GENERAL COMMITTEE 386
NEWSLETTER

DECEMBER 14, 2001                                 VOLUME NO. 1

NATIONAL HANDLING

Very little has been said over the past months about the United Transportation Union’s proposed National Agreement. This office is aware that meetings are being held in various locations with International officers attending to explain that proposal. Such meetings are scheduled, in most cases, without the General Chairman’s knowledge, and the presentations made do not express the fact that members of General Committee 386 do not fall under that National Proposal.

This office has hesitated in addressing any of the details of that proposal based on the fact that no "Questions and Answers" have ever been provided or appended to the proposal and as such the proposal is incomplete. If meetings are held in your area, I would encourage you attend and ask pertinent and specific questions relative to your individual concerns.

There are alleged issues that remain to be handled in that "National Proposal" concerning Health and Welfare coverage and cost, as well as, the application of entry rates as applied to new hires. As many of you know, the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees have made a settlement which involves additional costs to employees for health and welfare coverage. The undersigned is not privy to any discussions conducted between the UTU negotiating committee and the NCCC and therefore has no additional information beyond that made public by the UTU International.

COURT CASE (GO-386 et al)

This Committee and the Committees of Chairmen R.R. Repstine and K.W. Mason requested and were granted permission to remain out of National Handling in 1999. As a result of our position and actions, the UTU International was sued by the NCCC and the three General Committees, 245, 291 and 386, sued the NCCC and BNSF. The cases were combined and are presently in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with oral argument scheduled for January 10, 2002.

During the briefing of the case, several entities have entered the case as friends of the court siding with either the UTU or the NCCC. An airline management group and the National Mediation Board have entered the case on the side of the NCCC and BNSF while the TCU and BLE have entered on the side of the UTU and the three General Committees mentioned above.

Presently all parties are operating under the District Courts finding and order, which requires the NCCC and BNSF to deal with the three General Committees outside of the "National Handling forum". The three General Chairmen involved have had one meeting with the NCCC and BNSF which was cut short by the incidents of September 11, 2001. We are attempting to schedule additional meetings to continue discussions. Additional meetings have been set for January 23 and 24, 2002, as of this date.

In the meantime, the schedule rules and agreements remain in full effect (status quo) until or unless changed by agreement between the designated representative and the Carrier. That also means there will be a cost of living increase calculated and applied each January 1 and July 1 until there is a settlement.

The court action has not been free. The cost has been shared by the involved General Committees. I wish to express my appreciation and thanks for the support given and offered over the past years. Any resulting closure to these issues will be through the courts or will be in the form of an acceptable settlement with the Carrier or their spokesman (NCCC) and will reflect the best efforts of this Committee, J.D. Fitzgerald; K.W. Mason, R.R. Repstine and their respective Committees.

Any settlement made and accepted by the UTU International will have an effect on our position so do not delude yourselves. There is, however, no indication the "National Proposal" will be issued for ratification any time soon. This Committee, having been permitted to handle issues outside national handling, has not been advised of any action by the UTU national negotiating committee and does not really expect to be provided any unpublicized information.

ATTENDANCE (AVAILABILITY POLICY) GUIDELINES

This policy is still in effect and is still resulting in investigations on a regular basis. This policy is still as unreasonable and faulted as it was when initiated as the "Availability Policy". The policy does not take into account the hours worked per day, per week or per month. Nor does that policy take into consideration the number of hours an employee spends away from home and his or her family.

This Committee and the undersigned has maintained a distaste for policies which may be modified at any time by unilateral action of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe. The preference of this Committee is to have a negotiated agreement that at least has a means of oversight via the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Rome was not built in one day and obviously the "Attendance (Availability Policy) Guidelines" will not succumb easily. This Committee will remain persistent in it’s comments and actions against the insane policy until it is eliminated.

SAFETY SUMMIT

On April 30, 2001, UTU, BLE and BNSF Officials met on safety issues in Kansas City. That meeting was called a "Safety Summit". Nothing specific was determined in that first meeting except that a Committee of three, UTU VP R.L. Marceau, BLE VP D McPherson and BNSF VP D. Dealy, would meet and make a joint recommendation(s) to address deficiencies on BNSF by or before August 1, 2001.

UTU and BNSF officers met a second time in Fort Worth on October 17, 2001, and reviewed the recommendations presented by two of the "committee of three". An open dialogue followed wherein a number of issues were brought into the open including:

1) Attendance Guidelines

2) Employee observations

3) UTU involvement in safety committees

4) UTU designated Division Safety Position

5) Operating rules and training

6) Discipline and rules compliance/violations

A third meeting was scheduled and held November 15, 2001, jointly with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. .

The next meeting is scheduled for January 21 and 22, 2002, in Fort Worth, Texas.

. Previous to the first meeting in April, 2001, BNSF was experiencing a fatality in operating service approximately every two months, plus innumerable serious injuries. Whatever the purpose the involved parties had in calling the first meeting, the problems of injuries and fatalities on BNSF demand attention. It is yet to be seen whether the "safety summit" meetings produce a meaningful change in the Labor/Management relationship or not.

I, J.D. Fitzgerald, can assure each and every member of this Committee that I will not agree to any involvement of UTU members in observations of fellow employees work practices or rules compliance. Such an undertaking requires trust between the parties and that ingredient is missing at this time.

Any proposed agreement or program on safety will undoubtedly involve safety committees. Such involvement must be by consistent standards and conditions. Any UTU members designated for such safety committees must be appointed by the respective Locals and those Locals must have the ability and option to replace any individual that does not perform his obligations in behalf of his/her members.

Each Local already has a Legislative Representative and an Alternate Legislative Representative that were elected. Those individuals may well be the designated safety committee representatives from each local.

Any proposed agreement generated through these meetings will be submitted to the membership for consideration and ratification.

VACATION SCHEDULING

As has been the practice the past two or three years, vacation scheduling was on the back burner until the last minute. The undersigned presented a proposed method of determining the number of vacation slots for each week. A formula that could be used on a regular basis in future years. That proposal was rejected and the undersigned was advised vacations would be handled as in the past.

At this point most locals have been able to get the numbers set and move forward on the assignments. However, the problem for future years still exists and must be addressed. The Carrier has repeatedly sought to flat line or straight line the number of slots per week throughout the year. Such flat lining does not reflect the service needs or the slack time when more people can be on vacation.

The undersigned believes the proposal we submitted was fair and addressed the needs of rail service. We will continue to move on that proposal with the intention of making durable settlement that can be in place for next year and subsequent years.

UTU/BLE MERGER

The undersigned has refrained from entering the debate on the UTU/BLE merger. I do believe the two organizations should become one, however, I have serious concerns over some of the methodology and proposed changes that were involved in the unification attempt that just failed.

I believe any consolidation should be mutual and should result in more involvement for the general membership. The proposed Unification Agreement placed more control and power at the top of the resulting organization to the detriment of the members rights and protection. I consider myself an adult with the capacity to think, read and make decisions based on my experience and knowledge. I do not appreciate any person or entity dictating what is best for me and or what I should believe and support.

Insofar as the underlying encouragement for the BLE members to approve unification, I personally do not approve of threats or intimidation that I perceive to have existed. The outcome of the December 10, 2001, election results will now lead to further recriminations and threats from both parties.

Many BLE members supported the consolidation based on the fear of an A-card vote over representation and the "belt pack" issue. Based on personal communications, those members felt they had no alternative if they wanted to preserve their seniority and employment. Capitulation based on fear is not healthy for either the individual or the resulting entity.

The failed unification will likely be viewed as defiance by one side and victory by the other, when in fact, neither side won or lost except through their individual perceptions. The outcome should be seen as a sobering voice that expresses the desires of the majority of the members.

I would hope the parties listen to those voices and try to understand what was being stated, and then make the necessary corrections that have been expressed on the various web sites and in the lunch rooms frequented by the operating employees. It is not the time, place nor circumstance that requires a "war" and the potential destruction that may likely result. It is time that those in charge act in behalf of those they profess to serve and offer a unification that is fair to all, protects the majority and treats the respective memberships as the true employers and owners of their respective unions.

RAILROAD RETIREMENT LEGISLATION

I need not say much here. The US Senate passed the bill by a 90 to 9 margin. The bill has gone back to the House and has been soundly passed. If the margin of approval in the Senate and the House in July and now is indicative, President Bush should sign the bill into law.

The changes as explained are beneficial to the surviving spouses, retirees and those approaching or at sixty years of age. Further, many younger employees will be immediately vested , provided they have five (5) years or sixty (60) months paid in.

 If President Bush signs the bill into law the BNSF stands to lose up to twelve hundred (1200) employees to retirement. This is the high number and some that are eligible may not be ready. If a majority of those at age sixty opt for retirement, we can expect shortages of manpower in the short term at the least.

I believe all members who took the time to contact their senators and representatives should pat themselves on the back for a job well done. I would also applaud the National Director and the individual State Directors for their hard work.

DISSIDENTS VS DIVERSITY:

(An Editorial Comment)

The above terms have been used repeatedly in the past months. Some in higher positions rail against what they would call "dissidents" due to the fact those alleged dissidents speak up and voice an opinion that differs from their own. The same higher positions have also encouraged members to be cognizant of the diversity of the work force and fellow employees.

By connotation and implication diversity is good while dissidents and being dissident are bad and no one should oppose an established line of thought or principle. The founding fathers of this country were dissidents, Martin Luther King was a dissident. Diversity is demonstrated via race, gender, religion and nationality to list a few.

The two are not necessarily one and the same, however, without either or both it would be a boring world where everyone falls in lock step with the leader and everyone either moves ahead or everyone follows the leader off the cliff depending on whether the leader has the ability to differentiate between the benefits and the hazards.

I would temper my editorial with the caution to use fact and good judgment in developing ideas and opinions and not be dissident just to cause chaos or friction. Always remember the General Chairman is human as are all of the UTU officers and your fellow employees. People are not omnipotent or unerring.

If the membership is silent the union officers have no way of knowing whether the silence is due to satisfaction or due to contempt. So use your voice, whether opposing or supporting, to express your dissent or approval. Likewise, be considerate of all individuals regardless of title, race, religion, economic status or any criteria that defines diversity.

Voice your ideas and opinions and listen, as well, to those of others. Or you can fall in lockstep and march off the cliff.

I hope you all have a safe and happy holiday season and find the New Year promising. Take a little time each day and appreciate what you have and the environment around you - stop and smell the roses so to speak.

J.D. FITZGERAL