GENERAL COMMITTEE 386
NEWSLETTER
June 24, 2002 VOLUME NO. 2
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION NATIONAL PROPOSAL
The proposal has been released with the previous questions and answers attached. Further questions and answers are soon to be provided. This proposal does not apply to members of General Committee 386 at this time and will not apply unless we opt into National Handling.The proposal has been provided to each Local Chairman of this Committee and hopefully posted or reproduced for all to review. Associated with that proposal is a proposed agreement to cover operation of remote control units. Both proposals will be considered for ratification at the same time by those members in National Handling. If one fails they both fail.
While I have my own personal concerns with regard to the contract proposal, the portion concerning the remote controls is of concern. On the property and on the web pages the BLE operatives are doing their best to generate negative votes from UTU members. Such action appears to be self serving. If the UTU proposed agreement on remotes is rejected, the NCCC may well make the same offer to the BLE and from my experience the BLE will gladly accept that offer.
No one should fool themselves by believing the BLE will offer anything to UTU represented groundmen if that should occur. The BLE would push hard for two engineers on the ground operating the remotes as exists on the MRL. That is not an acceptable result and would have a devastating effect on all ground service employees.
While this committee's members are not involved, I believe you should all be cognizant of the potential harm we may feel if the proposals are rejected. There are no alternatives for those in National Handling. It is all or nothing. Therefore, think about the potential outcome when you discuss the proposals with UTU members who are or may be in National Handling.
STATUS OF GENERAL COMMITTEE 386
There appears to be a lot of confusion and lack of awareness concerning this Committee’s present circumstance and future actions. All BNSF General Committees initially requested to be excused from National Handling in September of 1999. Subsequently, all but three BNSF General Committees opted to enter National Handling and gave their power of attorney to the UTU International and the National Negotiating Committee.
Since September, 1999, General Committees 245, 291 and 386 have been involved in a legal dispute with the BNSF management and the National Carriers Conference Committee (NCCC) in Federal court. The Washington D.C. District Court issued a summary judgement in our favor in mid 2001. The BNSF and NCCC appealed that decision to the US Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington DC. That appeal was argued before that court on January 10, 2002. We are still awaiting a decision concerning that appeal at this time.
The three General Committees have gone to court to defend our rights, as the spokesmen of our respective memberships, to negotiate and to make and maintain agreements that cover our respective memberships with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway under provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
To date we have had four meetings with NCCC Chairman Robert Allen and BNSF Vice President Labor Relations John Fleps. Section Six Notices have been presented by the involved General Chairmen and those notices for General Committee 386 have been provided to the Local Chairmen for posting. We are in the process of scheduling a fifth meeting as of this writing.
It is my belief and conviction that issues affecting members of this General Committee will only be resolved, to the members satisfaction, under provisions of the Railway Labor Act where the Carrier, BNSF, is required by law to sit down and negotiate an agreement. An agreement that addresses conditions and issues that pertain specifically to the membership of this General Committee that are not and have not been addressed or adequately addressed in a Nationally negotiated agreement.
I do not intend to be critical of any negotiating committee or pretend to be a better negotiator. By structure a National Handling action is more general in the resulting proposal due to the fact that multiple Carrier’s are involved. In this last round of contract talks, the BNSF, Union Pacific, CSX, Norfolk Southern and other Carriers were involved. There is no reasonable means to address issues that concern only a portion of those Carriers or part of one of those Carriers when conducted on a National level. I personally agree with the premise of a trip rate, however,
I personally would prefer those rates be developed before presentation to the membership for consideration. There are a multitude of other issues that need resolution on the BNSF that are not addressed in the current proposal except through future study. Even if resolved in the future, such resolution will be general and likely not address circumstances or conditions specific to the BNSF and this Committee’s membership and the problems we encounter on a daily basis.
If this General Committee opts to join National Handling, all legal actions up to this point become moot as well as the Section Six Notices served on the Carrier. If the proposal is then ratified after we have opted in to National Handline, it will apply to this Committee and this Committee’s membership. If the proposal fails the power of attorney of this General Committee will remain in the International’s control and any subsequent negotiations or handling will be conducted by the International on our behalf.
To that end I ask for your individual input as well as your collective input via your respective Local Chairmen. I can be reached either by E-mail, telephone or via your Local Chairman.
ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINE/ SAFETY PARTICIPATION
Approximately two months ago this office provided each Local Chairman with a copy of a proposed agreement identified as Alternative Discipline Handling/Safety Participation. At that time I requested comments, input and guidance concerning that proposal. The responses were less than complete and tended toward the negative side. Thus I have not presented that proposal to the Locals for consideration.I will ask the respective Local Chairmen to raise that proposal at their next local meeting following issuance of this newsletter. I would ask that you all let your feelings be known and/or heard so that I might act in accordance with your desires.
During the last meeting with BNSF Labor Relations and the NCCC we asked consideration be given to offering the Alternative Discipline Handling without the Safety Participation required. We did not receive a response at that time and may well receive none. That proposal was developed from the safety summit. Whether or not safety is improved by that agreement is yet to be seen. It is apparent over the past month or so that safety on BNSF has started towards the bottom once again.
FATIGUE AND REST ISSUES
We had one additional meeting, ostensibly for the purpose of preparing a proposal for Foot of the Board (FOB) handling in pool service. I raised this issue in Minot, ND in April, 2002 and advised if anything worth considering was developed I would present it after the meeting. BNSF management came back with a take it or leave it proposal that would remove the turn of a conductor from the pool whenever he laid off, took P/L days or vacation for seven (7) days or less.Such a proposal would severely affect the extra board(s) and cause an automatic move up in pool whenever applied. Upon the take it or leave it offer I advised we would leave it as presented and packed my bag. Nothing else of consequence occurred or was offered.
There may well be additional meetings on work/rest and fatigue in the coming months and I will attend even though I have my doubts BNSF really intends to address those issues in a realistic manner.
CLOSING
This newsletter was kept short for a purpose and that purpose was to address the present situation regarding the National Proposal and this Committee's present position. I repeat myself and urge your direct feedback and any feedback through your respective Local Chairman on that issue.J.D. FITZGERALD