New ADOs Posted
From Rob Newhouse
August assigned days off posted under ADO List.
Posted in News on 07.31.2010 4:02am
Battle Creek Flagman issue
From Rob Newhouse
From Bob Hill...
Anyone witnessing flagmen on duty at St. Paul during the battle creek project please contact Bob with the specifics time, date and location. Mr. Hill's fax number is 651-768-7352.
Bob will then file a claim to protect the agreement. This is our work and if we don't file a claim it could go away.
Posted in News on 07.07.2010 11:20pm
Battle Creek Flagman complaint
From Rob Newhouse
R J Hill Local Chairperson 911 Cell: 651 503 9817
6910 Idsen Avenue South Fax: 651 768 7352
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
united transportation union
June 30,2010
J. J. Stoffer
Manager Operations Yard
1000 Shop Road, Building 860
St. Paul, MN. 55106
RE: Flagman Battle Creek Project
Dear Mr. Stoffer,
After the start up of the Phase 1 Battle Creek project beginning on Monday, June 7 2010
General Contractor personnel and B & B forces were observed providing flag protection
for Kramer Brothers heavy truck traffic over the crossing just west of the old yard office.
Dump trucks were hauling material for the Battle Creek project and flag protection was
being provided for train and yard movements over that crossing several days a week,
twelve hours a day.
When I received this information concerning the unauthorized flag protection I called
Yard Manager Larsen who you had placed in charge of the project to inquire why a yard
service employee was not marked up providing flag protection for train and yard
movements. He informed me that he was unaware of the situation and would check in to
it.
The following week I ran into Mr. Larsen and was told that B & B forces were providing
flag protection. I reminded him that if there was going to be flag protection required then
a yard service employee must be placed on that assignment.
On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 I met with you and addressed my concerns that flag
protection was still being provided by B & B forces and I requested that you make
arrangements to place a yard service employee on site to perform the required flag
protection. I also informed you that Article 28 of the 2003 General Labor Agreement
supports our position.
A yard service employee has yet to be place on assignment to perform the necessary flag
protection referenced.
Consider this letter as a formal complaint that the Carrier is in violation of Article 28 (a)
5. of the 2003 General Labor Agreement which states:
At points where yard service employees are employed, the following shall be
considered yard work and shall be performed by yard service employees. Flag
protection for train and yard movements when required in general construction
work or maintenance work within defined switching limits.
Instructions must be given to the crew management center (CMC) to place the referenced
flag protection assignment when required into the daily mark so that yard service
employees will be used to provide the required protection.
Be advised if a yard service employee isn't placed on the referenced flag protection
assignment when required. This Committee will have no choice but to issue instructions
to begin the process and file penalty claims to protect the agreement.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated
Respectfully,
R. J. Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU911
CC:
J. H. Nelson, Chairman
JPSerrin,VLC911
D. W. Towner, S911
Posted in News on 07.01.2010 3:19pm
Limbo Board
From Rob Newhouse
Via email May 21, 2010
Mr. BjarneHenderson, Ms. Jennifer Isaacson and Mr. Ryan Huettl,
Re: Letter of protest regarding F7 board and restriction of seniority rights In as much as Mr. Huettl’s email indicates that CP is unable to meet on this most serious issue until some time two weeks from now, please restore the status quo with respect to marking to the yard extra boards across the Milwaukee/Soo System.
Switchmen are entitled by contract to mark to the extra board,seniority permitting, regardless of when they are rested for the next start.Marking to the extra board is an inherit function of seniority and has no bearing on when a switchman is or will be rested.
CMC’s unilateral actionto remove switchmen from the extra board who have sufficient seniority to holdthe board and placing them to the non-contract carrier created “F7 board,a.k.a. limbo board” is a serious contract violation and a change inworking conditions and rights without negotiations.
James Nelson
General Chairman - UTU
Posted in News on 06.20.2010 11:58am
Locker Request Form
From Rob Newhouse
*** note, I'm not sure if this will work on the site but here is the form for requesting a locker.***
Locker Request Form Page 1 of 1
Locker Request
Date___________________________
Please be advised that I am submitting a formal request for a locker(s).
Employee Name Employee #
Current Assignment__________________________
Request at location (s)
Twin Cities Terminal :
St Paul Yard ‘Island’ Yard Office ______________
St Paul Yard ‘Old ‘ Yard Office _______________
St Paul Yard “ Hump Tower”_________________
Humboldt Yard Office ______________________
Shoreham Yard Office ______________________
Ford Yard Office __________________________
Glenwood , MN ___________________________
This request is made in accordance with ARTILCE 40 – WELFARE- LOCKER ROOM FACILITIES of the 2003 General Labor Agreement
Signed ______________________________
Twin Cities Terminal / Glenwood Yard
Please forward this request to Manager Operations Yard J J Stoffer via fax
651-778-3636. Retain this copy and receipt of successful transmittal for your records.
***Submit a copy of this request with, all penalty claims for non-compliance.
Posted in News on 06.20.2010 11:43am
Letter from Bob Hill to John Stoffer
From Rob Newhouse
June 8, 2010
J. J. Stoffer
Manager Operations Yard 1000 Shop Road, Building 860 St. Paul, MN. 55106
RE: Penalty Claims
Dear Mr. Stoffer,
The Railway Labor Act provides for labor organizations to be duly designated and authorized to represent employees on any U. S. rail carrier or carriers.
As Local Chairperson I have a duty to handle claims and grievances when presented. This Committee pursuant to the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is authorized to file claims and grievances including those where time has not been claimed, or where claims were filed incorrectly.
It is this Committees responsibility to see that the Collective Bargaining Agreement is being adhered to by the Carrier. When contract violations occur as a result of an oversight or complete disregard by a local carrier of the provisions in the CBA this committee will file a time claim for the purpose of enforcing employee rights under the agreement. And that penalty should be severe enough to make it unprofitable for the carrier to repeat the violation.
In March of this year I was presented with documentation that a west side crew was instructed to transfer equipment from St Paul Yard to Humboldt Yard. These locations are within the defined switching limits of the Twin Cities Terminal where yard crews are employed.
I subsequently submitted a penalty time claim in behalf of the person of record, rested and available, but not called to protect the agreement for violation of Article 28, (A) 2.of the 2003 General Labor Agreement.
After submitting this penalty claim in the usual manner I received the following denial from the Carrier's time keeping department. " must provide name of CP manager that approved this move".
Apparently this response is in regards to the instructions issued to all field operations on January 1, 2010 in SAM Notice NO. 37 which states " To all T & E employees Required information when submitting Arbitrary/ Penalty claims. Arbitrary and/or penalty claim must identify the name of the employee/manager ( i.e., Yardmaster, Footboard Yardmaster, Train/ Crew Dispatcher, foreign line employee/ manager etc) who instructed you to perform the service".
In regards to SAM notice 37 this Committee takes the position that when a penalty claim is filed to protect the agreement it is under the authority of the Railway Labor Act and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In addition it is the position of this Committee that any instructions issued to perform service which is considered a violation of the CBA comes under the authority of the Manager of Operations Yard Mr. J. J. Stoffer Twin Cities Terminal.
The Carrier and its officers have an obligation to have knowledge of the scheduled rules and abide by those rules.
If you care to discuss this Committees position on this matter further. Please advise me of the time and place.
Respectfully,
R. J. Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU911
CC: J. H. Nelson, Chairman J P Serrin, VLC 91 1 D. W. Towner, S911
Posted in News on 06.20.2010 10:59am
Facilities Complaint
From Rob Newhouse
united transportation union
May 21,2010
John Stoffer
Manager Operations Yard
Twin Cities Terminal
Steve Moerke
Manager Operations Road
River District
Ron Pierce
Manager Operations Road
West Side / East Side
RE: Biannual Rules Facilities Gentlemen;
A complaint has been made to our respective Committees concerning the facilities the Carrier is requiring Twin Cities Train and Engine employees to report to in order to attend the required two days biannual rules seminar and testing.
The location of this facility is at the west end of Shoreham yard in a trailer with no running water and proper sanitary facilities.
This location is an unacceptable facility with regards to instructing Twin Cities T & E employees to report to and attend two day rules class. We respectfully request that the rules classes be suspended until arrangements are made for proper facilities to be found that are acceptable for everyone involved.
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 40 —Welfare-Locker Room Facilities of the 2003 General Labor Agreement, Section (f). In the event that some problem with respect to locker rooms, washroom or toilet facilities is brought to the Company's attention, and is not adequately addressed by the local Company Officer, joint inspection will be arranged between the Manager of Road or Yard Operations responsible for that location and the Local Chairman upon request to determine if corrections in complained of conditions are necessary.
Consider this letter our official notification that the referenced problem exists and that if a joint inspection is necessary it will be made by J Stoffer, Manager Operation Yard and R J Hill, Local Chairperson Yard, or there designees, and that it be made sometime during business hours Monday, May 24,2010.
Please advise.
Respectfully,
J.JOtt
Local Chairperson
UTU911
R. J. Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU911
CC: J. H. Nelson, Chairman D. W.Towner, S911 M. Manz, NMC
Posted in News on 06.20.2010 10:49am
"Equity Deadheads" For No Pay
From Rob Newhouse
*note from Rob Newhouse*
(Due to some of the limitations of the website and the conversion software that I use to create text files from .pdf there may be grammatical errors e.g. ID will sometimes appear as ill. I hand corrected this but may have missed some.)
Executive Committee
T. H. Baird, Vice Chair
G.R. Rutledge, Vice Chair
R. G. Haugen, Vice Chair
R. J. Hill, Secretary
Ms. Cathryn S. Frankenberg
AVP Labor Relations & Human Resources - US
Canadian Pacific Railway
501 Marquette Avenue, South - Suite 1715
Minneapolis, MN 55402
May 7, 2010
RE: Non-compensated deadhead trips and manpower in the Portage - St. Paul corridor ID Pools
Dear Ms. Frankenberg,
This office is in receipt of your letter dated April 28, 2010, which was hand-delivered to me by one of your staff members six (6) days later, at noon, on May 4, 2010, while I was at CP's MiImeapolis headquarters for other matters. Inasmuch as I now have had time to read your letter, please consider this letter as UTU's official response.
In this letter you demand that no later than May 4, 2010 that UTU provide Terry Bagaus, Director NMC South with various records. First and foremost, Mr. Bagaus as Director of CMC has immediate access to these records. Your demand for this information with only a moments notice is unconscionable and demonstrates your department's ongoing unwillingness to resolve CMC's self-inflicted problem.
In regards, to your comment pertaining to the regulation of the inactive/active list and detennining the number of crews assigned at Portage and St. Paul ill Pools these two items are UTU contractual entitlements. Any changes in the collective bargaining agreements shall be made by mutual written agreement between the parties to amend the existing agreements, namely the River District Agreement No.2 and La Crosse District Agreement No.8.
In the last paragraph on page three of our April 19, 2010 letter, we set forth several conditions that must be met so that accurate ID Pools regulation could take place. Or, CP would be in violation and UTU regulators could 110t be held responsible (not that UTU could be held responsible in any fashion) for regulation suggestions made in good-faith on what was data that was questionable at best. CMC absent a change in the controlling agreements has unilaterally taken over the regulation of the active/inactive ID Pools lists effective May 6, 2010. This action acknowledges that CP is incapable of providing accurate
data and train line-ups to the UTU regulators to base their suggestions for the active/inactive ID Pools lists.
Consequently, as the result of CP's actions on May 6, 2010, UTU is absolved of any demands or alleged damages - not that such demands or alleged damages have or had any merit. However, CP is still responsible for prudent regulation, albeit such sole regulation by CMC is in violation of the current controlling agreements. As I am sure that you are aware, UTU· has at its disposal the means to seek restitution for CP's willful contract violations.
In regards to department's continuing threat of pursuing damages against UTU for merely offering ID Pools regulation suggestions, CP can not find comfort in the RLA itself as it does not provide for any such claim. Indeed, the Act and cases interpreting and applying it have found that a carrier is not entitled to any monetary penalty against a union.
Burlington Northern v. Bll/lYVE, 961 F.2d 86, 89 (5th Cir. 1991)
(extending damages prohibition explained in ILouisville & Nashville v. Brown, 252 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1958) to § 153); N07folkSouthern Railway Co. v. BLE, 217 F.3d 181, 189-191 (4th Cir. 2000) (in 74 year history of the RLA courts have refrained in all but one case that damages are an appropriate remedy ... will not upset delicate balance set up by Congress); CSA'T v. Marquar, 980 F.2d 359, 380-81 (6th Cir.1992) (J. Guy concurring) (damage award inappropriate as it would upset delicate balance).
Had the parties intended for CP to have the ability to file a claim against the UTU, surely this process would have been agreed to when the existing Agreement commonly referred to as the Article 35 - Time Limit On Claims, was renegotiated in Side Letter No.8 in June 2008. However, this Agreement is silent with respect to any such procedure for claims or damages to be filed on behalf of CP. The omission of such a procedure in the Agreement clearly telegraphs that it was never contemplated for CP to file claims or seek damages against the Union for alleged damages from an operation under total control of the carrier.
This theory is clearly supported in Award No.1, Public Law Board No. 2857, Referee Fred Blackwell, pertinent part reading as such:
"Indeed, the key phrase of the test reading "a claim for compensation alleged to be
due is not allowed" can only be construed as referring to a claim that runs from the
Employees against the Carrier. The Carrier is never entitled to receive "compensation" from the Employees." (Underscore added)
The remedy CP seeks clearly has no basis under the Agreement or in the law. CP has not demonstrated during the handling on the property any rule or authority whatsoever supporting its baseless threat for damages. Further, a diligent search of First Division and PLB awards did not reveal any worthy precedent whatsoever for a claim against the UTU. The absence of any such awards speaks volumes to the merits of the validity of such damages and penalty claims. Indeed, CP has ventured into dangerously uncharted waters without so much as a compass to guide its intimating and harassing endeavor.
In your letter you have alleged that CP has incurred excessive expenses. It is noteworthy, that you have failed to specify the specific expenses resulting from alleged suggestions made by UTU regulators. Moreover, you offer no evidence to substantiate your baseless allegation. Nor, is there any evidence on record that the regulation of the ID pools was actually done per suggestions made by the UTU pool regulators and not unilateral actions made by individuals in CMC. Keep in mind, when it came to regulating the ID pool and designating which trains that would be protected by the ill Pools, CP did not forego its managerial right to manage its operations.
The Carrier's St. Paul- Portage corridor ID Pools records indicate that CP operated 436 eastbound crews from St. Paul to Portage, and 392 westbound crews were operated from Portage to St. Paul during the March 1 through April 15, 2010 time frame, an imbalance of forty-four (44) eastbound crews. Keep in mind that the aforementioned numbers are derived directly from CMC's ID Pools records. This assumes that your office will concede the CMC's ID pools records have some degree of accuracy. These are the same records provided to the UTU Pool Regulators to base their regulation suggestions. During this same time frame, CP deadheaded forty-three (43) crews westbound from Portage to St. Paul of which thirtyfive (35) of the westbound deadhead trips were performed by the River District (St. Paul) crews to return them home to St. Paul. The remaining eight (8) westbound deadhead trips to St. Paul were perfonned by the Portage crews. What is noteworthy is in most cases CMC waited until the River District (St. Paul) crews were on HAFHT allowances at Portage before they were called to perform westbound deadhead trips to St. Paul. Furthennore, during this same forty-six (46) days period, CP called thirty-six (36) eastbound relief crews on duty at St. Paul. This resulted in the operation of these trains from St. Paul to Portage with two crews (first crew and relief crew) which were all tied up at Portage. Clearly, CP through its day-to-day inefficient operations perpetuated it own imbalance of crews at the away from home terminals. CP has the sole managerial right to determine which through freight trains will be operated in the St. Paul- Portage corridor ID service. If CP creates an imbalance of trains and crews in this corridor, which they have done, it does so at their own peril.
There are large swings in the number of crews in the movement of eastbound trains versus westbound trains in this corridor. We have listed some of the more glaring examples below:
Date Crews
March 2 - 14 eastbound vs. 11 westbound
March 4 - 9 eastbound vs. 6 westbound
March 7 - 16 eastbound vs. 11 westbound
March 13 - 12 eastbound vs. 8 westbound
April 2 - 11 eastbound vs. 6 westbound
April 3 - 6 eastbound vs. 10 westbound
April 4 - 9 eastbound vs. 4 westbound
April 5 - 7 eastbound vs. 12 westbound
April 6 - 11 eastbound vs. 5 westbound
April 12 - 9 eastbound vs. 5 westbound
Imbalance
3
3
5
4
5
4
5
5
6
4
On the other dates in March 1 through April 15 checking period, the imbalance oftrains was often limited a swing of one or two trains per day. But, constant imbalances add up and the effects are cumulative. As the result of CP's willful lopsided operation in the St. Paul - Portage conidor ill service, where the eastbound trains outnumbered the westbound trains, the River District (St. Paul) owes the La Crosse District (POliage) 120 trains (60 roundtrips) as of May 4,2010. Clearly the ever increasing shortage to the La Crosse (Portage) crews could have avoided if the carrier would have regulated the traffic (trains) in the St. Paul - Portage in a more balanced fashion. This issue is further compounded because the carrier has failed to maintain sufficient workforce at POliage to protect the ID service work.
Your commitment in your April 28, 2010 letter that the parties could meet to further discuss this matter during the regularly scheduled May 4 and 5 claims conference is very telling. You waited six (6) days, until mid-day on May 4, to hand-deliver the letter to me at CP's headquarters. Consequently, it became evident to me that your department had no intention in entering into fruitful discussions regarding this matter. In fact, I find your shenanigans on this matter unprofessional and clearly designed to frustrate any meaning dialoged to resolve this issue. In this regard, I have previously wamed you and your department that I will not tolerate the ongoing intimidation and harassment of this office and the finger pointing to assess blame against the UTU for what is clearly the carrier's failure to manage it ID Pools operations.
The Carrier's recent addition of the "mini-pools" in this same corridor has resulted in the employees receiving even less accurate train line-ups. Often times the same trains are listed in the line-ups for both the ID Pools and mini-pools. This makes it impossible for the crews to determine when they will work which affects their ability to come to work physically rested, compromises safety, and erodes the quality of life for the crews and their families.
In closing, over the years the UTU ID Pools regulators have made every effort to work with their counterparts in CMC. Often times their good-faith suggestions fell on deaf ears which required even more drastic regulation over the following days. The real issue is CMC's reluctance to deadhead crews because the trip rate increased the cost to CP for deadhead service (but decrease the cost for the working trips). In that regard, it was CP that opted to implement the trip rates for these ID Pools.
Sincerely,
James H. Nelson
General Chainnan
cc: Malcolm Futhey, President - UTU
Local Chairpersons, GO-261 - UTU
Clinton Miller, III, General Counsel - UTU
4
Posted in News on 05.20.2010 1:25am
Z1 claims for deadheads on the IDs
From Rob Newhouse
General Committee of Adjustment GO-261
Soo Line R.R.
J. H. Nelson Chairman
139 W Cook Street
Portage, WI 53901
Office 608-745-1700
FAX 608-742-1708
E-Mail: g0261@verizon.net
May 7, 2010
Executive Committee
T. H. Baird, Vice Chair
G.R. Rutledge, Vice Chair
R. G. Haugen, Vice Chair
R. 1. Hill, Secretary
Ms. Cathryn S. Frankenberg
AVP - Labor Relations & Human Resources - US
Canadian Pacific Railway
501 Marquette Avenue, South - Suite 1715
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RE:Z1 miscellaneous claim for deadhead trips in the Portage-St. Paul corridor ID Pools, SAM Notice 73
Dear Ms. Frankenberg,
This office is receipt of St. Paul SAM Notice No. 73, effective May 6, 2010, wherein instmctions are issued to the ill pool crews working the St. Paul, MN - Portage, WI corridor which may impact payment for the deadhead service performed. The instructions require crews to file a code "Zl miscellaneous claim" for deadhead service performed in the St. Paul- Portage corridor. Since when is CMC authorized and mandated deadhead service for ID crews in this corridor considered a "miscellaneous claim"?
As I am sure that you are aware, the deadhead trips are supported by the longstanding, unambiguous deadhead rules and the compensation for the deadhead trips was agreed upon by the parties in the negotiated trip rates for this territory.
The "Zl" code is designed to reduce the Canier instructed deadhead service to some sort of "penalty or miscellaneous claim". The code is also designed to fmstrate and delay, if not out right-out deny trip rate payments for the deadhead service perfonued in this corridor.
Please be advised, delayed or denied deadhead payments to ID crews when call by CMC to perform deadhead service will result in actions from UTU that are fully supported by the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
Consequently, we must insist that the deadhead trips be paid in the same manner as the working trips. That is to say the deadhead trips must be paid in the pay period for which the deadhead service wasrendered. Furthenuore, we must insist that the "status quo" be restored and all deadhead service be paid on a working deadhead time slips in the same manner as the working trips. Furthermore, CP's unilateral actions may impact the calculation of the total monthly hours on duty and days worked for the RSIA mandated rest periods. CP's actions may also impact the working trip rate payments when the working trips and deadhead service are "combined" in the same tour of duty. This may also impact the. calculation ofthe total monthly hours on duty and rest.
In light of the seriousness of the aforementioned, we request a meeting on this issue in the immediate future. Please contact this office so that we can mutually agree on a meeting location, time and date.
Sincerely,
James H. Nelson
eneral Chairperson - UTU
cc: Malcolm Futhey, President - UTU
Local Chairpersons, GO-261 - UTU
Posted in News on 05.19.2010 9:06am
ADOs
From Rob Newhouse
ADO Lists for Twin Cities and Glenwood terminals posted.
Posted in News on 04.29.2010 1:52pm
RAILWAY LABOR ACT NON ACQUIESCENCE
From Rob Newhouse
General Committee of Adjustment GO-261
SOO LINE R.R.
J. H. Nelson Chairman
139 W Cook Street
Portage, WI 53901
Office 608-745-1700
608-742~1708 .
E-Mail: g0261@verizon.net
RAILWAY LABOR ACT
NON-ACQUIESCENCE LETTER
March 12, 2010
Ms. Cathy Frankenberg
AVP Labor Relations-Human Resources
501 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1715
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Reference: Non-acquiescence letter regarding non-compensated deadhead trips
Dear Ms. Frankenberg,
It has come to this Committee's attention that on or about the evening ofMarch 9,2010, three ID
pool train crews were called on duty at Portage, WI to deadhead for "equity" to their away from
home terminal, St. Paul, MN and then were denied compensation for the deadhead trips. First
foremost, there was no deadheading for "equity". In fact, there is no such service as an "equity"
deadhead. All deadheading in question in this pool was at the sole discretion of the carrier and
was performed to balance manpower needs because of an imbalance of trains in both directions.
The underlying cause for the deadhead trips is the carrier has elected to route an imbalance of
traffic to be protected by the trainmen assigned to this ill pool. This Portage/St. Paul ID pool
protects more eastbound trains than westbound trains. This causes an imbalance (excessive
number) of crews at the Portage Terminal. For example: in the week of March 1 through March
i h
CP routed 78 eastbound trains and only 64 westbound trains in this ID pool. This imbalance
of traffic required an average of at least two westbound deadhead trips per day to balance the
pool's manpower. CMC's unfounded ascertain that these crews were deadheaded to balance
"work equity" is ludicrous and not substantiated by the carrier's data. Consequently, CP also has
absolutely no authority to deny deadhead payments to trainmen who are deadheaded in order to
balance the manpower at the respective terminals.
The longstanding practices and interpretations regarding the St. Paul/Portage ID Agreement date
back to 1977. This is the first time the carrier has ever had the unmitigated gall to deny
deadhead payments for deadhead trips to balance manpower. Deadheading crews to balance
manpower as the result of an imbalance of traffic is compensated deadhead service. Currently,
trip rates for straight deadheads and combined deadhead service (CDS) trips are in place to
compensate crews to perfonn deadhead trips ofthis nature.
Essentially, CMC's and the timekeeping department's actions are unilateral changes to the
compensation and working conditions of trainmen that abrogate the longstanding application of
--~--- ----- -----agreements -without -the benefit -- of negotiations.-This --isa-clear -violation of the -Railway-LaborAct,
as amended.
Crews must be paid to deadhead as supported by the applicable collective bargaining agreements
and the over three decades past practice. There is no provision in the collective bargaining
agreements that provides for non-compensated deadheads for pool crews. The carrier's actions
are not, in keeping with the Agreements.
The UTU Local Chainnen and their designated mileage regulators are fully aware of the impact
that an imbalanced train schedule has on a pool's manpower. But, the lopsided and imbalanced
train schedule is solely of the carrier's own making. With that in mind, the UTU's mileage
regulators tried to work with CMC managers to ensure reasonable crew activations. This would
have guaranteed sufficient and balanced manpower to protect the ID pool traffic. And, minimize
the need for deadheading and the payment of held-away-from-home tenninal HAFHT
allowances. However, CMC mangers elected to ignore the UTU's input, which in turn resulted
in excessive deadheading, HAFHT payments on certain days and quality of life issues for the ill
pool trainmen. Simply put - any deadheading and payment of HAFHT allowances were the
direct result of CMC's failure to timely and appropriately make adjustments to the ID pool's
manpower at the two involved tenninals. CMC's and the timekeeping department's ineptness are
not grounds to refuse compensation to trainmen for the deadhead service perfonned.
Please be advised this Committee absolutely disagrees that the carrier has any right under
existing agreements and practices to deadhead crews and not compensate them for the deadhead
service. Consequently, by what authority does the carrier purport to act? Given the seriousness
of this matter we request a prompt meeting at our Portage office to address this matter.
In closing and in light of irreconcilable ramifications perpetuated by the carrier, a prompt written
response will be greatly appreciated.
James H. Nelson
General Chairperson - UTU
cc: M. B. Futhey, Jr., International President - UTU
Clinton Miller, III, General Counsel- UTU
Local Chairman GO-261
2
Posted in News on 03.30.2010 5:25pm
Chairman Nelson's response to the carrier's equity deadhead issue
From Rob Newhouse
General Committee of Adjustment GO-261
SOO LINE R.R.
J. H. Nelson Chairman
139W Cook Street
Portage, WI 53901
Office 608-745-1700
E-Mail: g0261@verizon.net
Sent via USPS certified mail
March 29,2010
Executive Committee
T. H. Baird, Vice Chair
G.R. Rutledge, Vice Chair
R. G. Haugen, Vice Chair
R.J.-Hill,Secretary
Ms. Cathryn Frankenberg
AVP Labor Relations - Human Resources
Canadian Pacific Railway
501 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1715
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Reference: Non-compensated deadheading ofID crews in the Portage - St. Paul corridor
Dear Ms. Frankenberg,
This letter is response to your letter dated March 19, 2010 and UTU Vice President
Babler's and my conversations on March 23, 2010 during a meeting with members of
your staff, Mr. Bjarne Henderson and Ms. Jennifer Isaacson at CP's Minneapolis
headquarters. The discussions focused on balancing and deadheading the crews assigned
to the Portage - St. Paul corridor ID pools. First and foremost, contrary to the baseless
assertion in your March 19, 2010 letter, the first knowledge this office had of any alleged
issue with the balancing and deadheading of crews in the "double-ended" Portage - St.
Paul ID pools occurred in mid-March 2010 when CMC called ill pool crews on duty to
deadhead to meet the needs of the carrier's service, paid the crews for the deadhead
service performed and then shortly thereafter, extracted the compensation back from
these same crew members. When the crews inquired as to why they were not
compensated for the deadhead service your timekeeping department told them that the
deadhead was an "equity deadhead" and the deadhead trips would not be paid. This office is unfamiliar with the meaning of the carrier's recently coined term "equity deadhead". Especially, when CMC records indicate the crews who were deadheaded protected ID pool service trains shortly after being rested from the non-compensated deadhead trips. When did deadheading to protect the trains assigned by the carrier to the ID pools become an "equity" issue?
It is noteworthy, that these two ill pools have been in existence since 1977 and this is the
first-time in the thirty-three (33) years history of these pools that the carrier ever
mentioned the term "equity deadhead" or had ID pool crews perform deadhead service
without compensation. When this ill agreement started in 1977 crews were called at two
separate crew board locations over 233 miles apart. Lacrosse crews were called at
Portage and regulated by a Lacrosse Division Chairman or designee, River crews were
called by a crew caller located in Saint Paul and that board was regulated by a River
District Chairman or designee. Consequently, it is obvious to UTU this is a unilateral
change by the carrier inwages (deadhead triprates) and working conditions withQut the
benefit of negotiations - a clear violation of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. The
carrier's position becomes even more untenable because all deadheading trips in these
two ID pools, regardless of the reasons the deadhead service was performed, were
included in the calculations to develop the ill pools working trip rates and deadhead trip
rates. These trip rates were consummated by mutual agreement between the parties.
These same deadhead trip rates have· been in effect for over seven (7) years without
challenge.
It is also noteworthy that the facts gleaned from the carrier's ID pools records cited in our
March 12, 2010 letter pertaining to the imbalance of trains for the week of March 1
through 7, 2010 stand un-refuted. The two ID pools protected 78 westbound trains versus 64 eastbound trains that that week. This imbalance of fourteen (14) trains in the Portage-St. Paul corridor resulted in an imbalance offourteen (14) ID crews during the seven days period! The fact that you assert in your March 19, 2010 letter that the imbalance of trains in a corridor does not affect crew balancing, HAFHTpayments and deadheading only demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of your company's day-to-day operation as a railroad. Furthermore, based on the volume of trains in this corridor, it is almost impossible to recover from a fourteen-crew imbalance at one terminal in a timely manner and the problem only grows worse if the train imbalance continues. This is the same week that deadhead compensation was denied to several crews for the deadhead service they performed to protect the carrier's ID trains.
During our discussions on Tuesday, March 23 one of the CMC's mangers in attendance
made what we felt was several self-serving accusations and very telling proclamations.
For instance, he indicated the volume of eastbound trains versus westbound trains
averages out over a month. Of course, he had no documentation to substantiate this
assertion even though that that information was at his "fingertips" just one floor below.
More important, a monthly average of trains is not the appropriate measurement period
because it does not address the day-to-day imbalance of crews caused by an imbalance of
through trains and Hours of Service relief assignments that impact the number of crews
needed at the two terminals involved. Simply put - crews' availability, rest, tours of duty
and associated compensation is more akin to twenty-four hours cycles, not the carrier's
self-serving thirty days average figure. His comments were based on nothing more than a
"bean counter's mentality" to use a monthly average instead of taking into account the
day-to-day train operations and the downstream affects it has on crew balancing,
deadheads and HAFHT compensation. It is noteworthy, that deadheading and HAFHT
compensation have been rooted in the collective bargaining agreements for over a century
to address transporting crews between terminals or tied up at away from home terminals.
This same CMC manger asserted that the four local chairmen, 2 UTU designees and 2
BLET, who assist CMC as "crew balancers", caused the imbalance of crews because they
could not agree at times on how many ID crews to activate. His assertion is this regard is
grossly inaccurate, self-serving and without foundation. We checked with the UTU local
chairmen and they were emphatic there have been no disputes between our designated
"crew balancers" pertaining tothe number ~rew~Jo be activated on any given day.
Also of importance, there were never any requests from our crew balancers to deadhead
crews for the sake to achieve "equity" between the Portage and St. Paul crews. Any
deadhead requests dealt strictly with the need to protect the projected train starts, taking into account the number of crews already at the respective terminals. Granted, the local chairmen or designee often had to amend their pool activation requests to CMC. But, that occurred because CMC failed to timely activate the crews, often delaying the activations three (3) to four (4) hours. CMC's delayed activations of crews often resulted in activating crews after other crews had departed the far terminal, which of course upon
tie-up places them by agreement behind the activated crews. CMC's actions or inaction,
as the case may be, triggered the payment ofHAFHT allowances, an imbalance of crews
at the terminals and in all instances deadheading to get manpower in place to protect the
needs of the service. We also need to keep in mind, that the local chairmen's activation
requests are predicated on the information from the train line-ups, which both parties
have determined are historically and notoriously inaccurate. It reminds me of an old
acronym: GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. Regardless of the inaccurate train line-ups
published by the carrier, the crew balancers made good faith and frequent efforts to
activate crews based on the ever-changing information available at the time.
Unfortunately, the UTU is not in a position to mend CP's self-inflicted crew balancing
problems or its inaccurate train line-ups, nor will we be held accountable for either of
them. We would also like you to keep in mind during a three-year period starting in the
early 1980s to late 1980s CMC balanced the crews in these two ID pools. CMC found it
such an unwieldy and time consuming task and often had the pools/manpower so out of
kilter that they demanded that the UTU take back the regulation of these two pools. Keep in mind; the CP does not compensate the UTU and its crew balancers for. regulating the ill service pools established by the carrier. Sometimes you get what you pay for. This becomes even more apparent when the department who should be responsive to the suggestions rebuffs the crew balancers who are providing the service free of charge.
The CMC manager's comments were further telling as to the carrier's role in perpetuating the imbalance of crews in the ID pools. We identified occasions when CMC relived ID crews tied up under the HOS in route from St. Paul to Portage with ID crews called on duty at St. Paul instead of using the Portage extra board as required by agreement. This results in two ID crews tied up at Portage for one eastbound ID train. His first response to this situation was to attack the credibility of the individual who was the source of information, but then conceded it may and does occur. What we found even more troubling was his comment that when the HOS situations occurred, he felt justified doing what ever was necessary to move a train. In other words, the hell with the agreements, the ensuing contract violations and the unintended consequences it may cause down the road. The simple fix for the HOS relief is to properly maintain the extra board at Portage. Conductors assigned to the Portage extra board must per an existing agreement protect the HOS relief on the ID trains in lieu of having two ID crews tied up at Portage for the one ID train operated. There was no immediate fix offered to us to correct the Portage extra board manpower shortage other than "we are hiring in 2010."
Simply put - the union is not staffing the Portage extra board short of manpower, the
carrier is, and the carrier is solely responsible for the consequences it causes.
What we found even more alarming is after we spent several hours with. your staff
brainstorming and putting together fixes to help alleviate the imbalance of crews, reduce
HAFHT payments and deadheading, the CMC manager declares that he is not going to
deadhead Portage ID crews to St. Paul to protect eastbound trains thereby maintaining
some sort of balance of crews at either terminal. Instead, he stated he would deadhead St. Paul crews tied up at Portage back to St. Paul to protect the eastbound trains. This only serves to perpetuate the problems we were trying to correct. To the credit of your staff, it was obvious they were taken back by the CMC manager's cavalier comment. It is clear to us from CMC's recent actions and the manager's comments in our March 23 meeting, he was going to implement "deadhead and HAFHT cost saving measures" even if those measures run afoul of the longstanding collective bargaining agreements. This implores your department to defend CMC's "cost cutting" measures regardless of their negative impact the on the collective bargaining agreements, crew balancing and ID crews' quality of life. Put differently - it is a waste of our time to cooperate with your department to set criteria in motion to resolve this matter when it is obvious that the department within CP responsible for crew balancing and deadheading is an uncooperative participant. We are not going permit our members (your employees) to become pawns and be subj ect to unilateral changes to their collective bargaining agreements in what is apparent to us, a power struggle between two of CP's departments.
What was very telling during our discussions is the CMC manager did not have a plan to
resolve the crew balancing matter or prevent it from reoccurring again in the future. He
openly admitted the pools have b~en out-of-balance since January and both of the two
union's crew balancers in conjunction with his CMC staff have tried almost everything
humanly possible to alleviate this problem, but to no avail. His only suggestion was once
the crews did get out-of-balance, he want the unfettered right to deadhead the crews on a non-compensated basis. In essence, he wanted to shift the burden of proof to the union to prove the reason CMC called crews to deadhead. This would have required union members and representatives to compile weeks, even months of data in order to make
their case for payment of the carrier mandated deadhead trips. We obviously rejected that
resolution.
It was obvious to us listening to the CMC manger and your staff that the underlying issue
driving this matter was the increase in cost for deadheading because of the carrier's
implementation of trip rates. Prior to trip rates, deadhead trips were paid at a basic day or
actual time, depending on a trainman's hire date. After the carrier's implementation of
trip rates, the earnings for deadhead trips equaled the earnings for working trips. But, in
calculating the trip rates, the working trips earnings were averaged with the lower
deadhead trips earnings. This resulted in lower earnings for crews on the day-to-day
working trips and an increase of pay for the deadhead trips. It is apparent that CP now
wants to take full advantage of the lower earnings for crews on working trips and now
several years later, hide behind the new CMC manager's trumped-up "equity" argument
to strip them of their rightful compensation for the deadhead trips.
We will address the assertions in your Friday, March 19,2010 letter, sent electronically
from your office at6:19p.m.on March 19, severalhour~ after the close ofmyoffice',s
business hours. Consequently, we were not apprised of your March 19 letter until late on
Monday evening, March 22 because we spent most of Monday traveling to Minneapolis
for our scheduled meeting with your staff on Tuesday, March 23. First, we do not
recognize in situations of such great importance such as this, that email is the appropriate
medium for response - especially an email sent deliberately after the close of business on
a Friday evening. In light of CP's abuse of the email privilege, we will only acknowledge
responses to non-acquiescence letters sent via USPS, unless mutually agreed open
otherwise.
On March 8, 2010, we provided your staff with a written agenda of longstanding issues
of importance to be addressed at the March 23 meeting. The agenda included the
following issues:
1) UTU's exclusive representation oftrainmen
2) CP's establishment of the "Limbo" boards for switchmen ~
3) "Flip trip" trip rates when combine service deadheading occurs
4) Payment for yard crews performing switching outside it's in the yard/road zones
The UTU incurred substantial expense to attend this meeting for the singular purpose to
address the four items on the agenda. Our agenda was tossed aside, an agenda
incidentally that contained issues that we have been waiting for responses from you for
several months and on one item, for over two years. Your department's "new" agenda for
the meeting placed us at inherit disadvantage to discuss this crew balancing/deadhead
matter fully because we did not bring the file for this issue. The reason we were unable to
bring our file was because were not informed of your department's intention to
unilaterally alter the agreed upon agenda until after we departed our office. Plus, your
department's late notification of the meeting agenda did not leave us with time to gather
data from CMC Manager Manz as your letter suggests or discuss with our UTU crew
balancers their first-hand knowledge of what the issues are. Never the less, in the sprit of
cooperation and p~ofessionalism, we did discuss the crew balancing/deadhead matter
with your staff. The more the discussions ensued, it became apparent that numerous
elements came into play that are causing the imbalance of crews, with an imbalance of
train traffic playing the major role coupled with other factors that may have been
compounding the problem. To that end, the discussions were beneficial. But, we were
under no obligation nor should your staff have been under any illusion for us to make any
adjustments or changes until we had all of the facts and discussed them with our
designated UTU crew balancers.
The designated UTU crew balancers are our foremost experts because they deal with the
situation on a day-to-day basis and often work in these ID pools. Consequently, we were
dismayed with the strong-arm tactics and thinly veiled threats at the end of the day (7:00
p.m.) by at least one member of your staff to sign a memorandum. The memorandum
was not agreed upon because it contained several elements that changed long ago
negotiated rates of pay and working conditions.. We. did advise this individual on.several
occasions that day we were not agreeable to the terms that he set forth in his
memorandum, nor were we as representatives obligated to amend existing agreements.
That advice fell on deaf ears.
Let me make it perfectly clear, your department's strong-arm tactics and/or threats do not
intimidate us, especially threats that are predicated on baseless assertions as to what the
union may have done or did not do. If that is your department's new way of doing
business, further discussion may be pointless, have your lawyers talk to our lawyers.
Especially, in light of the fact that least one maverick CP department head has already
expressed an air of non-compliance with any resolution we reach with your department.
In your March 19 letter you assert that the current dispute is rooted in the interpretation of the 1977 River District ID Agreement and Article 70 of the collective bargain agreement.
We totally disagree with that unfounded assertion because the ID crews' deadhead trips
were performed to protect eastbound ID trains out the 8t. Paul terminal. And, the carrier's self-proclaimed non-compensated so-called "equity" deadhead trips are nothing more than unilateral changes in wages (deadhead trip rates) and working conditions without negotiations. Your department's continued support of the CMC and the timekeeping departments' baseless assertions that the deadhead trips dealt with some sort of "equity" between the 8t. Paul crews and Portage crews, serves 9nly to perpetuated what is clearly a tortured interpretation of what actually occurred and why the deadhead trips were necessary.
In regards to the comment in your letter wherein you allege the ill agreement mandates
that only one "chairman" may regulate the pools and that chairman must be the "general
chairman" is clearly a tortured interpretation of the agreement by someone relatively new
to staff. It is obviously this staff member is clueless of the thirty-three years (33)
interpretation of the agreement and the carrier's longstanding acquiescence to the practice to have the local ch~irmen or their designees regulate the two pools in question. In that regard, this office has never regulated these ID pools because we lack the day-to-day time, wherewithal and information to properly do so and we are not going to start now.
Your demand that I as general chairman regulate the ID pools in question is DENIED! In
fact, let me make it quite clear that neither you nor your department's staff is in position
to demand anything of this office! UTU has its designated crew balancers in place and
CMC must work with them. The sheer arrogance of the author of your letter in his role as
the department's bully, who is so misguided in his thought process that he believes you
are empowered to "command and control" me, I find appalling and ludicrous! The fact is,
I find your letter riddled with anti-union animus and an unbridled attempt to interfere
with this office's duly elected representative status to represent the members under my
jurisdiction. Especially, when your demands on the UTU are to clean up problems caused
by CP's various departments never ending ineptness and to correct an imbalance crews
caused by a daily imbalance of train traffic. I would be interested to know has your
department made the same demands and threats to your union of choice - the BLET or is
the same imbalance of the engineer crews being overlooked?
In conjunction with the aforementioned, this letter puts your department on official notice that the ID pools will continue to be regulated by the UTU designated crew balancers and their CMC counterparts just as they have been forthe past thirty-three years. We fully expect your department to issue instructions that CMC representatives must work closely and timely with our crew balancers, HOS relief assignments must be filled by the agreement mandated crews, traffic in these pools be regulated in fashion that facilitates crew balancing, and if that is not operationally feasible, then compensate crews for deadheading so that they are in position at the terminals sufficiently in advance to protect the needs of service. I can assure you that complying with the aforementioned; will do more to streamline the carrier's West ill pools operation than the asinine demands in your March 19, 2010 letter could ever hope to accomplish.
In regards to the threat in your letter that CP may seek damages for the previous ninety
days period, and into the future, for the reimbursement of costs that are associated with
the imbalance of crews is unfounded. If there are cost over runs are in evidence, you have
failed to demonstrate that there are, and regardless, such costs are not attributable to
union action. The mere unfounded assertion of cost over runs at this late date does not
rise to the level of proof. The fact is, any crew costs would be directly associated to the
daily imbalance of train traffic protected by these two ID pools and CMC's ongoing
failure to comply with UTU agreements.
Furthermore, since when does the carrier, through its normal day-to-day train operations
get to "lay-behind-the-Iog" for month after month without calling attention to a perceived
problem, acquire the right to perpetuate a claim against the union? In fact, where do you
get the unmitigated gall and tortured position that the union has to reimburse the CP for
its various departments' day-to-day ineptness to properly regulate and balance the train
starts in the ID pools, its ongoing failure to comply with agreement provisions, its
ongoing refusal to maintain adequate staffing levels on the extra boards designated to
perform HOS relief, its ongoing failure to heed the union crew balancers input and act
promptly on their day-to-day suggestions? If anybody is due compensation in this
situation it is the union and its members for the carrier's ongoing failure to hire sufficient
manpower to protect the needs of the service thereby depriving the union of vital dues
dollars and its members of their contractual entitlements. Not to mention the additional
time, staffing costs and expenses the union must incur to police it agreements.
It is obvious in dealing with your department's staff they are more interested in shifting
blame from the carrier's various departments to the union, instead of resolving the issue.
For example, one of YOl!J staff members asserted that the crew balancers were
deliberately misbalancing the crews so that the crews would have to only work in one
direction and then could deadhead home. This assertion was baseless and that became
very apparent when it was discovered the staff person could cite one example as to how
many crews were assigned to the respective ID pools, how much deadhead was being
performed, how much HAFHT time was being paid, and what the imbalance of crew
number was.
Fortunately for the CP, the UTU's designated crew balancers have been working
diligently with CMC ManagerManz to implementa plan on March~24 to get thetwo
pools back in balance. Manager Manz, who obviously has had a change of heart since our
meeting, has indicated he feels the plan will have success and has pledged his and staff's
support. Strictly in the spirit of cooperation, based on comments from our crew balancers,
barring any unforeseen service disruptions or unexpected surges or down turns in train
traffic, it will take a few weeks to get the crews balanced.
I do have concerns about the carrier's commitment to balance the crew bases for these
two ID pools. On Thursday morning, March 25, UTU Local Chairman Croft made a good
.faith adjustment to the Portage pool to keep the crew balancing effort on an even keel.
A little later that morning he and Portage crew balancer Sheppard analyzed the train and
crew line-ups and concluded that fine tuning adjustments could be made to the Portage
pool which help to expedite the crew balancing efforts, reduce HAFHT allowances,
curtail deadheads and free-up manpower for the extra board. Crew balancer Sheppard
discussed the changes with his CMC crew balancer counterpart who concurred and the
changes were made. The changes to the Portage ID pool were hardly finished and Labor
Relations Director Henderson had the audacity to call me to complain that two crew
balancers at Portage were not in harmony and issuing conflicting directives to CMC.
Obviously his rendition of the UTU's crew balancer's efforts is not accurate. It was
evident during our discussions at the March 23 meeting that Mr. Henderson lacked the
wherewithal to provide constructive suggestions to fix the crew imbalance problem, and
he now is critical of those individuals who do have the expertise and who are working
feverishly with CMC to correct the matter as quickly as possible. This goes back to the
shoot-from-the-hip without checking the facts and blame someone else mentality. Mr.
Henderson's efforts are not conducive to resolving this matter timely, or at all. In fact, it
appears he is intent on frustrating the recovery process and instead of aiding it. In this
regard, is it your department's intent that the crew balancers should not fine tune
adjustments to the pools in response to changing conditions or updated information? We
await your response. Meanwhile, it is apparent that no good deed by the crew balancers
goes unpunished. I can assure that this office will not permit the UTU crew balancers to
become your department's and CMC's whipping boys.
The lesson to be learned here is to let the local experts (labor and management) who
have the day-to-day experience and knowledge of the operating conditions regulate and
balance the ID pools as they have done for the past thirty-three years with relatively few
hiccups. Consequently, at this point in time, this office is content to give the local experts
time to work their "magic". However, with that said, we will not hesitate to get involved
if our intervention is needed or requested.
In closing, if your department's staff expects timely and meaningful resolution of matters
with this office, they must be willing to commit to address the issues with an open-
minded problem solving approach instead trying to affix blame or fmd fault. And, I as
general chairman will offer you that same commitment to address matters with an openminded problem solving approach.
Sincerely,
James H. Nelson
General Chairman - UTU
John Babler
International Vice President - UTU
cc: M. B. Futhey, International President - UTU
Clinton Miller, III, General Counsel- UTU
Local Chairpersons, GO-261
Posted in News on 03.30.2010 5:01pm
Board Mark Claims
From Rob Newhouse
Bob Hill has notified me that he is getting claims back from the general committee via email.
When you submit your claims for "falling through" the mark please include your email address as well so that Bob can forward them on to you electronically.
Thanks
Posted in News on 02.19.2010 3:41pm
Exclusive representation letter
From Rob Newhouse
January 4,2010
Ms. Cathryn S. Frankenberg
AVP - Labor Relations and Human Resources, US
Canadian Pacific Railway
501 Marquette Avenue, South - Suite 1715
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Executive Committee
T. H. Baird, Vice Chair
G.R. Rutledge, Vice Chair
R. G. Haugen, Vice Chair
R.J-Hill;Secretary
Reference: UTU's exclusive representation oftrain service crafts -arbitration
Dear Ms. Frankenberg,
On December 1, 2009 it was brought to this Office's attention that the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) representatives, with the concurrence of your Labor Relations Department, is attempting to take trainman's case to a Public Law
Board or the First Division. This Office has sent numerous letters to your department
regarding UTU's exclusive right to represent train service employees. The most recent
letter from this Office regarding UTU's exclusive representation is dated December 2,
2009. The letter put your department on notice of the BLET's attempt to arbitrate a train
service employee's dispute. This Office's December 2, 2009 letter remains unanswered.
Please be advised the BLET, with or without your department's concurrence, has no
authority to arbitrate any issue or grievance rooted in the UTU train service collective
bargaining agreements. It is noteworthy, if a trainman's case is being arbitrated at a
Public Law Board, the Attachment "A" was adopted by mutual agreement between
BLET and CP. Therefore, this Office can only conclude that your department and BLET
are working in concert to usurp the UTU of it collectively bargained contractual rights. If
need be UTU will protect its contractual rights in the civil courts.
Contrary to the BLET's baseless assertions that they can arbitrate trainmen's issues, only
the United Transportation Union (UTU) has the exclusive right to represent train service
employees at all levels of the grievance, claims and discipline handling phases, including
arbitration. This UTU contractual right has been in place for over fifty (50) years. See the
Article 1 of the UTU General Labor Agreement. Therefore, any arbitrated decision
resulting from BLET's illegal handling of a trainman's case to arbitration will be
considered procedurally defective, null and void and such decision cannot be
implemented. For example: if a train service employee is reinstated to service by the
Board where the parties to the Board are the CP and BLET, this Committee will take. the
position that the employee holds no seniority and cannot mark-up because the case was
improperly handled, thus procedurally defective.
Again, this Office has not nor does not relinquish its contractual rights for exclusive
representation of train service employees. We have placed you and your department on
written notice on numerous occasions over the past several years that UTU (the
Milwaukee/Soo General Committee) is the sole representative of the train service crafts
and class of service. Your department has acknowledged receipt of these letters.
However, these same letters remained unanswered. Consequently, it is incumbent on your
department to notify any arbitrator ruling on a BLET handled trainmen's case that it is
procedurally defective and not rightfully before the Board adjudication because of UTU's
exclusive representation. Your department's position must be that the arbitrator is
required to dismiss the case.
James H. Nelson
General Chairperson - UTU
cc: Local Chairpersons, GO-261
M. B. Futhey, International President - UTU
Clint Miller, General Counsel- UTU
Posted in News on 02.19.2010 3:23pm
Quarterly Report from Jim Nelson
From Rob Newhouse
Quarterly Report for October through December, 2009
Dear Sisters and Brothers:
After a 15-year history of negotiating separately, CP Management has finally agreed with us to engage in critical national-contract negotiations with UTU International-leadership.-This is an important step forward for us because we were leaving contract talks with individual differing levels of success in prior years. In early October, our International President, Mike Futhey, called UTU General Chairmen together to strategize how we would approach the negotiations, get a game plan together that prioritized more important goals and set hi place a few fall-back positions. All of us brought forward the issues you, our Members, had voiced hi your recommendations, and we built a classic plan for negotiation success. On our second day of meetings, we carefully worked out the exacting language to be inserted in the positions we intend to pursue. At this point, Mike is hand-picking his team of hard-nosed negotiators. I have the feeling that even Mike Tyson wouldn't want to face this group. This team will go head-to-head with the Railroads national negotiating team hi a meeting scheduled in early February at a location in Florida. I will be monitoring the progress and providing updates to all of our Local Chairmen in a timely manner.
Although our Negotiation Plan incorporates several additional issues, these are the chief areas where we want to advance. As you can see, these topics are those that most often come up in discussions where all of us General Chairmen are present and are there to listen to you.
Complete and permanent elimination of existing service scale (discarding entry rates of pay).
Complete and permanent elimination of the two-tiered pay system.
A series of general wage increases,
effective Jan. 1,2010, and reviewed every six months thereafter.
Put in place sensible cost of living adjustments.
A crew calling window structure or no less than a 10-hour call.
A process to resolve fatigue issues relative to cross-craft utilization, inaccurate lineups and manipulation of pool crew boards caused by paper deadheading and dropping of turns.
Awarding compensation during the certification process as a conductor
(certification to be established by the FRA as directed by the RSIA of 2008).
Peer-related craft pay for training periods.
Carriers to give first employment consideration to qualified conductors furloughed from other railroads.
Furloughed employees called back to work will be guaranteed a minimum of 60 days of work and pay.
Increased meal allowances.
Enhanced benefits under the NRC/UTU. Employees' National Health and Welfare
Health and Welfare Plan and the Railroad Plan (GA-23000).
Other Significant Achievements This Quarter
Furloughed Employees
We had a tie vote (7 to 7) as we considered a temporary rule to allow furloughed employees an opportunity to work at other locations. My vote broke that tie and we favorably moved the agreement forward to allow folks to work elsewhere in the system. At that time, we had 60 employees in furloughed status and were able to return 12 of them to duty within the next few weeks—a real success story. Several agreed to move over to open positions within St Paul or Chicago and we've got them on board for a minimum of 90 days. For many families, this was the best Christmas present of all. As of today, we only have one Member on furlough and we should have that person back on the active team here shortly.
Claims
A year ago we were looking at some 1500 open claim days—it was unacceptable. Through dogged persistence, we were able to trim the backlog to only 843, a solid reduction of almost 50%. We're continuing to work this issue but these remaining cases are more complicated and involve some degree of individual arbitration. We've studied the trends and these cases generally fall into two problem areas; to (a) resolve crew calling errors, and (b) settling disputes involved in "moving up in the pool." Stay tuned because we're making progress weekly.
Eliminating Flat Line Vacation Scheduling
Most everyone wants a vacation either in Spring, Summer, or the Fall. Our senior people need to get the first shot at scheduling vacations—they've earned the honor and you'll feel the same way when you're hi their position. Just the same, that's not what's happening because CMC is sticking with the wildly unpopular method of scheduling vacations using the "fiat-line" or "straight line" concept. Work is important, but we feel that families are even more important in life. We know there are a number of intelligent approaches to solving this problem. We can field the correct and experienced train crews for safe and on-time operation—and we can still allow our Members to take trips with their family. Vacations are nothing new and a number of proven solutions already exist in other railroad and business models. Too, we've listened to your ideas and will bring them forth in an aggressive manner.
SAM Notice 80
As you may be already aware, we were dismayed when CP published SAM Notice 80, which changed the quantum of discipline assessed our members for certain alleged rule infractions. CP with no prior consultation with the UTU amended its already onerous discipline policy by making it even more harsh and capricious. In essence, the Carrier unilaterally imposed the ultimate sanction against our membership of dismissal for some stand alone alleged rule infractions. While this Office does not condone deliberate violations of safety procedures that put our members in danger, every employee is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing. We question whether the "plantation mentality" approach outlined in SAM Notice 80 is a productive procedure. Simply put, where is the dividing line between dismissal and non-dismissal situations and how far askew can this policy get when you figure in the numerous personalities administering it? Members will be dismissed under the new policy for a "total -disregard of safety,- endangering life and -limb'%-But who-decides what the criterion-is -that manifests the "total disregard" threshold? The irate trainmaster who is called out late at night to investigate the incident, possibly with an "ax to grind" with the individuals involved over some other unrelated incident? What about incidents when a Brother or Sister is a little late in arriving for work and it results in delays to trains thereby affecting someone's service plan for that day? SAM Notice 80 does not take into consideration extenuating circumstances, the employee's prior record, longevity, training level, and familiarity with the territory or instructions issued by persons of authority that may have been a contributing factor. Simply put — you make the mistake, you pay for it with your career. As a Member working with a multitude of variables every day you can see the potential problems and how wide open the new policy is for managerial indiscretions.
At this point hi time, the Carrier is still considering our objections and if need be we will progress our positions further. Clearly, every "SAM Notice 80 discipline case" imposed by the Carrier needs our review and input. Otherwise, the risk to our members and their livelihoods is just too great.
Our research indicates that this draconian practice (Notice 80) has not been implemented on other CP properties. Which brings us to the questions, why here, and why now?
Meanwhile, Terry Bagaus is personally working with us on this issue. Hopefully, we can come to an equitable solution that addresses all of our concerns regarding rules compliance, but tempered with fairness and quality training for our members. We formally registered the complaint (in early October) and asked that the SAM Notice 80 be held in abeyance while we explore other more amenable options. We will keep all of you informed of any progress on this most serious matter.
Joining With The Progressive Rail Team
Last October we had an office visit with the CEO of Progressive Rail, Lon Van Gemert. Lon is an experienced railroader with 40+ years in our business. Informally, we've met some of his people off-site and they find working conditions solid and remark that Progressive is a good place to work. Our intention is to bring UTU Membership to all of the Progressive workers and help negotiate work scheduling, safety issues, and the other matters that count with employees. We brought several of those up with Mr. Van Gemert and have worked most of them out. We have a few issues left; chiefly pay and pay scales, and we'll meet with him early in March to conclude our discussions. At this point, the UTU is certified and on board. Our ten UTU workers have already seen the direct benefit of our association. Again, we proudly welcome our Progressive Brothers and Sisters.
Beyond the topics I've discussed here, we're working every day to bring better working conditions, pay, vacation, and benefits to all of our UTU members. Lately, we've adopted a stance with the Carrier to bring about meaningful change through intelligent negotiation hi a manner you aren't seeing in Washington among the political parties. We view obstructionism as a sure-fibre way to get nothing done—and we've seen this played out hi our Nation's capitol. At the same time, I want to state that we're not rolling over on key and essential issues. Rather, we're trying to bring change and_rmproyement across our daily work. Last, I encourage you to contact me directly and let me know what's on your mind. Naturally, I would ask that you share your ideas first with your Local Chairmen, Each has my cellular phone number and can raise your concerns with me. Otherwise, feel free to call me at the Portage office or through my email: go2fy@verizon.net
Posted in News on 02.19.2010 11:33am