from the UTU 1980 Crew Consist Agreement.

The payment for engineers working with a reduced crew were included in the SPD provided by Article XV. That reduced crew allowance has historically been allowed whenever a new day was initiated due to certain Schedule Rule violations. Further, this very question was addressed during the negotiation of the 1996 agreement relative to Article XV and the parties concurred that payment of a second SPD would be allowed in such cases.

First Division Award No. 24415 addressed payment of an additional short crew allowance when the agreement was violated and the second eight hours was pay for time worked and not a penalty. Award No. 24415 is directly on point with the issue at hand and in our opinion should prevail.

As you are well aware, engineers are not entitled to the Productivity Fund established per the 1980 UTU Crew Consist Agreement, but if the carrier is willing to share that entitlement with engineers, this office would be more than willing to accept your interpretation regarding a second SPD allowance. Assuming you are unwilling to provide engineers the benefits of said agreement, this office will not accept an interpretation of an agreement which we are not party to.

This office is willing to discuss this issue further if that is your desire, but at this time claims will continue to be progressed for a second SPD when certain Schedule Rules are violated which provide for a new day.

Sincerely,

MW Geiger Jr.
General Chairman