Posts under “News”

Vacation change protest

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
FAX·608-742-1·708
E-Mail: g0261@verizon.net
August 16, 2010
Ms. Cathryn Frankenberg
AVP - Labor Relations & Human Resources
Canadian Pacific Railway
501 Marquette Avenue, South - Suite 1715
Minneapolis, MN 55402

Reference: Unilaterally imposed change for scheduling and awarding 2011 vacations

Dear Ms. Frankenberg,

This Office is in receipt of a letter dated August 9, 2010, authored by the CMC Manager Mike Manz, addressed to the UTU Local Chairmen pertaining to vacation scheduling for the year 2011. We have reviewed the language of this letter and find the contents therein are not in keeping with the 1949 National Vacation Agreement, as amended, the longstanding practices and interpretations regarding vacation scheduling on this property. Essentially, the August 9, 2010 letter unilaterally mandates changes in working conditions and abrogates the longstanding application of rules and practices without the benefit of negotiations. This is a clear violation of the Railway Labor Act, as mended. CMC's unilateral implementation of assigning the 2011 vacations via some sort of a "bulletin bid" scheduling method with no input or involvement from the UTU Local Chairpersons is in violation of the 1949 Vacation Agreement as interpreted by Award 1 of Public Law Board No. 4548, Awards 1 and 2 of Special Board of Adjustment, BLE vs. UP, Referee John LaRocco - 1993.

We also find controlling Article 39 - Vacations, of the collective bargaining agreement,
we quote there from:

"Part 6
Vacations shall be taken between January 1st and December 31st however, it is recognized that the exigencies of the service create practical difficulties in providing vacations in all instances. Due regard, consistent with requirements of the service, shall be given to the
preference of the employee in his/her seniority order in the class of service in which engaged when granting vacations. Representatives of the Company and of the employees will cooperate in arranging vacation periods, administering vacations and releasing employees
when requirements of the service will permit. It is understood and agreed that vacationing employees will be paid their vacation allowances by the company as soon as possible after the vacation period but the parties recognize that there may be some delay in such payments. It is understood that in any event such employee will be paid his/her vacation allowance no later than the second succeeding payroll period following the date claim for vacation allowance is filed. The agreement to "flat line" vacations is in Section A of Appendix 18." (Bolding added) There is decades of past practice wherein the UTU Local Chairpersons and local carrier field managers reviewed the vacation requests from the employees, assigned the vacations and then submitted the vacation rosters to CMC, or prior to CMC, the crew calling offices. This method of awarding and assigning vacations is in keeping with the 1949 Vacation Agreement, as amended.

It is noteworthy, that this Office has not received one complaint from CP's Labor Relations Department or CMC pertaining to the past performance of the UTU Local Chairmen's vacation scheduling methods or parameters. In fact, CMC and local managers have in the past the UTU Local Chairmen on the reasonableness of the vacation schedules.

Vacation scheduling issues crop up every year and this Organization has contested in writing the Carrier's unilateral attempt to impose changes. The vacation scheduling issues include allocations of vacation allotments, qualification for vacation time, locations where the individuals vacations were earned, and which rosters they should awarded vacations, along with the single day vacation restrictions. Last year as in previous years, each UTU Local Chairperson review the vacation requests from the employees working under his jurisdiction, took into account the number of vacation weeks to be scheduled and develop the vacation rosters based on historic and projected needs of service. This was done in consultation with the CP's local management team at the respective locations. This method has worked well for both the Organization and Carrier in the past. There is no evidence that these same parameters and vacation scheduling practice/method will not work for the year 2011.

In the past, the UTU Local Chairpersons have utilized their knowledge of the territory, historic and projected manpower needs and the desired vacation time normally requested by the employees working under their jurisdiction when compiling the vacation rosters. This forethought on the part of the UTU Local Chairpersons has worked to the advantage of both parties. Granted, there were some trains held for manpower in these areas, however, it was not the result of vacation scheduling. It was the result of inadequate manpower resulting from CP's failed transfer and hiring practices for those areas. No vacation scheduling method or juggling of vacation time is going to make-up for an inadequate supply of manpower at a location.

Our time spent on vacation scheduling disputes could be better-spent compiling accurate vacation scheduling information and foretelling good faith traffic projections. The information should be and forwarded to UTU Local Chairpersons in a timely manner. This will permit the Labor and management "professionals" in the field who have firsthand knowledge of the day-to-day operations to schedule vacations in a manner to account for "the exigencies and requirements of the service" as contemplated by the Vacation Agreement.

This Office and the Local Chairmen are fully aware of the impact a lopsided vacation schedule could have on manpower needs and serving our customers. With that in mind, we will continue to work with your departments to ensure that the method for scheduling of vacations remains intact and it will result in reasonable vacation schedules to accommodate the employees' requests that we represent. And, at the same time insure that vacation time will not overtly affect manpower to protect business levels at the respective terminals. However, we will not accept the unilateral imposed "vacation bid" process as the method for scheduling vacations.

In closing, as the result of the seriousness of this issue and the irreparable harm it may cause the employees that we represent, we must request that the "status quo" remain, an immediate written response and a meeting in our Portage office to timely resolve this dispute. We await your response so that a mutually agreed upon time can be set for this
meeting.

James H. Nelson

General Chairman - UTU
cc: Malcolm Futhey, International President - UTU
John Babler, International Vice President - UTU
UTU Local Chairpersons, GO-261
Clinton Miller, III, General Council- UTU
3

Posted in News on 08.18.2010 1:54pm

Complaint For Declaratory Relief

From Rob Newhouse

This is the Complaint made on UTU's behalf against CP Rail with regards to the carrier's threat to staff trains with managers instead of UTU conductors.




------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA


UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION )
24950 Country Club Blvd., Ste. 340 )
North Olmsted, Ohio 44070 )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No.
)
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLATORY
501 Marquette Avenue ) RELIEF UNDER THE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, ) RAILWAY LABOR ACT
)
Defendant. )

Plaintiff United Transportation Union (“UTU”) submits the following as and for its complaint for declaratory relief against Defendant Canadian Pacific Railway (“CP”).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (Act regulating commerce, viz., the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.), 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory judgments), and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act).

2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b), (c) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred herein, and because CP is subject to personal jurisdiction herein.

PARTIES
3. Plaintiff UTU is the duly designated representative under the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., on the property of CP for train service employees (conductors/foremen and brakemen/helpers). UTU is an unincorporated labor organization with its headquarters located at 24950 Country Club Blvd., Ste. 340, North Olmsted, Ohio and is a “representative” as defined in Section 1 Sixth of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 151 Sixth.

4. Defendant CP is a carrier by rail transporting goods in interstate commerce, and is a “carrier” as defined in Section 1 First of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 151 First. CP is a corporation with its United States headquarters at 501 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which operates within this judicial district.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF
5. Section 2 First of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152 First, provides that:
It shall be the duty of all carriers, their officers, agents, and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof.

6. Section 2 Seventh of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152 Seventh, provides that:

No carrier, its officers or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules or working conditions of its employees as a class as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in Section 156 of this title.

7. Section 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156, provides that:

Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at least thirty days written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules of working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon, as required by section 155 of this title, by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board.

8. Article 7 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement dated January 28, 2003, entitled “CREW CONSIST (ROAD AND YARD SERVICE),” provides, in pertinent part:
(a)The basic crew consist for all crews shall be (1) conductor/foreman and (1) brakeman/helper. A crew consisting of only a conductor or a foreman shall be called a conductor-only crew.
***
(c) Conductor-only operations may be instituted at the Company’s option in all classes of service and at all locations.
***

(h) No Company supervisor, official, nor craft employee, other than those working under the UTU agreement, will be used to supplant or perform work exclusively reserved to UTU-represented employees.

9. On or about June 6, 2010 CP Assistant Director-Labor Relations Bjarne Henderson left a voicemail on the cell phone of UTU General Chairperson James H. Nelson, stating, in pertinent part:

[A]pparently we are having another service meltdown issue, not exactly sure how bad it is. But one of the options they wanted me to let you know about is the potential, although we are not sure it is going to happen, is the need to use people other than UTU-represented people in conductor service over the weekend.
I think the plan would be to have managers on trains if it came to that, but I have gotten Mike Mac Namara’s personal assurance that option would not be utilized unless no UTU personnel are available to cover the work. So we will try our best to find every available UTU person to cover the work and if we can’t, and we still have to move a train we would have to do so.

I would like to talk to you more in person, maybe you have some ideas that could help us avoid the situation, so if you have chance, please call me over the weekend. Thanks, Jim, I look forward to hearing from you. If you get this message Monday please call me then as soon as you can.

10. On or about June 9, 2010, UTU General Chairperson Nelson and UTU Vice President John Babler were on a telephone conference call with CP Assistant Director-Labor Relations Henderson regarding the changes to the Hours of Service Act (“HSA”), 45 U.S.C. § 61, et seq., contained in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“RSIA”), Pub. L. No. 110-432, Div. A, 122 Stat, 4848, et seq., and its impact on the availability of train crews. Mr. Henderson stated it was CP’s position that it would not permit the RSIA requirements to stand in the way of interstate commerce and if crews were not rested, the new law had no prohibition against the carrier using managers to staff the trains. Messrs. Nelson and Babler made it very clear to Mr. Henderson that the RSIA had no impact on the UTU crew consist agreements, and that UTU would defend its contractual right to have the trains staffed by trainmen working under the UTU collective bargaining agreements.

11. On June 15, 2010, UTU General Chairperson Nelson wrote a letter to CP Assistant Vice President, Labor Relations and Human Resources-United States Cathryn Frankenberg, stating, in pertinent part:

Recently it was brought to this Office’s attention that some carriers may be viewing the 2008 Rail Safety Bill as a mechanism to abrogate various collective bargaining agreements with respect to manpower and the staffing of train service positions.

It is noteworthy, that CP has at its disposal to protect train service positions over 200 trainmen in furlough status who are subject to recall within a fifteen (15) days time frame pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. In addition, CP has Standby Agreements at various locations wherein trainmen can be placed on a standby board for service and are subject to a very short recall period. And, most important in regard to staffing of train service positions is Article 7 – Crew Consist (Road and Yard Service), we quote there from:

“(h) No Company supervisor, official nor craft employees, other than those working under the UTU agreement, will be used to supplant or perform work exclusively reserved to UTU-represented employees.”

It is important to note that Article 7 – Crew Consist does not provide for any exceptions to paragraph (h).

Ms. Frankenberg has not responded to Mr. Nelson’s June 15, 2010 letter to date.

12. On June 17, 2010, Mr. Nelson wrote another letter to Ms. Frankenberg, stating, in pertinent part:

On a final and extremely serious point, Mr. Henderson has stated that the CP may use managers in lieu of trainmen to operate trains when a shortage of rested crews exists. We at UTU view this as a very serious, flagrant and carrier induced violation of the crew consist agreement. We will defend against such encroachment on our crew consist agreement and work with the full authority vested in us under the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Inasmuch as the aforementioned are solely of the carrier’s actions or inaction as the case may be, we must insist an immediate response in writing and meeting in our Portage office to address these matters. Please contact this office for an agreeable time and date.

Ms. Frankenberg has not responded to Mr. Nelson’s June 17, 2010 letter to date.

13. On July 26, 2010, Mr. Nelson wrote yet another letter to Ms. Frankenberg, stating, in pertinent part:

[I]t has been brought to my attention by several high-level managers that because of the carrier’s self-induced manpower shortage it is your department’s contention that CP may use managers on trains as conductors in lieu of UTU represented train service employees. This is our second non-acquiescence letter to your department regarding this matter and a reminder that Article 7 forbids the use of managers to protect UTU represented positions.

“(h) No company supervisor, official, nor craft employee, other than those working under the UTU agreement, will be used to suppliant or perform work exclusively reserved to UTU represented employees.”

We must reiterate again on this extremely serious and sensitive issue, CP may not use managers in lieu of trainmen to operate trains; regardless if a shortage of rested trainmen may exists. UTU views the use of managers on trains as a very serious, flagrant and Carrier induced violation of the crew consist agreement. Keep in mind, that CP’s failure to hire sufficient train service employees, which in turn resulted in a manpower shortage, does not abrogate the collective bargaining agreements between UTU and CP. We will defend against such encroachment on our crew consist agreement and rightful work with the full authority vested us under the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

[I]n light of the seriousness of this situation, please promptly contact this Office for an agreeable date, time, and location to discuss this matter. We await your written response.

Ms. Frankenberg has not responded to Mr. Nelson’s July 26, 2010 letter to date.

14. A “major dispute” under the RLA is a dispute concerning changes in existing agreements [Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 723 (1945)], and a carrier is prohibited by the status quo provisions of the RLA quoted hereinabove at ¶¶ 5-7 from changing agreement provisions and altering the status quo without first complying with the mandatory negotiation and mediation provisions of the RLA. If a carrier alters the status quo without complying with those provisions, the representative is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief without having to make the traditional showing of irreparable harm. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Executives Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299, 302-03 (1989).

15. CP’s threats to use management crews and its failure to respond to UTU’s letters about those threats are the reasons UTU seeks a declaration from the court that this dispute is a major dispute under the RLA, and that any alteration of the status quo by CP’s use of management crews would entitle UTU to preliminary status quo injunctive relief.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff UTU respectfully requests that:

1. This court issue a declaratory judgment that the parties’ dispute concerning CP’s threats to use management crews is a major dispute under the RLA, which would entitle UTU to preliminary injunctive relief.


2. This court grant any other and further relief that may be appropriate in the premises.


Respectfully submitted,


_______________________________
Richard A. Williams, Jr.
Williams & Iversen, P.A.
1611 West County Road B, Ste. 208
St. Paul, Minnesota 55113
(651) 848-0280
Fax (651) 848-0282
rwilliams@williamsiversen.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff
United Transportation Union
OF COUNSEL:

Clinton J. Miller, III
General Counsel
United Transportation Union
24950 Country Club Blvd., Ste. 340
North Olmsted, Ohio 44070
(216) 228-9400
Fax (216) 228-0937

Posted in News on 08.18.2010 11:57am

Email from Hill to Nelson

From Rob Newhouse

Chairman Nelson

Received the attached notice from CMC that T & E vacations for 2011 will be scheduled by CMC using a bid form.

There is no reference to Part 6 of Article 39 whereas representatives of the company and the organization will cooperate in arranging , administering and releasing employees.

Looks like there taking us out of the process.

Whats our recourse.

R J Hill
LC 911

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the letter from the Company...



August 9,2010
To: All BLE/UTE Local Chairmen
Re: 2011 Vacations


Please be advised that the T&E vacations for 2011 will be scheduled by CMC. The
granting of vacations will be given to the preference of the employee in seniority
order.

CMC will put out a MOR notice with a BID FORM and instructions on how to request
the 2011 vacations by August 18, 2010 with a closing date of September 15, 2010. If
the BID FORM is not returned by the closing date, vacations will be scheduled in
open slots based on seniority order.

Please contact Theresa Yeager-Novotny or Julie Washick at 612-904-****. If you
have any questions concerning.

Respectfully,

Mike Manz

Posted in News on 08.16.2010 9:45pm

MOY 50 5 day work week

From Rob Newhouse

August 9, 2010

J. J. Stoffer
Manager Operations Yard
1000 Shop Road, Building 860
St. Paul, MN. 55106

RE: MOY-TCT Notice # 50 Yard Service Employees Getting Five (5) Starts

Dear Mr. Stoffer

Reference is made to your MOY notice # 50 with regards to instructions issued to employees who are unable to work five (5) straight time yard starts in there work week.

Informing them if they so desire the option to work one or both of their rest days to achieve five straight time starts in there work week if requested will be placed in service for call ahead of the applicable shift GEL.

Consider this letter as a formal complaint that this Committee takes exception to the referenced notice. It is our position that the Carrier is in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) by holding yard service employees out of the daily board mark during the course of their five day work week.

It is our position that the reference yard service employees must be added to the daily board mark. The following agreements support our position.

Article 110 – Five Day Work Week (g) 2. States in part, yard service employee or employees who because of their seniority standing or for other reasons, are unable to place themselves on a regular job or assignment on the days or days their job or assignment is annulled, will revert to the extra board and be placed thereon, in addition to the men then on the extra board, in accordance with rules in effect on the property.

Article 128 Guaranteed Extra Board Yard states that the guaranteed extra board is considered a regular assignment and the exercise of seniority to and from shall be made under existing scheduled agreement rules.

Be advise, that if any yard service employee is placed in service ahead of the GEL as reference in your notice. It will be this Committee position that the Carrier has again violated the CBA. Penalty claims will be filed to protect our position.

Any changes to the calling practices and procedures can only be made under the guidelines of the Railway Labor Act not by Local management putting out notices.

Respectfully,



R. J. Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU 911

CC: J. H. Nelson, Chairman
J P Serrin, VLC 911
D. W. Towner, S 911

Posted in News on 08.11.2010 3:40pm

2nd response to 911 LC complaint

From Rob Newhouse

July 26,2010

Dear Sirs:

I am in receipt of your letter dated July 1, 2010 concerning your further response to the Carrier's advertisement for boomers and permanent transfers from the St. Paul MN Seniority District to the Portage WI Seniority District. I have identified seven issues that you raise in this letter and will respond to each in turn.

(1) The Monthly Board Review: The Minneapolis Crew Management Center provides the UTU a monthly report with an analysis of the Staffing levels at each crew board point. As stated in my letter of June 30, 2010, this report is in full compliance with the GEL Agreement and other written and verbal commitments to UTU General Chairman Nelson. The monthly meetings you attended until October 21, 2009 concerning this report were suspended not only due to the economic downturn, but also because the same information provided in these meetings could be conveyed via e-mail format. I am still not aware of any exceptions having been taken to these emailed reports. This being said, the Carrier has already honored your request to reinstate these meetings on a monthly basis.

(2) Portage Vacation Cancellation: Your question as to why the Portage vacations were cancelled in June of this year has already been answered through extensive correspondence with the Organization, including weekly conference calls with UTU General Chairman Nelson and Portage Local Chairman Jim Croft. Further, the Vacation Moratorium Notice issued June 16, 2010 references the "unexpected exigencies and requirements of service" that necessitated the cancellation and also outlines the Carrier's initiatives to increase staffing levels to allow for the Moratorium to be lifted. These initiatives, while still ongoing, have already provided sufficient staffing to allow the restoration of solid week vacations beginning July 24,2010.

(3) St. Paul Vacation Cancellation: The St. Paul Seniority District is currently adequately staffed to meet the anticipated needs of service. The Carrier has no plans to cancel St. Paul vacations at this time.

(4) St. Paul Staffing Levels: You reference a time line of events concerning discussions over the Staffing levels in the St. Paul Seniority District. These discussions culminated in a November 3, 2009 meeting with UTU VP Kerley, GC Nelson, LC Hill and CP representatives Henderson, Bagaus, McNamara, Huettl, and Isaacson to address concerns over the "20% GEL dispute." The methodology used in determination of the 20% GEL requirement as reported in the monthly Crew Board Review is in full compliance with the Agreement and with past handling over a period of over fourteen years. Thus, the Carrier believes the issues raised were resolved through a mutual commitment towards better communication on specific staffing circumstances.

(5) St. Paul New Hire Conductor Plan: The cancellation of new hire training in 2009 was necessitated by the severe economic downturn. By the third quarter of 2009, with both current and projected business volumes rebounding, over fifty people had been re-called from furlough in the St. Paul Terminal alone. A robust 2010 St. Paul training plan was developed. Seven new hires were marked up in May and an additional five in July of 2010. An additional twenty-one students are currently in training and are expected to be available for service by year's end. This should more than cover anticipated attrition for the balance of 2010.

(6) Denied Layoffs: An Employee requesting a safety or personal leave day is required to make application within 48 hours of the date of request. In the event a layoff request made during this time frame is denied, a record is maintained by the Minneapolis Crew Management Center. Your statement that the Carrier does not record this information is incorrect. As stated in my letter of June 30, 2010, no systemic pattern of denying safety days or personal leave days for the current year exists in the St. Paul Terminal. You have failed to provide any proof whatsoever to the contrary.

(7) Daily Mark: The Carrier does not "hold yard service employees out of the board mark" as you advise, rather their seniority does not allow them to hold a position for which they are rested under the Hours of Service Law. Clearly, an Employee cannot be placed to a position for which s/he is not legally rested to protect. The changes to the Hours of Service Law in July 2009 in combination with the existing Shift GEL airangement is the driving dynamic that provoked this issue. As you are aware, the Carrier has presented several different and innovative solutions to move to a mutually beneficial resolution of the issue, all of which have thus far been rejected by the Organization. The Carrier will continue to work with the Organization to resolve this matter going forward.

In conclusion, I must again suggest that you more carefully check your facts before making the sort of unsubstantiated allegations that appear in your letter.

Sincerely,

John Stoffer

cc: James Nelson
Dennis Towner
Steve Moerke
Ron Pierce
Terry Bagaus
Mike McNamara
Mike Manz
Bjarne Henderson
John Cartlidge
Fred Green
Vern Graham

Posted in News on 07.31.2010 10:12am

2nd letter from Bob Hill/Jerry Ott to Stoffer/Bagaus

From Rob Newhouse

July 1, 2010

J. J. Stoffer
Manager Operations Yard
1000 Shop Road, Building 860
St. Paul, MN. 55106


Dear Mr. Stoffer,

In receipt of your letter of June 30, 2010 in response to Local Chairperson J. J. Ott and myself making a formal written objection to the Carrier’s notice advertising for boomers and permanent transfers, from the St. Paul Seniority District (Twin Cities Terminal, River, Westside Eastside Districts) to the Portage WI seniority District.

This objection was made account of the June 14, 2010 Vacation Moratorium Notice to all Portage train service employees by Steve Moerke – Manager Operations and I quote from the notice “ The unexpected exigencies and requirements of the service has forced CP to exercise it option under Article 39 of the collective agreement to cancel all vacations scheduled for conductors, yard foreman, and switchman at Portage effective Saturday June 19, 2010 through and including the week of Friday, July 23, 2010.

Our respective Committees felt that if a formal objection isn’t made concerning further reducing the staffing levels at St Paul for the reasons referenced. What’s going to stop the Carrier from canceling vacations here? I hope this helps you understand our concerns.

In regards to you letter. I would now like to respond to several issues that you referenced, the first being the monthly report provided by the Minneapolis Crew Management Center. Showing the active conductors compared to the required number of conductors based on the number of jobs operated stating that the Company is in full compliance with the GEL agreement and other written and verbal commitment to the UTU.

You state sir, the Company has delegated you the responsibility to respond. Then I ask you if the Company is in full compliance with the GEL agreement then why are vacations being cancelled?

Second, you are correct, I have been designated by UTU General Chairman Nelson to represent the Committee at monthly meetings with Staffing and Training department representatives, in order to review and update staffing requirements. I attended my first meeting on January 16, 2008 in the office of M. F. McNamara, Director, Crew Management Center (CMC).

I attended this meeting monthly until October 21, 2009 when Mr. McNamara suggested that they be suspended due to the economic down turn and pending furloughs around the system. I will be contacting General Chairman Nelson and CMC with my concerns that the monthly staffing requirement meeting are reinstated immediately.

Third, you reference the October 26, 2005 Letter of Understanding being advised that no issues have been raised with regard to the staffing levels at St. Paul.

My records indicate that on November 10, 2007 UTU Local 911 made a formal written request to General Chairman Nelson for an immediate meeting pursuant to the provisions of the October 26, 2005 letter of understanding concerning the inadequate staffing levels for train crews in the Twin Cities. Below is a time line of this complaint, pursuant to the provisions of the October 26, 2005 Letter of Understanding.

November 21, 2007 General Chairman Nelson sent a request to Labor Relations for a meeting over staffing levels for train crews in the Twin Cities.

September 10, 2008 General Chairman Nelson notified C S Frankenberg AVP Labor Relations CP Railway that a dispute exists concerning the data arrived at the 20% formula on the Guaranteed Extra List (GEL).

December 22, 2008 General Chairman Nelson to AVP Frankenberg made a formal request to invoke paragraph nine (9) of the October 26, 2005 letter concerning staffing levels.

May 21, 2009 General Chairman Nelson to AVP Frankenberg unable to resolve issue making a formal request to invoke paragraph ten(10) of the October 26, 2005 letter concerning staffing levels.

November 3, 2009, 1000 hours meeting convened with UTU VP Kerley, GC Nelson, LC Hill and CP representatives Henderson, Bagaus, McNamara, Huettl, and Isaacson to address the concerns over 20% GEL dispute. This meeting was recessed, dispute still pending.

Hiring, the Carrier suspended the new hire process in 2009 letting go the remaining student conductors that were in training. Not listening to the UTU recommendations and to continue the training. The May 24 mark up of seven (7) new hires makes it well over a year before any new hires where marked for service in the Twin Cities.

Records not showing denied layoffs, safety days, personal leave days in St Paul. The reason company records do not show this information is because it is not recorded. I bet if we listened to taped crew board conversations between train service personal requesting reasonable lay off, safety days, personal leave and crew dispatchers. A pattern of denying layoffs, safety days and personal leave days would be substantiated.

Lastly, your statement that since the ‘new’ hour of service regulation, there have been an increasing number of yard service employees move ahead a shift or work on their day off is attributed to the impracticality of the shift GEL.

It is not the shift GEL that has created this problem, CMC has created this problem under the direction of there superiors, by holding yard service employees out of the board mark which is a clear violation of the collective bargaining agreement.

I have carefully included all the facts substantiating our position. If you would like this information it can be made available for your review.


Respectfully,



R. J. Hill and on behalf of J. J. Ott
Local Chairperson / Yard Local Chairperson / Road
UTU 911 UTU 911

CC: Steve Moerke, MOR
Ron Pierce, MOR
J. H. Nelson, Chairman
J P Serrin, VLC 911
D. W. Towner, S 911

Posted in News on 07.31.2010 9:05am

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

UTU 911 Christmas Party

From Rob Newhouse

Satuday January 30th is the date.

Happy hour starts at 5 p.m. Dinner served promptly at 7 p.m.

There will be door prizes as usual.

Kraus Harting VFW again this year. I believe the menu is chicken, ribs and meatballs.


View Larger Map

Merry Christmas and I hope you all have a great new year!

Posted in News on 01.09.2010 11:41am

Vacation change

From Rob Newhouse

The carrier may contact you about changing your vacation times, if they do please call Shon Dasheur at 612 919 1001. He will explain your options at that time.

Posted in News on 01.06.2010 9:02pm

Union Meeting On Wednesday January 6th

From Rob Newhouse

Don't forget about the meeting at Obb's this Wednesday.

There will be a vote on at least one important issue and many more discussed. This is a big meeting so if you can, come on down and make sure that your voice is heard.

Topics to be discussed...

The carrier's attempt to limit our vacation dates.

6 and 2 on the west side.

Recapturing of miles on the river. ( This one will be voted on )

Posted in News on 01.05.2010 10:48pm

No Flat Line

From Rob Newhouse

General Committee of Adjustment GO-261
800 LINE R.R.
Executive Committee
T. H. Baird, Vice Chair
G.R Rutledge, Vice Chair
RG. Haugen, Vice Chair

J. H. Nelson Chairman -----*
139 '111 Cook Street
Portage, WI 53901
Office 608-745-1700

E-Mail: g0261@verizon.net
December 2, 2009
Ms. Cathryn S. Frankenberg
AVP-Labor Relations & Human Resources - US
Canadian Pacific Railway
501 Marquette Avenue, South - Suite 1715
Minneapolis, MN 55402


Dear Ms. Frankenberg,
This Office is in receipt of an undated letter authored by the CMC department addressed to the UTU Local Chairman pertaining to vacation scheduling for the year 2010. I have reviewed the language of this letter and find the contents therein are not in keeping with the 1949 National Vacation Agreement, as amended, the longstanding practices and interpretations regarding vacation scheduling on this property. Essentially, CMC's letter unilaterally mandates changes in working conditions and abrogates the longstanding application of agreements without the benefit of negotiations. This is a clear violation of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

I have also received complaints from Thief River Falls, Harvey and Enderlin for Vacation
scheduling. Issues crop up every year and this Office has contested in writing the Carrier's
unilateral attempt to impose changes. The vacation scheduling issues include allocations of
vacation allotments along with the single day vacation restrictions. Last year as in previous
years, each UTU local chairman took into account the number of vacation weeks to be
scheduled and then scheduled the vacations based on historic and projected needs of service.

This was often done in consultation with the local management team at the respective locations. This method has worked well for both the employees and Carrier in the past. There is no evidence that these same parameters and practices will not work for the year 2010. The management's aforementioned predictions lend support to surplus manpower and does not support different vacation scheduling standards or changes in vacation allotments such as "flat lining" or "straight lining" for 2010 as unilaterally mandated by CMC.
When the UTU Local Chairmen questioned the managers regarding the vacation scheduling their verbal response was the weekly vacation allocation must conform to a "flat line" vacation schedule. The managers went on to further explain that "flat-line" or "straight-line" vacation schedules means that the same number of trainmen must be on vacation each week thoughtout the entire year. The Local Chairmen advised the managers that the "flat-line" or "straightline" vacation schedules are unacceptable and not in keeping with the 1949 National Vacation Agreement, as amended, or the longstanding on-property interpretation and practice for vacation scheduling. The Local Chairmen further indicated to the managers that as in the past, vacations would be scheduled pursuant to the 1949 National Vacation Agreement, taking into account the "the local exigencies and requirements of the service" This rule compliant notion was rebuffed by the managers.

It is noteworthy, that this Office has not received one complaint from Labor Relations pertaining to the past performance of the UTU Local Chairmen's vacation scheduling parameters. In fact, local managers have in the past complemented the Local Chairmen on the reasonableness of the vacation schedules.

The CMC managers have been compiling vacation scheduling records and disturbing same to the Local Chairmen and the field managers. CMC is demanding that the Local Chairmen
schedule vacations in a "flat-line" or "straight-line" manner. The field managers have been
reluctant to get involved in the vacation scheduling process thereby eliminating any input from them or the Local Chairmen to schedule vacations that take into account "the exigencies and requirements of the servicE(. Consequently, some Local or Division operating officers have not been participating in the vacation scheduling.
The "flat-line" or "straight-line" vacation scheduling method is in violation of the 1949 Vacation Agreement as interpreted by Award 1 of Public Law Board No. 4548, Awards 1 and 2 of Special Board of Adjustment, BLE vs. UP, Referee John LaRocco - 1993.

We also find controlling Article 39 - Vacations, of the collective bargaining agreement, we quote there'from:

Vacations shall be taken between January 1sl and December 31 S\ however, it is
recognized that the exigencies of the service create practical difficulties in providing vacations in all instances. Due regard, consistent with requirements of the service, shall be given to the preference of the employee in his/her seniority order in the class of service in which engaged when granting vacations. Representatives of the Company and of the employees will cooperate in arranging vacation periods, administering vacations and
releasing employees when requirements of the service will permit. It is understood and agreed that vacationing employees will be paid their vacation allowances by the Company as soon as possible after the vacation period but the parties recognize that there may be some delay in such payments. It is understood that in any event such employee will be paid his/her vacation allowance no later than the second succeeding payroll period following the date claim for vacation allowance is filed. The agreement to "flat line" vacations is in Section A of Appendix 18." (Bolding added) The language to flat line in Section A of Appendix 18 merely gives a base line number or a formula in which to calculate the 20% positions on the guaranteed extra list (GEL). It did not grant the Carrier the unilateral right to "flat-line" or "straight-line" the vacation rosters. Decades
of past practice fully supports this assertion and "telegraphs" the parties' true intent regarding the aforementioned contract language.

Consequently, the Local Chairmen have been disregarding, and rightfully so, the CMC
managers' "flat-line" or "straight-line" mandate and have utilized their knowledge of the territory, historic and projected manpower needs and the desired vacation time normally requested by the employees working under their jurisdiction, when assigning the vacation schedules. This forseight on the part of the local chairman has worked to the advantage of both parties. It is noteworthy, that in several locations where trains were held for manpower, delays would have occurred if no trainmen were on vacation. This is evidence that the Carrier failed to properly maintain manpower and extra board staffing levels to protect the needs of the service. CMC attempts to unilaterally promulgate the contractually unsupported "flat-line" or "straight line" vacation schedule concept.
Time spent on vacation scheduling disputes could be better spent compiling accurate vacation scheduling information and forwarding same to Local Chairmen in a timely manner. This will permit the "professionals" in the field who have the first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day operations to schedule vacations in a manner that take into account "the exigencies and requirements of the service", as contemplated by the National Vacation Agreement. In closing, this Office and the Local Chairmen are fully aware of the impact a lopsided vacation schedule could have on manpower needs and serving our customers. With that in mind, we will continue to work with your departments to enSure reasonable vacation schedules to accommodate the employees' requests that we represent, while insuring adequate manpower to protect business levels at the respective terminals. However, we will not accept the "flat-line" or "straight-line" method of scheduling vacations, which your managers have attempted to force on
us every year for the past decade. In light of the seriousness of this issue and the irreparable harm it will cause the employees we represent, we must request and immediate written response and a meeting in our office to timely resolve this dispute. Sincerely,


James H. Nelson .
General Chairman - UTU
cc: Malcolm Futhey, International President - UTU
Rob13rt Kerley, International Vice President - UTU
Clinton Miller, III, General Council- UTU
Local Chairman Go-261

Posted in News on 01.03.2010 2:53am

Limbo Board

From Rob Newhouse

General Committee of Adjustment GO-261
sao LINE R.R.
J. H. Nelson Chairman
139 W Cook Street
Portage, WI 53901
Office 608-745-1700

E-Mail: g0261@verizon.net
Executive Committee
T. H. Baird, Vice Chair
G.R. Rutledge, Vice Chair
R. G. Haugen, Vice Chair

December 2, 2009
Ms. Cathryn S. Frankenberg
AVP-Labor Relations & Human Resources-US
Canadian Pacific Railway
501 Marquette Ave So - Suite 1715
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dear Cathy,
This office has just received a fax of examples of daily board marks at both Saint Paul and Bensenville terminals. Its reads in part:

Spare Board: 87 limbo board
We take exception to your interpretation of the Shift GEL Agreement and Article 11 O. We 'have no language in our collective bargaining agreement that allows for limbo board. Employees must be placed on the extra board as defined in Article 110 section (g) (2). It does not say employees must request to be placed on the extra board or they will be added to a limbo board. It reads employees will revert to the extra board and be placed thereon, in addition to the men then on the extra board, in accordance with rules in effect on the property.

Article 110 (g) (2) Any yard service employee or employees who because oftheir seniority standing, or for other reasons, are unable to place themselves on a regular job or assignment on the day or days their job or assignment is annulled, will revert to the extra board and be placed thereon, in addition to the men then on the extra board, in accordance with rules in effect on the property.

In light ofthe seriousness ofthis issue and the irreparable hann it will cause the employees we represent, we must request and immediate written response and a meeting in our office to timely resolve this dispute.
Very Truly Yours,


James Nelson
General Chairman UTU
cc: Malcolm Futhey, International President - UTU
Robert Kerley, International Vice President - UTU
Clinton Miller, ill, General Council- UTU
Local Chairman Go-261

Posted in News on 01.03.2010 2:31am

Some of the claims that have been submitted

From Rob Newhouse

December 3, 2009

J. H. Nelson, Chairman

The enclosed claims are for the following members of local 911 who have fallen through the board mark since July 22, 2009. This is when I was made aware of the change on how the carrier was now handling the daily mark with regards to the junior employees in yard service.

These claims are for 8 hours Yard Foreman’s rate for violation of Article 110(g)2. and Article 128 of the 2003 General Labor Agreement

S. A Lemieux #963104. Claim dates : July 22,27 2009. September 5, 12, 19, 25, 2009
Letter of complaint dated July 23, 2009.

J. A. Larson #942835. Claim dates: August 15, 17, 22, 2009

J. P. R. Barten #961280. Claim dates: July 24, 2009 July 31, 2009 August 8, 2009, September 19, 26, 2009.

P. J. Carl #963910. Claim dates: September 25, 2009, October 2, 9, 10, 2009

M. D. Thorne #945944. Claim dates: July 25, 2009, August 22, 2009 September 19, 26, 2009.

K. A. Kuck #942134. Claim dates: August 15, 22, 2009.

A. M. Pesta # #946024. August 8, 2009, September 19, 2009.

Total claims submitted – 22

In addition to the enclosed claims. I have attached all the written complaints made by the members and all pertinent documents that I have in the file.

Any questions let me know.

R J Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU 911

Posted in News on 01.03.2010 2:05am

Minnesota Union Leadership Program

From Rob Newhouse

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Please see below regarding University of Minnesota Labor Education Services
Leadership Program for 2010. If you or any member of your UTU Local has an interest to develop labor leader skills by attending this U of M eight session coarse, contact this State Committee office. We will pay the tuition for up do six UTU members state wide to take these leadership classes. (What a deal!). Registration deadline: January 5, 2010. If you register with Uof M/LES, be sure to send this State Committee a copy of your registration at the same time. First come, first serve on tuition assistance.

Fraternally,

P. J. Qualy
UTU-SLD Minnesota
651-222-7500

cc: Mr. Howard Kling, UM/LES
Mr. Bob Bruenigs, UM/DB

Posted in News on 01.03.2010 12:58am

Minnesota Union Leadership Program

From Rob Newhouse

Minnesota Union

Leadership Program

A new training opportunity from

the Labor Education Service, University of Minnesota

Offered in cooperation with the Minnesota AFL-CIO

The Minnesota Union Leadership

Program is an innovative educational series tailored to the needs of union officers and staff.

The program goes beyond regular skills training offered by the Labor Education

Service to provide the opportunity for top leaders — and emerging leaders —

to develop a deeper understanding of the critical issues affecting working people in Minnesota.

Through in-depth sessions, participants study the labor movement — where we have been, where we are and where we are heading — and discuss how to address the challenges facing unions today.


The sessions draw on the diversity

of our labor movement and its unique

history. We use a participatory

approach to strengthening our

organizations through exchanging ideas

and learning from each other.

In the Minnesota Union Leadership

Program, we take the time to see the

big picture, gain more insight into how

our organizations fit into a broader

labor movement and explore the ideas

and solutions that will help our unions

prosper and grow.

The Minnesota Union Leadership

Program is a two-year program.

Participants attend four full-day

sessions each year for a total of eight

classes. Each participant receives a

leadership certificate upon completion.

Beginning February 2010

Classes held at

Continuing Education Center

St. Paul Campus

University of Minnesota



Session 1: February 25, 2010

WORKERS AND UNIONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY

How did the U.S. labor movement develop into its current form? What are the legal structures that have shaped and restricted the activities of workers and their organizations?

How do unions in the United States compare

to labor movements in other countries? What

have been the guiding principles behind the

formation and expansion (or demise) of American trade unions?

These and related questions will be explored to enhance
understanding of the forces, events and legal structures that have determined the current status of the U.S. labor movement. Issues to be addressed include:

• What is a “labor movement”?

• The impact of American attitudes, culture and values on labor unions

• The passage and subsequent interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act by the NLRB and the courts

• Attempts by anti-labor interests to restrict the rights of union members and the strategies that unions have employed to resist

• Challenges to the leadership of labor organizations in contemporary society

Session 2: April 29, 2010

TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNION

What is the state of our unions? What does it mean to say to members, “You are the union?”

Do members participate and get involved? Do you want members to become more involved? Is your union member-driven? What are the values of the labor movement? How can we practice and

communicate those values to increase involvement and participation?

Most unions struggle with these challenges. This session will:

• Challenge the myth of membership apathy

• Introduce the idea that the local union meeting isn’t the best way to build the union

• Improve communication between membership and officers

• Identify members’ interests and how they can help our union

• Help you to develop new leaders

• Bring your union to the workplace

Program Instructors

Training will be coordinated and led by Labor Education

Service staff. We will also draw on experienced and talented

speakers from the labor movement and our allies in the

community.

You will receive readings and course outlines in advance of each session.



Session 3: September 30, 2010

WHAT’S AT STAKE: UNIONS AND THE ECONOMY

What forces have shaped economic development and growing inequalities in this country during the past 30 years? How has globalization impacted

different groups of workers and changed the

conditions for labor organizing?

How do international economic policies ultimately affect us here in Minnesota? How is immigration reshaping the working class, and what factors can explain immigration trends?

At the end of the class, you will be able to:

• Make sense of key economic concepts important to today’s debates

• Recognize the linkages between global, national, and local economic realities

• Understand how various economic policies affect groups of workers differently

• Describe how the globalization agenda is sold to workers

• Identify changing power dynamics as a result of globalization and implications for workers

• Relate economic policies to immigration trends and understand their economic impact in the United States

Session 4: November 18, 2010

ORGANIZING FOR OUR FUTURE

What is our vision for the labor movement? Given the internal and external challenges facing unions and society, what are effective alternatives to how we organize and do our political and coalition work?

How can we make ‘social unionism’ (the idea that unions are part of a broader social movement) a

reality? What are the barriers to getting there and how can we overcome these? How can labor and our allies fight back collectively?



• Learn about successful U.S. models where labor and social movements have built political power and challenged economic and social injustices by working together

• Consider examples of how workers in other countries have built political power by working with social movements

• Assess your union’s current capacity for working
across movements and identify strategies for increasing that capacity

• Develop a plan for building relationships with specific organizations and communities

• Determine best practices for building effective political and community coalitions

• Discuss the ways that broader social unionism builds new/diverse leadership

Second Year of the Program

The second year of the Minnesota Union Leadership Program, like the

first year, will involve four full-day sessions. First-year participants will decide the dates, topics and areas of focus, with assistance from Labor Education Service staff. Together, we’ll craft training that reflects your interests and fits your needs and experience.



How to Apply

Enrollment will be limited to 30 people to ensure a high-quality educational

experience and to facilitate meaningful dialogue among program participants.

Applicants must fill out an application form and provide a letter of support from their union. Applications will be reviewed by a committee of LES staff and advisors. We request that no more than 3 individuals apply from any single local union. Our goal is to select a diverse group of union leaders reflecting the makeup of Minnesota’s labor movement.

Selection criteria will include:

• Demonstrated interest in the program

• Union and community experience

• Union sector (e..g. public, building trades, industrial, service).

People of color, women and people under age 35 are strongly encouraged to apply.

If you are interested in University of Minnesota credit for participation in this program, call the LES office, 612-624-5020.

Deadline to Apply

January 5, 2010

Applications must be faxed or postmarked by this date.

Cost

Tuition for the two-year program is $1,000, billed in annual installments of $500. That includes eight training sessions, meals and materials.


Labor Education Service

Center for Human Resources

& Labor Studies

University of Minnesota

321 19th Ave. S., Room 3-300

Minneapolis, MN 55455

612-624-5020

les@umn.edu

Posted in News on 01.03.2010 12:40am

And Then There Were 3

From Rob Newhouse

It has recently been brought to the Local's attention that there are still 3 conductors in St. Paul that have not signed up for direct deposit. If you are one of the lucky three please contact CP human resources and get the ball rolling.

It was a part of our last agreement with the carrier so it does need to get done.

Thanks

Posted in News on 01.02.2010 11:30pm

Harvey Switchman Passes Away

From Rob Newhouse

Dear Sirs and Brothers:



UTU Local 887 Switchman Kevin Goldade, died unexpectedly on November 12. Mr. Goldade was a UTU conductor who worked for the Canadian Pacific Railway out of Harvey, N.D. He was at his home when he suddenly became ill and later died at a hospital in Harvey, N.D. his wife also, Bobbi Goldade, had died unexpectedly in 2006.

Following the unexpected passing of both parents, the family is now left to care for his three sons and daughter. Karly, 14, Hunter, 12 and Kolby, 11. In addition to these three, a fourth sibling, Jacob, is an 18-year-old freshman at Bismarck State College.

In the meantime, the good Brothers and Sisters at Harvey have established an account to help offset the children’s day-to-day living expenses.



Harvey Local 887 has just donated $500 to the fund.

You can make checks payable to the “Kevin Goldade’s Children’s Fund” and mail donations to:

Kevin Goldade’s Children’s Fund
First International Bank & Trust
910 Lincoln Ave.
PO Box 245
Harvey, ND 58341





Contact person is

UTU Local 887 Chairman Tim Baird

Cell 701 693 5465

Email tbaird@srt.com



GC James Nelson

Posted in News on 12.12.2009 3:37pm

Bracket poll results

From Rob Newhouse

December 9, 2009

D. W. Towner, Secretary UTU Local 911
715D Maple Hills Drive E
Maplewood, MN 55117

Reference is made to the Wednesday, December 2, 2009 monthly meeting where as it was decided with a vote of the membership working in yard service, within the Twin Cities Terminal that the Local Chairperson would do a poll vote to determine if the Carrier’s temporary starting time bracket change is implemented.

In regards to the poll vote of the membership working in yard service on the Carrier’s
proposal of a change to the starting time brackets and having more flexibility with assignment starting times. The proposal would be for a test period only and expand the starting time bracket from and one and one half hours to three hours.

The results of the vote is as follows:

Yes – 7
No - 57
No reply – 9

It is the consensus of the majority of the membership working in yard service that the temporary trial change to the starting time bracket proposed by the carrier not be initiated

Respectfully,



R J Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU 911

CC: J. H. Nelson, Chairman
R. Newhouse

Posted in News on 12.11.2009 4:31pm

New Furlough Agreement

From Rob Newhouse

October 20, 2009

Memo: All Local Chairmen GO 261

The voting ended October 15 on the Furloughed agreement with a 7 - 7 tie, two LCs abstained from voting.
Since it was a tie vote, as General Chairman I will break the tie and move the agreement forward.




August 30, 2009

This will confirm the agreed upon terms and conditions to allow furloughed Conductors from all locations on the system the right to temporarily transfer to another location on the system. Such employee(s) will retain their seniority rights to transfer back to their home terminal should their seniority allow them to hold a position, without the need to comply with the system bid transfer process.

IT IS AGREED:

· On an as needed basis furloughed employees will be called in seniority order and offered a temporary transfer to another location on the system. Employee(s) will have forty-eight (48) hours from time of call to accept the temporary transfer.
· Employee(s) will have seventy-two (72) hours to report to the temporary location from date and time notified.
· Employee(s) must commit to a minimum stay of ninety (90) days beginning with the first date qualified to perform service.
· Employee(s) may be released sooner than the ninety (90) day period.
· Once qualified system seniority will apply.
· Employee(s) will be allowed to transfer back to their home terminal, if seniority allows them to hold a position, however the Company will determine and grant such release to transfer back to the home terminal based on current staffing levels at the temporary location. Should there be a need to train other employees to fill the vacancy; such employee(s) will not be released until staffing levels are sufficient. In no case will the employee(s) be held longer than sixty (60) days once the ninety (90) day requirement has been fulfilled. After performing service for a minimum of a five (5) month period at the temporary location, such train service employee(s) may submit written application to request a permanent transfer to the temporary location. If granted, such temporary location will be recognized as the employee(s) permanent home terminal.
· Compensation for familiarization trips to qualify at the temporary location will be paid a minimum day and overtime when applicable. No other payment or arbitraries apply. Lodging will be provided by the Company for a period of up to one-hundred twenty (120) days, thereafter lodging will be at the expense of the employee(s).

This agreement will expire effective December 31, 2010.

Please indicate your concurrence in the space provided, returning a signed copy for my file and further handling with the Crew Management Center.

Sincerely,



Cathryn S. Frankenberg
AVP Labor Relations/Human Resources – U.S.

I concur:


_______________________________ __________________
James H. Nelson Dated
General Chairman UTU

Posted in News on 11.03.2009 7:55am

New ADO Bids

From Rob Newhouse

A reminder that the ado's change on Nov1.

Bids close Oct 20 and to avoid any lost bids you can fax Bob Hill a copy of your sheet to 651 768 7352 as a back up

Posted in News on 10.08.2009 3:13pm

New Post

From Rob Newhouse

There is a new posting in the West Side and East Side sections.

Posted in News on 10.08.2009 2:55pm

Falling through the board mark reminder

From Rob Newhouse

Remember:

If you are not working a full 5 days per week you can and should file for railroad unemployment for those days that you were not allowed to mark up.

Get the word out!

Posted in News on 10.08.2009 1:20pm

Response to SAM notice 80 from Jim Nelson

From Rob Newhouse

September 16,2009


Terry Bagaus
Senior Service Area Manager of Operations
425 Etna Street, Suite 38
Saint Paul, MN 55106

Dear Terry:
We have to 'get on board' with critical issues such as the SAM Notice 80 that just came out a few days ago. Let me explain; the UTU is your working partner across all safety issues and railroad operations within the entire system. As General Chairman, I am personally upset that we were not part of the promulgation process that led to Notice 80. Notice 80, as you know, calls for immediate dismissal of employees on a first-instance offense. We had no "heads up" (and a call two hours before the Notice went into effect does not constitute pre-notification) and were not involved in the development of this action. Terry, this actually is moderately insulting and seems to demonstrate that we, the UTU, are not an equal member of the CP Team.

So. we are dealing with two issues here: (a) How do we, UTU and CP, plan to work with each other in the future to bring about sensible and well-staffed operating policies that affect all employees in matters that involve critical issues such as "major offenses?" If we don't have a seat at the table, we have no voice. If we have no voice, we're "nobodies." And, (b) because I am now- in a "reactive" position regarding Notice 80, how do I deal with my Members so they begin to understand that we now are entering a new era of "One Strike?" By comparison, (a) is the more important issue.

I want you to know that the UTU and I understand safety offenses can logically be classified as either major or minor or somewhere inbetween. The American Public has been incensed with the causal findings from the tragic California Metrolink crash in Chatsworth in September 2008. The same with the Boston Green Line subway crash m Boston m May.

Clearly, "Sititational Awareness" was the root cause for these headline-grabbing accidents. So, to hit the point again, we understand the concept of a "major offense."

Terry, we need to sit down and talk about these two issues. To begin. I request two copies of CP Management's analysis of the 26 major incidents on the Soo Line over the last three years. I ask this for two reasons: by understanding this "triggering analysis," I can better understand CP's reasoning for instituting the "One Strike" ruling contained in Notice 80. Second, by studying the root causes for these accidents, I want to work with UTU Members to make sure similar unsafe actions are not in any way repeated in the future.

Again, call me when you think we can meet. I have some ideas which will bear on Notice 80. Briefly. I note the changes we've seen since I entered the system in the mid- 1 970s. Back then, we had a three-year Apprentice, period; these days our trainmen have four months of school, and then are placed on duty in critical positions. We also send novice trainmen on routes that are 'new territory.' This probably needs some closer examination and further use of "conductor coaches" and others who can instantly detect if a novice needs additional mentoring. Most importantly, though, is my insistence that the UTU and I fully assume the role of Working Partners with CP as key work rules (like Notice 80) are developed and transmitted to employees.

Until we can meet I suggest a 90 day moratorium be implemented on Notice 80 until we can further research this issue.



James H. Nelson

Posted in News on 09.29.2009 4:05pm

We'll fight with fire in belly for what's right!

From Rob Newhouse

By UTU International President Mike Futhey
From www.utu.org

We accept that managing employees isn't a popularity contest. But it need not be an unpopularity contest.

I share with each of you the concern over ratcheted-up harassment, intimidation and excessive discipline. There is no more economic sense to make out of this than there is common sense.

I was recently told of an incident where an experienced conductor’s work was interrupted no fewer than 18 times over a six-hour period to quiz him on operating rules. Such unjustifiable scrutiny contributes to an unsafe workplace, as the results are used to punish rather than to educate.

When employees in safety-sensitive positions are put in a position where their primary focus at work is defending themselves, their ability to do their jobs efficiently and safely is jeopardized. That is not in the offending carrier’s best interest, certainly not in the customers' best interest, and absolutely not in the best interests of operating efficiently and safely.

We are putting a coalition together with other labor organizations to stop this unwarranted activity. First, we want to hear from you. On the UTU’s home page, at www.utu.org, there is a link to contact information for each of the International's senior officers.

Please, tell us the problems, with examples and details. Help us to teach the carriers we are going to represent our members and are not going to be silent while our members continue to be harassed, intimidated and excessively disciplined to the point of putting their limbs and lives in jeopardy. These members cannot focus on doing their jobs efficiently and safely.

No member should constantly have to look over their shoulder.

As the carriers' attempt at tortured interpretations and applications of our agreements, we will fight them in the courts in Fort Worth, we will fight them on the properties from Jacksonville to Norfolk to Omaha, and we will not go quietly into the night. We will stand and fight.

Our message to the carriers is simple: We want our members properly trained, and then we expect the carries to leave us alone and let us do our work efficiently and safely.

On behalf of our members, we will -- in the words of former President Al Chesser -- "stand and fight with fire in the belly for what is right."

September 23, 2009

Posted in News on 09.28.2009 1:27am

URGENT News about "FALLING THROUGH THE MARK"

From Rob Newhouse

September 12, 2009

TO: Twin Cites Yardmen

RE: Five Day Work Week - REVISED

Dear Members,

Be advised when submitting penalty claims for ‘falling through’ the board mark General Chairman Nelson requires that the following disclaimer must be included in all future claims:

THIS CLAIM IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE UTU’S POSITION THAT THE CARRIERS ACTIONS MAY CONSTITUE A MAJOR DISPUTE UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.

The Carrier position is, the new hours of service law causes the employee not to be rested therefore falling off the board is Okay and the contract allows this practice.

The Organization’s position is, this change may constitute a Major dispute under the Railway Labor Act and may cause a work stoppage.


Any member who has “fallen through” the board mark can now submit a penalty claim going back to when it first occurred on July 20, 2009 using the following example:

REVISED:

CMA – MISCELLANIOUS CLAIMS (12 SCREEN)
CLAIM CODE – PE
DATE: 09/07/20
TIME: USE – 0001 – 2359 HOURS
AMOUNT: EIGHT HOURS, TIME

REMARKS:
THIS CLAIM IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE UTU POSITION THAT THE CARRIERS ACTION MAY CONSITITUE A MAJOR DISPUTE UNDER THE ACT.

CLAIM 8 HRS YARD FOREMAN’S RATE FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 110
(g) 2. AND ARTICLE 128 OF THE 2003 GENERAL LABOR AGREEMENT.
NOT MARKED TO ANY ASSIGNMENT OR GEL POSITION ON MONDAY, JULY 20, 2009. September 12, 2009

Forward the cut slip and a copy of your work history (18 screen ) for the referenced date to R J Hill, Local Chairman, UTU 911 for handling. Due to the potential large volume of claims please forward me the requested documents twice a month, every two weeks.

Reminder- Article 35 – you have 90 days from the date of occurrence on which the claim is based; otherwise the claim will be barred.

Fraternally yours,


R J Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU 911

CC: D W Towner, S 911 J H Nelson, Chairman

Posted in News on 09.13.2009 11:17am

New Posting

From Rob Newhouse

An important new post has been put up in the River section from Jerry Ott.

Posted in News on 09.02.2009 1:11am

From Bob Hill - Info on what to do if you're not getting marked up.

From Rob Newhouse

September 1, 2009

TO: Twin Cites Yardmen

RE: Five Day Work Week

Dear Members,

As you know since the change to the hours of service on July 16, 2009 CMC had initiated a change to how the daily mark was handled with respect to certain employees being held off the daily board mark without pay and instructed if “ they so desire “ to make up the lost day on the next assigned day off (ADO).

On July 29, 2009 I adjusted the ADO’s effective August 1, 2009 hoping that the needed changes would help with the members ‘falling through’ the board mark. I also contacted several individuals to advise them to submit sufficient job requests in their Queue, including day and afternoon assignments, giving them sufficient choices.

For the record this policy change was implemented by CMC without any communication with the organization.

Every week a system wide pick of employees continue to be held off the board without pay. I made a complaint to General Chairman Nelson and asked him to set up a meeting with Labor Relations to address this matter.

During the week of August 24, 2009 the General Chairman meet with Labor Relations and address our concerns about the system wide practice of certain yard service employee being held off the board without pay and instructed to request work on their consecutive ADO.

The General Chairman reminded labor relations that Article 110 – Five Day Work Week
(g) 2. states that Any yard service employee or employees who because of their seniority standing or for other reasons, are unable to place themselves on a regular job or assignment on the days or days their job or assignment is annulled, will revert to the extra board and be placed thereon, in addition to the men then on the extra board, in accordance with rules in effect on the property. Article 128 Guaranteed Extra Board – Yard states that the guaranteed extra board is considered a regular assignment and the exercise of seniority to and from shall be made under existing scheduled agreement rules.

General Chairman Nelson informed the Carrier that the current practice of CMC holding certain employee out of the board mark is a violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Labor Relations Disagreed.
September 1, 2001
Twin Cities Yardmen
Page 2

General Chairman Nelson has informed this committee that with this serious violation of the agreement we must now start submitting penalty claims to protect the agreements referenced.

Any member who has “fallen through” the board mark can now submit a penalty claim going back to when it first occurred on July 20, 2009 using the following example:

CMA – MISCELLANIOUS CLAIMS (12 SCREEN)
CLAIM CODE – PE
DATE: 09/07/20
TIME: USE – 0001 – 2359 HOURS
AMOUNT : EIGHT HOURS, TIME

REMARKS:
CLAIM 8 HRS YARD FOREMAN’S RATE FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 110
(g) 2. AND ARTICLE 128 OF THE 2003 GENERAL LABOR AGREEMENT.
NOT MARKED TO ANY ASSIGNMENT OR GEL POSITION ON MONDAY, JULY 20, 2009.

Forward the cut slip and a copy of your work history (18 screen ) for the referenced date to R J Hill, Local Chairman, UTU 911 for handling. Due to the potential large volume of claims please forward me the requested documents twice a month, every two weeks.

Reminder- Article 35 – you have 90 days from the date of occurrence on which the claim is based; otherwise the claim will be barred.

Fraternally yours,


R J Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU 911

CC: D W Towner, S 911 J H Nelson, Chairman

Posted in News on 09.02.2009 12:53am

New Post

From Rob Newhouse

There is a new post in the General Chairman section of the Union Corner.

Posted in News on 08.21.2009 11:59pm

Daily Mark from the Holidays

From Rob Newhouse

Rob

Please post the following update concerning the carrier's handling of
the Daily mark for the Twin Cities and Glenwood on 12/26/08 and 1/02/09.

Most of the 60 claims filed by this committee for the members affected
have been declined by the carrier. Remember this action does not end
the process, it is just a part of the process.These claims will now be
docketed for conference by General Chairman Nelson with Labor
Relations. The next step in the process.

There is alot going on and this issue will be handled. Attend the Sept
meeting this matter will be one of the issued discussed.

RJH
LC 911

Posted in News on 08.21.2009 11:20pm

Section 6 ideas

From Rob Newhouse

Guy Donnelly is the point man for you to send ideas for the section 6 notice that outlines what we will be asking for in our next contract.

Contact Guy with ideas at his email address.

shmiggals@comcast.net

Posted in News on 08.21.2009 10:46pm

CMC markup - UPDATE

From Rob Newhouse

July 29, 2009

Today I met with M F McNamara concerning selected employees " falling through " the board mark and not being placed on an assignment or GEL and instructed to if so desired and make it up on their assigned day off (ADO).

The reason for this change is because of the new work/rest initiative under the federally mandated hours of service changes under the Railway Safety Act which when into effect on July 16, 2009.

Affected Employees need to do the following:

Put in sufficient choices in there permanent mark under the AutoMark. Some of the affected employee only had a few choices. Junior employees should bid DAY/ Afternoons / then Night jobs to give them the most opportunities to work during their work week. The ADOs effective August 1 were adjusted . Junior employees called back and given primary ADOs FRI SAT SUN

This change will be monitored. Hopfully this is only a temporary problem

I want to hear from any employee who is not marked and instructed to make it up on their ADO. I will inform them of what they need to do to make up for the lost day.

There will be further discussion at the August 5, 2009 monthly meeting.

R J Hill
LC 911

Posted in News on 07.30.2009 11:04pm

Section 6 Notice

From Rob Newhouse

It's time to discuss the section 6 notice to the carrier as to what we will be asking for in our next contract.

At our local 911 meetings on August 5th and September 2nd we will be looking for ideas to present to the railroad. So put your thinking caps on and wear 'em to the meetings.

Posted in News on 07.23.2009 11:48pm

CMC Markup Change

From Rob Newhouse

The carrier has again changed how the daily mark is handled with regards to some employees not being placed on the board due to not being rested for an assignment and are not being placed on the available GEL. CMC has issued notice of the following:

If unable to be placed on an assignment affected employee will be not be placed on the board during their 5 day work week and opportunity will be given ' if so desired ' to make the day up on their assigned day off.

It is this committees position that this is a violation of the agreement - Crew Board Marking Agreement, Article(s) 110 FIVE DAY WORK WEEK, 64-1 Guaranteed Extra Board Road 128 Guaranteed Extra Board Yard

If you have been affected by this contact Bob Hill.

The General Chairman has been made aware of this issue but is currently
in Chicago arbitrating several cases to First Division.

DO NOT SUBMIT ANY TIME SLIPS/ PENALY CLAIMS AT THIS TIME


Thanks

R J Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU 911

Posted in News on 07.23.2009 10:42pm

49 USC CHAPTER 211 — HOURS OF SERVICE

From Rob Newhouse

(as amended by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (―RSIA 2008‖),
Public Law 110–432, signed October 16, 2008)1
Sec.
§ 21101. Definitions
§ 21102. Nonapplication, exemption, and alternate hours of service regime
§ 21103. Limitations on duty hours of train employees
§ 21104. Limitations on duty hours of signal employees
§ 21105. Limitations on duty hours of dispatching service employees
§ 21106. Limitations on employee sleeping quarters
§ 21107. Maximum duty hours and subjects of collective bargaining
§ 21108. Pilot projects
§ 21109. Regulatory authority
§ 21101. Definitions
In this chapter—
(1) ―designated terminal‖ means the home or away-from-home terminal for the assignment
of a particular crew.
(2) ―dispatching service employee‖ means an operator, train dispatcher, or other train
employee who by the use of an electrical or mechanical device dispatches, reports, transmits,
receives, or delivers orders related to or affecting train movements.
(3) ―employee‖ means a dispatching service employee, a signal employee, or a train employee.
(4) ―signal employee‖ means an individual who is engaged in installing, repairing, or
maintaining signal systems.
(5) ―train employee‖ means an individual engaged in or connected with the movement of
a train, including a hostler.
§ 21102. Nonapplication, exemption, and alternate hours of service regime
(a) GENERAL.— This chapter does not apply to a situation involving any of the following:
(1) a casualty.
(2) an unavoidable accident.
(3) an act of God.
(4) a delay resulting from a cause unknown and unforeseeable to a railroad carrier or its
officer or agent in charge of the employee when the employee left a terminal.
(b) EXEMPTION.— The Secretary of Transportation may exempt a railroad carrier having not
more than 15 employees covered by this chapter from the limitations imposed by this chapter.
1 The changes to Section 21101(4), 21103, and 21104 take effect nine (9) months after the date of
enactment. See RSIA 2008 at § 108(g). Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment, the FRA shall
revise 49 CFR Part 228 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (A) to adjust record keeping and reporting
requirements to reflect the new requirements; (B) to authorize electronic record keeping; and (C) to
require training of affected employees and supervisors, including training of employees in the entry of
hours of service data. See RSIA 2008 at § 108(f)(1). The FRA may utilize the Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee to assist in development of the regulation. See RSIA 2008 at § 108(f)(2).
2
The Secretary may allow the exemption after a full hearing, for good cause shown, and on deciding
that the exemption is in the public interest and will not affect safety adversely. The exemption
shall be for a specific period of time and is subject to review at least annually. The
exemption may not authorize a carrier to require or allow its employees to be on duty more than
a total of 16 hours in a 24-hour period.
(c) APPLICATION OF HOURS OF SERVICE REGIME TO COMMUTER AND INTERCITY PASSENGER
RAILROAD TRAIN EMPLOYEES.—
(1) When providing commuter rail passenger transportation or intercity rail passenger
transportation, the limitations on duty hours for train employees of railroad carriers, including
public authorities operating passenger service, shall be solely governed by old section
21103 until the earlier of—
(A) the effective date of regulations prescribed by the Secretary under section
21109(b) of this chapter; or
(B) the date that is 3 years following the date of enactment of the Rail Safety Improvement
Act of 2008.
(2) After the date on which old section 21103 ceases to apply, pursuant to paragraph (1),
to the limitations on duty hours for train employees of railroad carriers with respect to the
provision of commuter rail passenger transportation or intercity rail passenger transportation,
the limitations on duty hours for train employees of such railroad carriers shall be governed
by new section 21103, except as provided in paragraph (3).
(3) After the effective date of the regulations prescribed by the Secretary under section
21109(b) of this title, such carriers shall—
(A) comply with the limitations on duty hours for train employees with respect to the
provision of commuter rail passenger transportation or intercity rail passenger transportation
as prescribed by such regulations; and
(B) be exempt from complying with the provisions of old section 21103 and new section
21103 for such employees.
(4) In this subsection:
(A) The terms ―commuter rail passenger transportation‖ and ―intercity rail passenger
transportation‖ have the meaning given those terms in section 24102 of this title.
(C) The term ―new section 21103‖ means section 21103 of this chapter as amended
by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
(D) The term ―old section 21103‖ means section 21103 of this chapter as it was in effect
on the day before the enactment of that Act.‖
§ 21103. Limitations on duty hours of train employees
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, a railroad carrier and
its officers and agents may not require or allow a train employee to—
(1) remain on duty, go on duty, wait for deadhead transportation, be in deadhead transportation
from a duty assignment to the place of final release, or be in any other mandatory
service for the carrier in any calendar month where the employee has spent a total of 276
hours—
(A) on duty;
(B) waiting for deadhead transportation, or in deadhead transportation from a duty assignment
to the place of final release; or
(C) in any other mandatory service for the carrier;
3
(2) remain or go on duty for a period in excess of 12 consecutive hours;
(3) remain or go on duty unless that employee has had at least 10 consecutive hours off
duty during the prior 24 hours; or
(4) remain or go on duty after that employee has initiated an on-duty period each day
for—
(A) 6 consecutive days, unless that employee has had at least 48 consecutive hours
off duty at the employee’s home terminal during which time the employee is unavailable
for any service for any railroad carrier except that—
(i) an employee may work a seventh consecutive day if that employee completed
his or her final period of on-duty time on his or her sixth consecutive day at a terminal
other than his or her home terminal; and
(ii) any employee who works a seventh consecutive day pursuant to subparagraph
(i) shall have at least 72 consecutive hours off duty at the employee’s home terminal
during which time the employee is unavailable for any service for any railroad carrier;
or
(B) except as provided in subparagraph (A), 7 consecutive days, unless that employee
has had at least 72 consecutive hours off duty at the employee’s home terminal during
which time the employee is unavailable for any service for any railroad carrier, if—
(i) for a period of 18 months following the date of enactment of the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008, an existing collective bargaining agreement expressly provides
for such a schedule or, following the expiration of 18 months after the date of
enactment of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, collective bargaining agreements
entered into during such period expressly provide for such a schedule;
(ii) such a schedule is provided for by a pilot program authorized by a collective
bargaining agreement; or
(iii) such a schedule is provided for by a pilot program under section 21108 of this
chapter related to employees’ work and rest cycles.
The Secretary may waive paragraph (4), consistent with the procedural requirements of section
20103, if a collective bargaining agreement provides a different arrangement and such an
arrangement is in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety.
(b) DETERMINING TIME ON DUTY.— In determining under subsection (a) of this section the
time a train employee is on or off duty, the following rules apply:
(1) Time on duty begins when the employee reports for duty and ends when the employee
is finally released from duty.
(2) Time the employee is engaged in or connected with the movement of a train is time
on duty.
(3) Time spent performing any other service for the railroad carrier during a 24-hour period
in which the employee is engaged in or connected with the movement of a train is time
on duty.
(4) Time spent in deadhead transportation to a duty assignment is time on duty, but time
spent in deadhead transportation from a duty assignment to the place of final release is neither
time on duty nor time off duty.
(5) An interim period available for rest at a place other than a designated terminal is time
on duty.
(6) An interim period available for less than 4 hours rest at a designated terminal is time
on duty.
4
(7) An interim period available for at least 4 hours rest at a place with suitable facilities
for food and lodging is not time on duty when the employee is prevented from getting to the
employee’s designated terminal by any of the following:
(A) a casualty.
(B) a track obstruction.
(C) an act of God.
(D) a derailment or major equipment failure resulting from a cause that was unknown
and unforeseeable to the railroad carrier or its officer or agent in charge of that employee
when that employee left the designated terminal.
(c) LIMBO TIME LIMITATION AND ADDITIONAL REST REQUIREMENT.—
(1) A railroad carrier may not require or allow an employee—
(A) to exceed a total of 40 hours per calendar month spent—
(i) waiting for deadhead transportation; or
(ii) in deadhead transportation from a duty assignment to the place of final release,
following a period of 12 consecutive hours on duty that is neither time on duty nor time
off duty, not including interim rest periods, during the period from the date of enactment
of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to one year after such date of enactment; and
(B) to exceed a total of 30 hours per calendar month spent—
(i) waiting for deadhead transportation; or
(ii) in deadhead transportation from a duty assignment to the place of final release,
following a period of 12 consecutive hours on duty that is neither time on duty nor time
off duty, not including interim rest periods, during the period beginning one year after the
date of enactment of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 except that the Secretary
may further limit the monthly limitation pursuant to regulations prescribed under section
21109.
(2) The limitations in paragraph (1) shall apply unless the train carrying the employee is
directly delayed by—
(A) a casualty;
(B) an accident;
(C) an act of God;
(D) a derailment;
(E) a major equipment failure that prevents the train from advancing; or
(F) a delay resulting from a cause unknown and unforeseeable to a railroad carrier or
its officer or agent in charge of the employee when the employee left a terminal.
(3) Each railroad carrier shall report to the Secretary, in accordance with procedures established
by the Secretary, each instance where an employee subject to this section spends
time waiting for deadhead transportation or in deadhead transportation from a duty assignment
to the place of final release in excess of the requirements of paragraph (1).
(4) If—
(A) the time spent waiting for deadhead transportation or in deadhead transportation
from a duty assignment to the place of final release that is not time on duty, plus
(B) the time on duty,
5
exceeds 12 consecutive hours, the railroad carrier and its officers and agents shall provide
the employee with additional time off duty equal to the number of hours by which such
sum exceeds 12 hours.
(d) EMERGENCIES.— A train employee on the crew of a wreck or relief train may be allowed
to remain or go on duty for not more than 4 additional hours in any period of 24 consecutive
hours when an emergency exists and the work of the crew is related to the emergency. In this
subsection, an emergency ends when the track is cleared and the railroad line is open for traffic.
(e) COMMUNICATION DURING TIME OFF DUTY.— During a train employee’s minimum offduty
period of 10 consecutive hours, as provided under subsection (a) or during an interim period
of at least 4 consecutive hours available for rest under subsection (b)(7) or during additional offduty
hours under subsection (c)(4), a railroad carrier, and its officers and agents, shall not communicate
with the train employee by telephone, by pager, or in any other manner that could reasonably
be expected to disrupt the employee’s rest. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit
communication necessary to notify an employee of an emergency situation, as defined by the
Secretary. The Secretary may waive the requirements of this paragraph for commuter or intercity
passenger railroads if the Secretary determines that such a waiver will not reduce safety and is
necessary to maintain such railroads’ efficient operations and on-time performance of its trains.
§ 21104. Limitations on duty hours of signal employees
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a railroad carrier and
its officers and agents may not require or allow its signal employees to remain or go on duty and
a contractor or subcontractor to a railroad carrier and its officers and agents may not require or
allow its signal employees to remain or go on duty —
(1) for a period in excess of 12 consecutive hours; or
(2) unless that employee has had at least 10 consecutive hours off duty during the prior
24 hours.
(b) DETERMINING TIME ON DUTY.— In determining under subsection (a) of this section the
time a signal employee is on duty or off duty, the following rules apply:
(1) Time on duty begins when the employee reports for duty and ends when the employee
is finally released from duty.
(2) Time spent performing any other service for the railroad carrier during a 24-hour period
in which the employee is engaged in installing, repairing, or maintaining signal systems
is time on duty.
(3) Time spent returning from a trouble call, whether the employee goes directly to the
employee’s residence or by way of the employee’s headquarters, is neither time on duty nor
time off duty.
(4) If, at the end of scheduled duty hours, an employee has not completed the trip from
the final outlying worksite of the duty period to the employee’s headquarters or directly to
the employee’s residence, the time after the scheduled duty hours necessarily spent in completing
the trip to the residence or headquarters is neither time on duty nor time off duty.
(5) If an employee is released from duty at an outlying worksite before the end of the
employee’s scheduled duty hours to comply with this section, the time necessary for the trip
from the worksite to the employee’s headquarters or directly to the employee’s residence is
neither time on duty nor time off duty.
(6) Time spent in transportation on an ontrack vehicle, including time referred to in paragraphs
(3)–(5) of this subsection, is time on duty.
6
(7) A regularly scheduled meal period or another release period of at least 30 minutes but
not more than one hour is time off duty and does not break the continuity of service of the
employee under this section, but a release period of more than one hour is time off duty and
does break the continuity of service.
(c) EMERGENCIES.— A signal employee may be allowed to remain or go on duty for not
more than 4 additional hours in any period of 24 consecutive hours when an emergency exists
and the work of that employee is related to the emergency. In this subsection, an emergency ends
when the signal system is restored to service. A signal employee may not be allowed to remain
or go on duty under the emergency authority provided under this subsection to conduct routine
repairs, routine maintenance, or routine inspection of signal systems.
(d) COMMUNICATION DURING TIME OFF DUTY.— During a signal employee’s minimum offduty
period of 10 consecutive hours, as provided under subsection (a), a railroad carrier or a contractor
or subcontractor to a railroad carrier, and its officers and agents, shall not communicate
with the signal employee by telephone, by pager, or in any other manner that could reasonably be
expected to disrupt the employee’s rest. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit communication
necessary to notify an employee of an emergency situation, as defined by the Secretary.
(e) EXCLUSIVITY.—The hours of service, duty hours, and rest periods of signal employees
shall be governed exclusively by this chapter. Signal employees operating motor vehicles shall
not be subject to any hours of service rules, duty hours or rest period rules promulgated by any
Federal authority, including the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, other than the Federal
Railroad Administration.
§ 21105. Limitations on duty hours of dispatching service employees
(a) APPLICATION.— This section applies, rather than section 21103 or 21104 of this title, to a
train employee or signal employee during any period of time the employee is performing duties
of a dispatching service employee.
(b) GENERAL.— Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, a dispatching service
employee may not be required or allowed to remain or go on duty for more than—
(1) a total of 9 hours during a 24-hour period in a tower, office, station, or place at which
at least 2 shifts are employed; or
(2) a total of 12 hours during a 24-hour period in a tower, office, station, or place at
which only one shift is employed.
(c) DETERMINING TIME ON DUTY.— Under subsection (b) of this section, time spent performing
any other service for the railroad carrier during a 24-hour period in which the employee is on
duty in a tower, office, station, or other place is time on duty in that tower, office, station, or
place.
(d) EMERGENCIES.— When an emergency exists, a dispatching service employee may be allowed
to remain or go on duty for not more than 4 additional hours during a period of 24 consecutive
hours for not more than 3 days during a period of 7 consecutive days.
§ 21106. Limitations on employee sleeping quarters
A railroad carrier and its officers and agents—
(1) may provide sleeping quarters (including crew quarters, camp or bunk cars, and trailers)
for employees, and any individuals employed to maintain the right of way of a railroad
carrier, only if the sleeping quarters are clean, safe, and sanitary and give those employees
7
and individuals an opportunity for rest free from the interruptions caused by noise under the
control of the carrier; and
(2) may not begin, after July 7, 1976, construction or reconstruction of sleeping quarters
referred to in clause (1) of this section in an area or in the immediate vicinity of an area, as
determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation, in which railroad
switching or humping operations are performed.
§ 21107. Maximum duty hours and subjects of collective bargaining
The number of hours established by this chapter that an employee may be required or allowed
to be on duty is the maximum number of hours consistent with safety. Shorter hours of
service and time on duty of an employee are proper subjects for collective bargaining between a
railroad carrier and its employees.
§ 21108. Pilot projects
(a) WAIVER.— A railroad carrier or railroad carriers and all labor organizations representing
any class or craft of directly affected covered service employees of the railroad carrier or railroad
carriers, may jointly petition the Secretary of Transportation for approval of a waiver, in whole
or in part, of compliance with this chapter, to enable the establishment of one or more pilot
projects to demonstrate the possible benefits of implementing alternatives to the strict application
of the requirements of this chapter to such class or craft of employees, including requirements
concerning maximum on-duty and minimum off-duty periods. Based on such a joint petition, the
Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for comment, waive in whole or in part compliance
with this chapter for a period of no more than two years, if the Secretary determines that such
waiver of compliance is in the public interest and is consistent with railroad safety. Any such
waiver may, based on a new petition, be extended for additional periods of up to two years, after
notice and opportunity for comment. An explanation of any waiver granted under this section
shall be published in the Federal Register.
(b) REPORT.— The Secretary of Transportation shall submit to Congress, no later than January
1, 1997, a report that—
(1) explains and analyzes the effectiveness of all pilot projects established pursuant to a
waiver granted under subsection (a);
(2) describes the status of all other waivers granted under subsection (a) and their related
pilot projects, if any; and
(3) recommends appropriate legislative changes to this chapter.
(c) DEFINITION.— For purposes of this section, the term ―directly affected covered service
employees‖ means covered service employees to whose hours of service the terms of the waiver
petitioned for specifically apply.
§ 21109. Regulatory authority
(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to improve safety and reduce employee fatigue, the Secretary may
prescribe regulations—
(1) to reduce the maximum hours an employee may be required or allowed to go or remain
on duty to a level less than the level established under this chapter;
(2) to increase the minimum hours an employee may be required or allowed to rest to a
level greater than the level established under this chapter;
8
(3) to limit or eliminate the amount of time an employee spends waiting for deadhead
transportation or in deadhead transportation from a duty assignment to the place of final release
that is considered neither on duty nor off duty under this chapter;
(4) for signal employees—
(A) to limit or eliminate the amount of time that is considered to be neither on duty
nor off duty under this chapter that an employee spends returning from an outlying worksite
after scheduled duty hours or returning from a trouble call to the employee’s headquarters
or directly to the employee’s residence; and
(B) to increase the amount of time that constitutes a release period, that does not
break the continuity of service and is considered time off duty; and
(5) to require other changes to railroad operating and scheduling practices, including unscheduled
duty calls, that could affect employee fatigue and railroad safety.
(b) REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE HOURS OF SERVICE OF TRAIN EMPLOYEES OF COMMUTER
AND INTERCITY PASSENGER RAILROAD CARRIERS.—Within 3 years after the date of enactment of
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, the Secretary shall prescribe regulations and issue orders
to establish hours of service requirements for train employees engaged in commuter rail
passenger transportation and intercity rail passenger transportation (as defined in section 24102
of this title) that may differ from the requirements of this chapter. Such regulations and orders
may address railroad operating and scheduling practices, including unscheduled duty calls,
communications during time off duty, and time spent waiting for deadhead transportation or in
deadhead transportation from a duty assignment to the place of final release, that could affect
employee fatigue and railroad safety.
(c) CONSIDERATIONS.—In issuing regulations under subsection (a) the Secretary shall consider
scientific and medical research related to fatigue and fatigue abatement, railroad scheduling
and operating practices that improve safety or reduce employee fatigue, a railroad’s use of new
or novel technology intended to reduce or eliminate human error, the variations in freight and
passenger railroad scheduling practices and operating conditions, the variations in duties and operating
conditions for employees subject to this chapter, a railroad’s required or voluntary use of
fatigue management plans covering employees subject to this chapter, and any other relevant factors.
(d) TIME LIMITS.—
(1) If the Secretary determines that regulations are necessary under subsection (a), the
Secretary shall first request that the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee develop proposed
regulations and, if the Committee accepts the task, provide the Committee with a reasonable
time period in which to complete the task.
(2) If the Secretary requests that the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee accept the task
of developing regulations under subsection (b) and the Committee accepts the task, the
Committee shall reach consensus on the rulemaking within 18 months after accepting the
task. If the Committee does not reach consensus within 18 months after the Secretary makes
the request, the Secretary shall prescribe appropriate regulations within 18 months.
(3) If the Secretary does not request that the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee accept
the task of developing regulations under subsection (b), the Secretary shall prescribe regulations
within 3 years after the date of enactment of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
(e) PILOT PROJECTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Rail Safety
Improvement Act of 2008, the Secretary shall conduct at least 2 pilot projects of sufficient
9
size and scope to analyze specific practices which may be used to reduce fatigue for train and
engine and other railroad employees as follows:
(A) A pilot project at a railroad or railroad facility to evaluate the efficacy of communicating
to employees notice of their assigned shift time 10 hours prior to the beginning
of their assigned shift as a method for reducing employee fatigue.
(B) A pilot project at a railroad or railroad facility to evaluate the efficacy of requiring
railroads who use employee scheduling practices that subject employees to periods of
unscheduled duty calls to assign employees to defined or specific unscheduled call shifts
that are followed by shifts not subject to call, as a method for reducing employee fatigue.
(2) WAIVER.—The Secretary may temporarily waive the requirements of this section, if
necessary, to complete a pilot project under this subsection.
(f) DUTY CALL DEFINED.—In this section the term ―duty call‖ means a telephone call that a
railroad places to an employee to notify the employee of his or her assigned shift time.

Posted in News on 07.18.2009 2:49pm

FRA Hours of Service Document link

From Rob Newhouse

Copy and paste this link into your browser... you may need Adobe Reader if you don't already have it installed.

http://www.utu.org/worksite/PDFs/HS_Interps_2009_15026.pdf

It's dry reading but there is alot of info that we need to know about the new hours of service law that goes into effect July 16th 2009.

Posted in News on 06.27.2009 7:59am

Furloughed Employees

From Rob Newhouse

With some of our furloughed employees getting called back recently and more likely to come soon...

REMEMBER!

If you are called back by the carrier you have 15 days to report back. If you do not report back within the 15 days your seniority will be forfeit.

Posted in News on 06.18.2009 7:59am

THE BRAKEMEN'S REGISTER.

From Rob Newhouse

The United Transportation Union Minnesota Legislative Board (UTU), is accepting and forwarding names of furloughed members who are trying to pick up side work to make ends meet. Please forward this listing to UTU Local e-mail lists, and print and post for our UTU bulletin boards. If you have work at your home or business that you needs to get done or you have friends and family with service needs or projects to be completed, please give one of our UTU furloughed members a call today.

NOTE: Listings on the Brakemen's Register are strictly voluntary. All UTU members are expected comply with all United States Railroad Retirement Board requirements for complete and accurate claim reporting. The UTU makes no endorsement, implied warranty orreporting of a member's quality of work. The UTU makes no reporting ofa furloughed member's actual employment. If requested, our re-employed UTU member's names can be forwarded to union shops or AFL-CIO affiliates for training and membership application.

If you are a UTU member who wants to be listed on the Brakemen's Register or you know a furloughed member(s) who need work, please call your UTU State committee office at 651-222-7500.

We have many well qualified laborers, craftsmen and technicians among our ranks. Do hire and send our furloughed UTU members some work. If you have a project(s) to be completed, please call a UTU member today!

Name UTU Local Contact Number Trade or Service

Paul Keller UTU 1000 763-427-2702 Construction, sheet rock, lawn work.
Justin Hornung UTU 1000 651-793-6385 General construction labor.
Dan Martinez UTU 1000 651-353-8585 General construction labor, lawn work.
Jason Bultinck UTU 1000 651-592-3932 Class A License, general construction,
651-793-6385 general labor and equipment operator.
Billy Burnett UTU 1000 612-281-6583 Mechanical background, law work.
Jerry Wright UTU 1000 651-503-1262 Construction background, general labor.
Jeff Mueller UTU 1000 920-279-5419 General construction and labor.
Jayme Utt UTU 1000 218-590-8502 General labor, lawn work.
Jason Schramm UTU 1000 763-458-8179 General labor, laws work.
Jeremiah Jurek UTU 1000 763-533-3332 Residential H-vac, general construction
Sean Gallagher UTU 1000 651-315-4532 Electronics background, machine
operator, auto repair, security services.
Pat Dwyer UTU 1000 651-428-8798 General welding, general lawn, labor.
Chris Lestina UTU911 612-272-3168 Pool and hot tub service, roofing and
lawn laborer. General construction.
Matt Thorne UTU911 651-271-7905 Carpenter, laborer, construction.
Sean Kelly UTU 911 952-334-4768
Matt Smullen UTU911 651-491-9419 Carpenter, masonry, lawn work.
Shawn Sapikowski UTU 911 651-367-9470 Jack/skill of all trades.
Jon Jadwin UTU 911 651-895-7060
John Deloye UTU911 651-270-8117 Lawn and landscape.
Ross Bercier UTU911 651-336-6855 A little of everything
Jeff McInnis UTU 911 763-228-4606 Computer tech, wood work, automotive.
Jim Rambeck, UTU911 612-805-9313 Carpenter, decks, landscaping.
Guy Donnelly UTU 911 651-470-7604 Painting.
Jim Bourbonniere UTU 911 763-300-8131 Class A License, Carpenter, decks, sheds,
remodeling, cabinet making, computer tech
Rodney Joppru UTU 911 651-357-2381 Jack/skill of all trades, except computers.
Jason Hosch UTU 650 651-470-3428 General labor.
Greg Strand UTU 650 651-398-4123 Mechanic, tile work, lawn work.
Bill Pouloit UTU 650 507-272-8352 Brick layer, stone mason, laborer.
John Bonse UTU 650 651-755-3203 Carpenter, remodeling service.
Tim Applen UTU 650 612-724-6811 Warehouse, organizing, packing,
truck driving, property renovation.
Graham Benson UTU 650 952-688-1795 Advertising, copy writing, computer tech, computer design.
Doug Kuhl UTU 650 507-330-0526


UTU AFFILIATED FOOD BANK CONTACT INFORMATION:
1) Greater Lake Country Food Bank.
544 8th Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN 55411
(UTU supported discount food store).
612-340-9694
2) Fare for All
8501 54th Avenue North
Roseville, MN 55428
(Emergency Food Shelf Network)
763-450-3880

NOTICE: Listings on the Brakemen's Register are strictly voluntary. All UTU members are expected comply with all United States Railroad Retirement Board requirements for complete and accurate claim reporting.

If you are a UTU member who wants to be listed on the Brakemen's Register or you know a furloughed member(s) who need work, please call your UTU State committee office at 651-222-7500. Thank you.

Posted in News on 05.22.2009 8:27am

New Section Added in Union Corner

From Rob Newhouse

I have added a section in the Union Corner - lower left... General Chairman (reports and correspondence). That's where I will put everything that I get from the Local Chaimen that they get from James Nelson.

Posted in News on 05.22.2009 6:46am

New Link Added

From Rob Newhouse

I added a link to a customizible website dedicated to your specific United Healthcare policy. It's pretty cool actually, you create an account and you can see all of your insurance info. It's very detailed.

Posted in News on 05.10.2009 11:26pm

New Link Added

From Rob Newhouse

I have posted a link to the application for UTU membership under the "Links of Interest" section of this site.

Print it and fill it out by hand.

Posted in News on 05.07.2009 8:35am

New Section for our Furloughed Brothers and Sisters

From Rob Newhouse

There is a new area in the Union Corner dedicated to our fellow employees who have been laid off.

Everything that I get that pertains to lay-offs is there.

Posted in News on 04.30.2009 10:11pm

Elvin link added

From Rob Newhouse

On the right hand side of this page you will find a link to order your brown bag items online. If you have never ordered online before you will have to set up a new account with them. It's pretty simple... they will need your address and a username and password.

Posted in News on 04.04.2009 10:53am

Vehicle inspection complaint

From Rob Newhouse

March 20, 2009

J J Stoffer
Manager Operations Yard
1000 Shop Road
Building 860
ST. Paul, MN 55106

RE: General Maintenance /Vehicle Inspection Requirements for Company provided Vehicles Glenwood Yard

Mr. Stoffer,

Reference is made to MOY-TCT Notice # 18 instructing employees who are required to use a company vehicle to conduct a safety inspection of the vehicle at the beginning of their tour of duty and again at the completion of their duties. This inspection will then be recorded on a vehicle inspection report and any defects will be brought to the attention of the Yard Manager at Glenwood.

The employee making an inspection or other employees driving the vehicle will sign the inspection form and be responsible for the condition of the vehicle.

The company considers employees conducting a vehicle safety inspection and filing a written vehicle safety report incidental service.

I want to make it clear this committee considers company vehicle inspections and filling out safety reports on said vehicle a violation of the collective bargaining agreement, Article 7 ( Crew Consist – Road and Yard ) or by definition Federal Railroad Administration 218.22 explaining the duties of a Yard Utility Person. Nothing in either description refers to employee’s being required to make company vehicle inspection or being trained or qualified to do this work as part of their duties and sign what this committee considers a legal document that says the vehicle has passed inspection.

This committee considers the document could be used against an employee in cases of accident or injury and will direct blame on the employee. The Carrier is solely responsible for maintaining the safety standards of their vehicles using trained certified technicians.

Consider this letter a formal protest in behalf of any Train Service/ Utility person instructed to perform maintenance inspection and reporting of Canadian Pacific Railway vehicles at Glenwood Yard.


March 20, 2009
J. J. Stoffer
Page 2

In addition, a basic day penalty claim will be submitted for violation Article 7 Crew Consist – Road and Yard and Article 101 Assigned Other Duties of the 2003 General Labor Agreement.

Respectfully,



R. J. Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU 911

CC : J H Nelson, Chairman
D. W. Bray, VLC 911

Posted in News on 03.28.2009 10:57pm

Ordering time again.

From Rob Newhouse

The Elvin website is http://cprail.elvin.com
Copy this url into your web browser to order your stuff online. If you've never done it online before... it's pretty painless. Just sign up with them. They will ask you for some info but after that it's alot like the form that we get.

Posted in News on 04.06.2008 10:41pm