FW: Houston Hub Trip Rate Settlement - 2nd trip rate

From: Gil Gore [mailto:gilgore@bletsr.org]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:39 PM
To: Clifton Meguess; Dan Underwood (dhu139@houston.rr.com); Gerald Boudreaux (gerardjb@bellsouth.net); Jim E. Rosas (jerosasble@juno.com); Larry Kaleck (Lmkaleck711@aol.com); Les Jeanlouis (L R Jeanlouis); Ray Basco; Raymond H. Prejean (bigfootdq@yahoo.com); Richard B Alston; Roland Gutierrez (rolando410@cmaaccess.com); Tyler Gray (trgray775@yahoo.com); Wade Stevener (wadeandrockie@sbcglobal.net)
Subject: Houston Hub Trip Rate Settlement - 2nd trip rate

Brothers,

Attached you will find a copy of a letter of understanding (Click Here to View in PDF) that has been proposed to settle the 2^nd trip rate when used in turnaround/hours of service relief in the Houston Hub.  I am requesting your ratification of this interpretation.

As you are aware, the dispute developed surrounding the language in the 2003 BLET National Agreement Article V – Pay System Simplification.  Unfortunately, there were some circumstances where crews were deadhead combined with service and paid actual miles for the working and deadhead portion of the trip.  Per the 2003 BLET Agreement, mileage that was paid as one trip would be incorporated into the trip rate as one start.  We have come to a compromise on the issue with the attached letter of understanding which provides for some pools that had evidence of being deadheaded separate and apart from service to be paid two trip rates.  Other pools will be paid two trip rates when the turnaround/hours of service work reaches the threshold of 50 miles or more combining both the deadhead and working portion of the turnaround trip.  I believe this is a good compromise settlement because it allows the miles already made deadheading in combined service to remain in the trip rate and ensures that all pools will be entitled to the 2^nd trip rate either automatically or under the 50 mile criteria.  This 50 mile threshold will cover more than 90% of the cases when crews are used in turnaround/hours of service relief.  Had we gone directly to the disputes committee, several pools would have been shut completely out of the 2^nd trip rate altogether due to the payment of combined miles for deadhead service during the test period.  This is a hub wide settlement.  Failing ratification of this proposal, we will have to take each pool to the disputes committee and I can assure you that the data will result in some pools being shut out of the 2^nd trip rate completely.

With the above in mind, I recommend the ratification of this letter of understanding to settle this dispute.    

Additionally, I have negotiated an understanding to pay all outstanding claims for this type of service if they meet the criteria established in the letter of understanding that have occurred since June 1 of 2006 when this dispute arose.  I have attached a copy of my message to all Local Chairman dated 08-09-06 (Click Here to View in PDF) suggesting that members use the attached work sheet to record trips that involved work and deadhead out of the away from home terminal.  If you or your members will forward those sheets to our office immediately, I will provide the same to the carrier to settle any shortages that have occurred since June 1, 2006.  If you have saved the detailed KMB’s for these pools as suggested, that should help identify the crews who possibly were shorted.  The settlement included a window of opportunity to present any shortages for payment.  The cut off date for providing this information will be December 31, 2006.  Shortage information provided beyond that time limit will not be considered.

I also need the ballots returned by December 31, 2006.  Please remember that we have a conference call line available that will take up to 100 callers.  If you would like to schedule a conference call for your Division to handle this ratification, please call the office and schedule the time with Carol to use the line.  We can provide e-mail instructions on how to use the line if necessary.

I will post this information on our website at http://bletsrnews.blogspot.com/ and on our e-mail blogg at http://bletsre-mail.blogspot.com/.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Fraternally,

Gil Gore

FRA: Train crew work schedules contribute to accidents

FRA: Train crew work schedules contribute to accidents CLEVELAND, November 29 -- The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today released a study which provides a strong scientific rationale for evaluating railroad employee work schedules to address worker fatigue. According to the FRA, human factor errors were responsible for nearly 40 percent of all train accidents over the past five years. An FRA evaluation of the research findings confirms that fatigue plays a role in approximately one out of four of those accidents. The goal of the research was to determine if a fatigue model can accurately and reliably predict an increased risk of human error that could contribute to the occurrence of a train accident. A mathematical model for detecting the point at which the risk of fatigue becomes hazardous could be part of a railroad’s fatigue management plan. FRA expects this information will aid the railroad industry in improving crew scheduling practices in order to reduce that risk. A similar approach is currently utilized by the Department of Defense. Under the study, researchers analyzed the 30-day work schedule histories of locomotive crews preceding approximately 1,400 train accidents and found a strong statistical correlation between the crew’s estimated level of alertness and the likelihood that they would be involved in an accident caused by human factors. In fact, the relationship is so strong that the level of fatigue associated with some work schedules was found to be equivalent to being awake for 21 hours following an 8-hour sleep period the previous night. At this level, train accidents consistent with fatigue, such as failing to stop for red signals, were more likely to occur. “We applaud FRA’s work in validating Dr. Hursh’s model for use in the railroad industry,” BLET National President Don M. Hahs said. “The fact remains, however, that the vast majority of fatigue concerns could be addressed, if not eliminated, by taking several simple steps, including: improving ‘train line-up’ information for crews waiting to be called for work; 8 hour call for duty; defined calling windows to prevent work tour cycling; and ending abusive limbo time. “All of these practices could be implemented today, if the carriers were as concerned about the health and safety of their crews as they are interested in multi-billion dollar profits.” For a PDF of the report, go to: http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/dot_fra_ord_0621.pdf Wednesday, November 29, 2006 bentley@ble.org http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4393 Related Articles: FRA Website : http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1737 UTU Website: http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=31985 © 2006 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen http://www.ble.org

 

2007-2008 James R. Hoffa Memorial Scholarship Fund

Subject: [BLE NewsFlash] 2007-2008 James R. Hoffa Memorial Scholarship Fund

2007-2008 James R. Hoffa Memorial Scholarship Fund

http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4391

CLEVELAND, November 29 - The James R. Hoffa Memorial Scholarship Fund awards scholarships annually to outstanding high school seniors, and 100 scholarships will be awarded during for the upcoming 2007-2008 school year.

Applicants compete in one of the five geographic regions where the Teamster parent/grandparent's Local Union is located. The Teamsters will award 31 scholarships that total $10,000 each ($2,500 a year over four years) and an additional 69 awards that are one-time grants of $1,000 each.

For the last few years, the children and grandchildren of BLET members have been eligible to apply for the James R. Hoffa Memorial Scholarship following the merger of the BLET with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

This year's program is open to high school seniors graduating in 2007, who plan to attend a four-year college in the fall of 2007. The applicant should rank in the top 15 percent of their high school class and have, or expect to have, excellent SAT or ACT scores. The applicant must be a son, daughter or grandchild of a Teamster member who has been in good standing during the 12 consecutive months preceding the application deadline of March 30, 2007. Furthermore, the Teamster member must not have been a full-time elected officer during the 12 months preceding the application deadline date of March 30, 2007.

Applications are available from all IBT and GCC Local Unions, the BLET National Division website and BMWED System Federations. Applications can also be downloaded from the BLET website at: http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/JRH2007application.pdf

Other downloadable information includes a Hoffa Memorial Scholarship brochure, for members to print and display at their places of work: http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/JRHBrochure2007.pdf

And an academic record form that applicants must fill out in order to apply: http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/JRH2007academicrecord.pdf

Applications must be received by the Scholarship Fund by March 30, 2007.

For more details, please contact:

James R. Hoffa Memorial Scholarship Fund 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 (202) 624-8735.

--- This message was sent by the BLET NewsFlash Service. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.ble-t.org

NTSB Makes Recommendations on April 3, 2005 Amtrak - BNSF

This recommendation addresses the adequacy of the amount of time available for track inspections conducted by the BNSF Railway Company’s (BNSF’s) employees. The recommendation is derived from the Safety Board’s investigation of the April 3, 2005, derailment of Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) passenger train No. 27, near Home Valley, Washington,1 and is consistent with the evidence we found and the analysis we performed. As a result of this investigation, the Safety Board has issued four recommendations discussed below. The Safety Board would appreciate a response from you within 90 days addressing the actions you have taken or intend to take to implement our recommendation.

The National Transportation Safety Board makes the following safety recommendation to the Federal
Railroad Administration:
“Extend to all classes of track safety standards for concrete crossties that address at a minimum the following: limits for rail seat abrasion, concrete crosstie pad wear limits, missing or broken rail fasteners, loss of appropriate toeload pressure, improper fastener configurations, and excessive lateral rail movement. (R-06-19)”
**************************************************
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/R06_19.pdf

The National Transportation Safety Board makes the following safety recommendation to the Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association:
“Using the circumstances of the April 3, 2005, accident near Home Valley, Washington, emphasize to your members through your publications, web site, and conferences, as appropriate, the need to establish inspection guidelines for track inspectors that address the problems and characteristics unique to concrete crossties for all classes of track. As your members develop these guidelines, encourage them to consider the elements in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 213, "Track Safety Standards," for concrete crossties for Classes of Track 6 and higher. (R-06-21)”
**************************************************
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/R06_21.pdf

The National Transportation Safety Board makes the following safety recommendation to the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association:
“Using the circumstances of the April 3, 2005, accident near Home Valley, Washington, emphasize to your railroad members through your publications, web site, and conferences, as appropriate, the need to establish inspection guidelines for track inspectors that address the problems and characteristics unique to concrete crossties for all classes of track. As your railroad members develop these guidelines,
encourage them to consider the elements in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 213, "Track Safety Standards," for concrete crossties for Classes of Track 6 and higher. (R-06-22)”
**************************************************
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/R06_22.pdf

The National Transportation Safety Board makes the following safety recommendation to the BNSF Railway Company:
“As part of your track inspector audit program, determine whether inspectors are provided adequate track time to perform their duties, and take corrective action if necessary. (R-06-20)”
**************************************************
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/R06_20.pdf

 

 

 

Toyota Faciliity Agreement

From: gilgore1@gmail.com [mailto:gilgore1@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:17 PM
To: All BLET UP Southern Region Local Chairmen

Subject: Toyota Faciliity Agreement

 

Brothers,

 

Attached you will find a copy of the proposed settlement of the Enhanced Customer Service Notice served pursuant to Article IX of the 1996 BLET National Agreement regarding servicing the new Toyota Facility located at MP 12 on the Corpus Christi Subdivision.  I have also included my original message of 05-21-06 regarding this notice for your easy reference. 

 

I did not want to put this out to the jurisdictional Local Chairmen for ratification until we completed and agreed to the question and answers that are included with the agreement.  As you can see, we have enhanced the package from the original offering.  I have provided a copy of a document comparing the original document with the final product noting the deletions and additions to the original document (ENHANCEDCUSTOMERSERVICETOYOTA.BLET Final Markup.PDF).  The added language through the negotiation process is in blue text for your easy reference. 

 

1.                We were able to increase the mileage offering from the original 7 miles to 16 miles for crews going to/from the facility. 

2.                We added an additional 8 miles for crews operating power to or from the facility at the beginning or end of their trip.  Both of these payments are paid above all other earnings and do not impact overtime payments.

3.                We added side letter 3 eliminating the overtime offsets on all pools identified in Article I of the agreement,

4.                We have crafted Questions and Answers outlining some of the scenarios and insuring that only crews with Toyota cars go to the facility.

It is my understanding that the UTU has already ratified the proposal.  Ms. Boone informed me Friday that she would be sending me a letter of notice of implementation effective Nov 1, 2006 per Article IX Section 1 (b) of the 1996 BLET National Agreement in Bold Underline text below on a 6 month trial basis. 

 

I would like to notify the Carrier regarding our decision on this matter by October 31, 2006 if that is possible.  I realize that this may force some of you to have a special meeting to address the issue.  I  apologize for that inconvenience, but I did not want to send out the agreement for ratification without the accompanying question and answers being agreed to by the parties.  That was not accomplished until yesterday afternoon.  I appreciate your Divisions cooperation in expeditiously handling this matter.  Jurisdictional Local Chairmen, Russell Elley, Mark Rogers, Dean Amos, Robert Moore and JD Tindol have the Agreement, Questions and Answers and ballot coming to them hard copy via US mail.  This information is being provided to all other Local Chairmen as information.  Only those local chairmen listed above per our Bylaws will be participating in the ratification.

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Fraternally,

Gil Gore

To view a copy of the agreement in PDF format Click Here

To View a copy of the Questions and Answers on the Agreement Click Here

 

 

 

 

1996 BLET National Agreement

 

ARTICLE IX - ENHANCED CUSTOMER SERVICE

Article IX - Special Relief, Customer Service - Yard Crews of the 1991 National Implementing Document is amended to read as

follows and furthermore shall be applicable to all carriers party to this Agreement:

Section 1

(a) When an individual carrier has a customer request for particularized handling that would provide more efficient service,

or can show a need for relaxation of certain specific work rules to attract or retain a customer, such service may be instituted on an experimental basis for a six-month period.

(b) Prior to implementing such service, the carrier will extend seven (7) days advance notice where practicable but in no

event less than forty-eight (48) hours' advance notice to the General Chairman of the employees involved. Such notice will

include an explanation of the need to provide the service, a description of the service, and a description of the work rules

that may require relaxation for implementation. Relaxation of work rules that may be required under this Article shall be

limited to: starting times, yard limits, calling rules, on/off duty points, seniority boundaries, and class of service

restrictions.

(c) A Joint Committee, comprised of an equal number of carrier representatives and organization representatives, shall

determine whether a need exists, as provided in paragraph (a), to provide the service. If the Joint Committee has not made its determination by the end of the advance notice period referenced in paragraph (b), it shall be deemed to be deadlocked, and the service will be allowed on an experimental basis for a six-month period. If, after the six-months has expired, the organization members of the Joint Committee continue to object, the matter shall be referred to arbitration.

(d) If the parties are unable to agree upon an arbitrator within seven days of the date of the request for arbitration,

either party may request the National Mediation Board to provide a list of five potential arbitrators, from which the parties shall choose the arbitrator through alternate striking. The order of such striking shall be determined by coin flip unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The fees and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the parties.

(e) The determination of the arbitrator shall be limited to whether the carrier has shown a bona fide need to provide the

service requested or can provide the service without a special exception to existing work rules being made at a comparable cost to the carrier. If the arbitrator determines that this standard has not been met, the arbitrator shall have the discretion to award compensation for all wages and benefits lost by an employee as a result of the carrier's implementation of its proposal.

Section 2

This Article shall become effective June 1, 1996 and is not intended to restrict any of the existing rights of a carrier.

 

1991 BLET National Agreement

ARTICLE IX - SPECIAL RELIEF CUSTOMER SERVICE - YARD CREWS

     

(a)       When an individual carrier can show a bona fide need to obtain or retain a customer by servicing that shipper outside of the existing work rules related to starting times and yard limits for yard crews, such service may be instituted on an experimental basis for a six-month period.

 

(b)       Prior to implementing such service, the carrier will extend at least 14 days' advance written notice to the General Chairman of the employees involved. The notice will include an explanation of the bona fide need to provide the service, a description of the service, and a listing of the work rules related to starting times and yard limits for yard crews which are at variance with existing agreements.

     

(c)       A Joint Committee, comprised of an equal number of carrier representatives and organization representatives, shall be constituted to determine whether a bona fide need exists to provide the service. If the Joint Committee has not made its determination by the end of the 14-day advance notice period referenced in Paragraph (b), it shall be deemed to be deadlocked, and the service will be allowed on an experimental basis for a six-month period. If, after the six months have expired, the organization members of the Joint Committee continue to object, the matter shall be referred to arbitration.

 

(d)       If the parties are unable to agree upon an arbitrator within seven days of the date of the request for arbitration, either party may request the National Mediation Board to appoint an arbitrator. The fees and expenses of the arbitrator will be shared equally by the parties.

 

(e)       The determination of the arbitrator shall be limited to whether the carrier has shown a bona fide need to provide the service requested or can provide the service without a special exception to the existing work rules related to starting times and yard limits for yard crews being made at a comparable cost to the carrier.

 

_  _  _  _  _  _  _  _

           

            Nothing in this Article is intended to restrict any of the existing rights of a carrier.

 

            This Article shall become effective November 17, 1991 except on such carriers as may elect to preserve existing rules or practices and so notify the authorized employee representatives on or before such date.

 

 

 

Engineer Rates Effective July 1, 2006 posted to Agreements Page

Current rates for Locomotive Engineers are posted to the BLET UP Southern Region GCA Website at www.bleupsrgca.com/agree.html

 

The following rates are available:

 

Engineer Yard Rate www.bleupsrgca.com/files/yard.txt

Engineer Freight Rate www.bleupsrgca.com/files/freight.txt

Engineer Local Rate www.bleupsrgca.com/files/freight.txt

 

Trainman Rates will be available in the next few days.

 

 

Ballots To Be Mailed For IBT Election On or About October 6, 2006

Please review the below documents related to the upcoming IBT Officer Election.

 

Notice of Election Ballot Instructions – English

Notice of Election Ballot Instructions – Spanish

Notice of Election from IBT Election Supervisor

Notice of Election from IBT Election

 

 

Court Decision Major Dispute

From: gilgore1@gmail.com [mailto:gilgore1@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:21 PM
To: All BLET UP Southern Region Local Chairmen
Subject: Court Decision Major Dispute

Brothers,

Attached for your ready reference is a court decision regarding a dispute between the BLET UP Western Lines GCA and Union Pacific Railroad (Click HERE for a PDF copy).  The had a pool that ran from the LA Basin to West Colton.  They sometimes ran the pool through the terminal of West Colton to the first siding due to train congestion.  Brother Hannah filed for status quo injunctive relief to stop them from running through the terminal under the major dispute – status quo provision in the RLA.  BLET’s position was denied in this case.  This decision is provided for your ready reference and review.

Fraternally,

Gil Gore     

From: Charvat, Justine

Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 12:19 PM
To: _General Chairmen US GCA
Cc: _NDOfficers
Subject:

 

Gentlemen, per President Hahs, the attached is fyi.

 

Justine Charvat

Simulator for qualifying - Crossing Stop Bulletin

From: Gil Gore [mailto:gilgore@bletsr.org]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:36 PM
To: All BLET UP Southern Region Local Chairmen

Cc:  Western General Chairmen’s Association

Subject: FW: Simulator for qualifying - xing bulletin

Brothers,

Below are some questions that Brother Briggs and I were wrestling with regarding the use of simulators to qualify engineers as well as violating a XG “stop and protect” bulletin before occupying a crossing.  The FRA’s response and attached documents are provided by Brother Briggs for your ready reference and review.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

To view bulletin OP414 click HERE

To view bulletin OP421 click HERE

Fraternally,

Gil Gore

From: Terry Briggs [mailto:tslbchair@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 2:17 PM
To: Gil Gore
Subject: FW: Simulator for qualifying? xing bulletin

FYI Brother.

Here is the link to two technical bulletins on certification, which are also attached.  http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1470

It appears you are right. The carrier may use a simulator to re-qualify. Op0421 has six questions and answers that further explain the FRA position on qualifying.

Regarding the answer to question 4, which says occupying a crossing without complying with a stop and protect bulletin is a decert; op0414 defines a main track below. Under this definition, the stop and protect bulletin would be a “mandatory directive”. Occupying the crossing without complying with the directive is a violation.

If you have any questions let me know.

Terry

Op0414:

Definition of Main Track

The Interim Final Rule adds the following definition of Main Track at 240.7: “Main track means a track upon which the operation of trains is  governed by one or more of the following methods of operation: timetable; mandatory directive; signal indication; or any form of absolute or manual block system.” Questions have been raised regarding the term “mandatory directive” and its decertification implications under 240.117 (e) (4).

Policy: This term is used in Part 240 as it has historically been used in Part 220: “authority for the conduct of a railroad operation.” It includes all situations where a segment of main track is occupied without permission or authority in accordance with the railroads’ operating rules. It does not include occupying a segment of track contrary to advisory information, such as that from a yardmaster relative to which track to use in a yard.

-----Original Message-----
From: melvin.smith@dot.gov [mailto:melvin.smith@dot.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 12:23 PM
To: tslbchair@sbcglobal.net
Subject: RE: Simulator for qualifying? xing bulletin

Terry,

I consulted with John Conklin who is our Part 240 Subject Matter Expert in Washington to get the latest rulings that apply to your questions. 

Here are the answers:

1.  Can a railroad use a simulator, in lieu of actual train trips, to initially qualify an engineer over a particular territory?

Answer: No.  The engineer can use the simulator as a tool when qualifying on new territory.  However, the engineer would at some point need to make one or more runs over the territory before he/she in qualified.  49 CFR 240.123(c)(5)(ii) requires that a student be placed at the  controls of an actual locomotive during the on-the-job training phase of a training program.  This provision was added to prevent railroads from training and certifying engineers exclusively on simulators.  Since qualifying over a new territory is OJT, this provision would also apply.

 2.  Can a railroad use a simulator, in lieu of actual train trips, to require an engineer to re-familiarize over a territory the engineer has previously operated on?

Answer: Yes, except for special circumstances such as heavy grade territory.  In this situation, the engineer has previously qualified on the territory and would know the grades and track configurations since these items do not ever change (an exception  would be a major track construction project).  The engineer could use a simulator to refresh his/her memory on methods of operation, siding, detector, CP locations, etc.  Most railroad qualification procedures require the engineer to contact a DSLE who is qualified on the territory to determine if qualification trips are necessary.  In some instances, a phone call may be all that is needed, i.e., experienced engineer states to DSLE that he is comfortable to go, no changes on the division, the engineer has only been off the division a short time, DSLE verbally quizzes the engineer about the territory, etc.

 3.   Does engineer skill monitoring and operational monitoring, which are conducted in a simulator, carry the same consequences for failure as skill and operational monitoring done on board a train?

Answer:  “Yes” for a skills performance test (check ride) and “No” for an operating rule efficiency test (dark signal, banner, etc.).  Final skills tests for student engineers are often conducted on simulators.  If the student fails the test(s), the student cannot be certified as an engineer.  An operating rule efficiency test failure on a simulator, that would normally result in a decertification in the field, is not treated as a decertifiable event.  While simulators provide a subjective means of determining an engineer’s train handling skills, the simulators are not ideal where vision is critical.  Colors and depth perception are difficult to determine.

 4.   Also, does failure to comply with a crossing protection malfunction train order bulletin that states “stop and protect before occupying crossing” constitute a de-certifiable event?

Answer: Yes.  A “stop & protect” order requires a crew to fulfill certain conditions before their train can occupy the track on the crossing, i.e., either flag the crossing or determine that the crossing is flagged by properly equipped flaggers.  If these conditions are not met, the train cannot occupy the crossing.  If it does, the train is occupying a segment of main track without authority or permission, which is a decertifiable event for the engineer who is operating the train.  Another example would be to open up in 251 (ABS) territory and occupy the main track without waiting the required five (5) minutes.  This would also be a decertifiable event because the crew did not fulfill all the required conditions before occupying that segment of main track.

 You can also find information about qualification on FRA’s website.  Go Click on Safety, then Operating Practices, then Engineer Certification, then click on Technical Bulletin 2000-01and print it.

 

Thanks,

Melvin Smith

Posting IBT election notice.

From: Gil Gore [mailto:thegores1@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 3:31 PM To: All Local Chairmen

Subject: FW: Posting IBT election notice.

Brothers,

Please review the attached notice from the IBT Election Supervisor along with distributing this information electronically to our members and posting the same for review on your respective bulletin boards. I am posting it to our website today. Click Here to view a PDF version of the document.

Click Here to download a PDF copy of the debate transcript.

Complete Video of the Hoffa - Leedham debate:

High Bandwidth Video

Low Bandwidth Video

Fraternally, Gil Gore

From: Mike Davis [mailto:davis21118@satx.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 3:15 PM To: Chuck Breeden; David C. Battle;gilgore@bleupsrgca.com; Jackie Gregor; James Ussery; JEROSASBLE@aol.com; joe stice; JRinchuso@aol.com; juan jose gonzalez; Kerry S. Knutsen; Megan Mead; Melvin N. McNeil; R. L. King; Randall C. Hardwick; Scott Piekarski; Tony Brown Subject: Posting IBT election notice.

Division S/Ts,

We are directed by the IBT to post the attached notice on every bulletin board at your division office and on bulletin boards at the work sites of employers of your members which are maintained for the display of union-related materials. This notice provides information to your members about the candidates running in the upcoming election. Please do this A.S.A.P. Your help is appreciated.

Fraternally,

Mike Davis

GCA S/T

210-884-1962

FW: Recent Executed Awards PLB 6833 Cases 66-68-69-70-76-77-78-79-80-81-82-83-84-86-87-88-89-90-91-92-93-94

From: gilgore1@gmail.com [mailto:gilgore1@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:03 AM To: All Local Chairmen BLET UP Southern Region

Cc: UP BLET General Chairmen

Subject: Recent Executed Awards PLB 6833 Cases 66-68-69-70-76-77-78-79-80-81-82-83-84-86-87-88-89-90-91-92-93-94

Brothers,

Attached and below is a list of awards executed last week from Public Law Board 6833 for your reference and information. The individual Claimant’s have a letter coming from our office notifying them of the decisions with a copy of their attached award included for their reference.

While we would certainly like to have won them all, we believe Referee Nash used reasonable logic in his conclusions. We have some powerful language in award 79 regarding prejudicial conduct of a manager prior to the hearing.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Fraternally,

Gil Gore

To View a PDF Summary of the Executed Awards Click Here

To View a PDF copy of the Actual Awards Click Here

Awards Public Law Board 6833
Neutral Jim Nash
PLB Case No	GCA Case	Last Name	Int	Discipline Assessed	Award
66	431	EARTHLY	RD	LEVEL 4	Denied
68	424	JOHNSTON	KE	LEVEL 2	Denied
69	385	LAWLER	KD	1st Offense - Attendance	Denied
70	410	WYATT	JW	2nd Offense - Attendance	Sustained with pay
76	416	LAWLER	KD	2nd Offense - Attendance	Sustained with pay
77	401	HAGEMAN	RD	2nd Offense - Attendance	Denied
78	427	BRYANT	RR	2nd Offense - Attendance	Denied
79	445	ROJAS	E	LEVEL 5	Sustained with pay
80	408	ORTAGUS	WF	LEVEL 4	Discipline too harsh reduced to Level 2 - pay if applicable
81	331	ALVARADO	JR	1st Offense - Attendance	Denied
82	332	HENRY	JS	1st Offense - Attendance	Sustained with pay
83	352	ZRZAVY	JC	1st Offense - Attendance	Sustained with pay
84	366	MEEK	DW	1st Offense - Attendance	Denied
86	440	EVANS	DF	LEVEL 5	Sustained - No lost wages due to injury
87	458	ROBINSON	D	LEVEL 5	Sustained in part without pay
88	460	SEBALD	MM	LEVEL 5	Sustained with pay
89	449	MORROW	J	LEVEL 5	Reduced to Level 2 no pay due to denial of case 90
90	455	MORROW	J	LEVEL 5	Denied
91	450	HOOKS	SR	LEVEL 5	Sustained - No lost wages due to injury
92	451	TELLIS	AV	LEVEL 5	Sustained - No lost wages due to injury
93	447	AGUILAR	B	LEVEL 5	Sustained in part - returned to work for time served
94	454	ALLEN	ME	LEVEL 5	Sustained - No lost wages due to injury