Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen

June 29,2012                                                                                                                Re: BNSF Mark Up Position

Dear Sirs and Brothers:

We are writing this letter to answer questions numerous Local Chairmen have asked concerning the ongoing dispute over the Carrier's stated intention to alter how board markups are handled in many areas of the system. We also are writing to make you aware of a lawsuit that BNSF filed against the BLET National Division that may have an impact on the dispute so that you may be properly instructed going forward.

Each of us has notified the Carrier that its action violates the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) we, as General Chairmen, enforce. BNSF, of course, disagrees and that dispute is being handled in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and consistent with all dispute resolution procedures and requirements under those CBAs.

Nevertheless, the Carrier filed suit in federal court in Fort Worth on June 7 against both the BLET National Division and the United Transportation Union International. The Carrier's Complaint requested that the court issue a declaratory judgment, stating that the dispute is a "minor dispute" under the RLA, meaning that it must be arbitrated and neither union may engage in any strike or other form of self-help. The Carrier also asked the court to enjoin both Organizations, and their subordinate bodies and members, from engaging in any self-help in connection with the June 27 implementation of the new markup procedure.

The Carrier bases its injunction request on an allegation that representatives from both unions described the changes as "amount[ing] to a 'unilateral change' in the parties' agreements," which it claims "constitute[s] a de facto warning that if BNSF proceeds to implement its interpretation, the Unions will initiate a strike or some other form of illegal self-help." The Carrier also complained to the court that the Organizations refused "to grant a no-strike assurance."

Unfortunately, it seems that every time we have a disagreement with the Carrier lately, some labor relations officer asks us whether that disagreement means we're going to strike. They are trying to bait us, pure and simple. And we have refused to take the bait so, for the second time in recent months, the Carrier has run to the courthouse to seek an injunction against the National.

However, none of this changes the fact that this dispute is a minor dispute that ultimately may have to be resolved in arbitration. Despite our requests and efforts by the National Division through the BLET's General Counsel to get the Carrier to agree to hold off on implementing the change pending arbitration, BNSF has refused to do so.

As some of you already know, the Carrier has redoubled its efforts to drive up productivity of locomotive engineers. You can rest assured that we are actively working together to defeat its latest ill-disguised attempt to find another way of turning the attendance screws on our membership. Furthermore, while we as General Chairmen have the duty and responsibility to interpret and enforce our CBAs, we have requested, and National President Pierce has agreed, that Vice President Priester be assigned and that National Division resources be available to assist us in carrying out our duties.

While the dispute is working its way through the minor dispute process, local Carrier officials may try to bait you, as they have done to us, to make statements or take actions that would form the basis of allegations to the federal judge that you and the union are instigating or actually engaging in concerted self-help in violation of the RLA. It appears that BNSF would like nothing more than to expose the Organization, and even you personally, to liability for what you say or do. For some reason, it chooses to ignore the well-known fact that in order for a strike or any other concerted activity to occur, we would first have to ask President Pierce for permission to poll the membership, get authorization from the membership, and then get final approval from Cleveland to set a strike date and withdraw. None of that has occurred, nor would it occur in a situation like this where we know we are involved in a minor dispute and that any step toward self-help would be enjoined by a court in an instant.

What appears to be driving this is the Carrier's hope it can sucker someone into doing or saying the wrong thing, after which it will run to the court for relief. We have been advised that, in recent years, virtually any concerted action even before an injunction is in effect will bring down the wrath of the court on those who participate, even those who exercise an undisputed
individual right under a CBA that just happens to be exercised by enough other employees at the same time that it impacts carrier operations. While it is not easy to work within a system that is stacked this way, the fact of the matter is that the Carrier is the bad guy in this situation, and we cannot afford to allow any lack of discipline to cause the black hat to shift from the Carrier to us.

As your experience being a Local Chairman has taught you, battles with railroads take a long time to mature, and even longer to resolve. Be assured that we will be in communication with you as handling of the dispute progresses, to let you know the status and what part you and your members may be able to play in bringing the matter to a successful conclusion.

Fraternally yours,
/s/ Matt O. Wilson