From gilgore1gmailco

From: gilgore1@gmail.com [mailto:gilgore1@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 5:00 AMTo: All Local Chairmen BLET UP Southern RegionSubject: Guarantee Shortage

Brothers,

Attached you will find two awards dealing with employees allegedly engaging in sharp practice of using compensated leave strategically to enhance entitlement to guarantee payments.  In my inquiry to the other BLET Up General Chairmen, Brother Hannah provided some earlier awards from the West addressing this same issue. (SBA 18 Awards 5503 and 3636 dated in 1983 and 1962 respectively).  Neither the UTU or BLET General Chairmen are in agreement with Union Pacific’s position on these awards.  I have been informed that some of our officers are using these decisions in the form of recruiting tools to gain trainmen members.  I am formally requesting that practice to cease immediately.  These issues have been looming on the horizon for sometime with the previous two awards attached dating back to 1962 and 1983.  We are in the boat together on this and fighting and badmouthing each other will only further the Carrier’s agenda.  The January 27, 2006 letter from President’s Hahs and Thompson announced a cooperative effort on the National level to deal with the carriers in this round of bargaining.  This type of effort has been going on for quite some time at the General Committee level between our office, and Brothers Johnson and Bumpurs offices.  We (Johnson, Bumpurs and I) have been united in our efforts to secure a long overdue ebb and flow (home rule) agreement only to have the Carrier balk and cancel our last meeting scheduled for our office in New Orleans this week.  Make no mistake who our real enemy is…. UPRR.   Brother Johnson is currently pursuing an agenda to have these awards negated in another venue that you will be apprised about at a later date.  We are supporting that effort and these awards hit the property via the below response received from Randy Guidry to me on a guarantee shortage case we were dealing with.  This documentation was distributed for informational purposes only and was not intended to be used against anyone in a negative way.  If that is going on, please cease and desist that activity immediately and let’s focus on the real enemy of rail labor.
   
With that said, below is a work history from one of our members who has been shorted guarantee for the first half of April.  Another case has been brought to our attention as well.  We are working to handle both of these cases and will keep you apprised of further developments.  I have communicated with the other 5 BLET GCAs on this issue and received the attached response from two of them regarding similar problems on their property.  It is imperative that we notify the membership that we believe UP’s position here to be erroneous and we will come out with instructions on how they are to deal with this problem as soon as we have completed our investigation into remedies available to address this issue.  For the time being, do not submit any claims into our system on this issue until further notice.  I would also ask that you review Guidry’s response below to keep yourself fully apprised of this issue.

I will put out further information next week after consultation with the National Division.

Gil

Insert Image

-----Original Message-----
From: RP GUIDRY  
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 2:35 PM
To: Gil Gore
Subject: Re: MT Rogers Guarantee Shortage

      This refers to our discussion this date concerning Mr. M. T Rogers
and my commitment to review facts and circumstances.

      Attached  below  are  Awards 1 and 2 from Special Board of Adjustment
created  by  Agreement  dated  August 10, 2005.  These two recent decisions
underscored   several   employment  relationship  fundamentals.  First  and
foremost, the stable income provided an employee assigned to any Guaranteed
Board (or circumstance) is only one-half of the equation. The other half of
the  equation  -  the  quid  pro  quo for the guarantee - is the employee’s
contractual  obligation  to  provide reliable, full time service and remain
available  for  call.  All  guarantees,  specifically  and  implicitly, are
designed   to  assure  employees  will  perform  service  as  intended  and
contemplate  that  employees  will  protect their assignment on a full time
basis. Moreover, all Agreements that are signed by the parties hold to this
expectation. Neutral Binau affirmed that perspective in relevant part:

      “…  The  Board  finds that the overall intent of the agreements is to
      pay  employees  assigned  to Guaranteed Extra Boards and Supplemental
      Extra  Boards fixed amounts of pay subject to availability. The Board
      also agrees that the quid pro quo for the guarantee is the obligation
      of  Extra  Board  and  Supplemental  Extra  Board employees to remain
      available  for  call.  The principle is supported by Decision 5503 of
      Special  Board  No.  18  which  held:  ‘The  quid pro quo of trainmen
      availability for a guaranteed income is implicit in the rule’.”

      Awards  1 and 2, as well as the several other on property precedents,
have  likewise held that Agreements providing for guaranteed income are not
intended to be manipulated to provide a monetary windfall and it is “proper
for the Carrier to deny guarantee payments” when an employee attempts to do
so. Moreover, the purpose of single day vacation and personal leave days, “
was  to  allow  an  employee  to  take  care of personal business or family
obligations  that  are difficult to achieve when protecting a pool or extra
board.”  Single  day  vacations, personal leave days and/or non-compensated
layoffs  are  not to be used or chained together to avoid work obligations.
Such  conduct  violates  the  basic  underpinnings of the employer-employee
relationship  and  inauspiciously  affects co-workers. Employees, including
those  assigned  to  guaranteed  boards,  are  reviewed  when  they fail to
demonstrate consistent patterns of work following and/or between reasonable
absences (compensated or non-compensated).

      In  Mr. Rogers case, his absences were highlighted by chaining single
day  vacation  days to avoid working eight days from March 30 through April
6,  2006,  chaining  compensated  days  and  non-compensated  days to avoid
working  eight  days  April  12  through  April 19, 2006 and again April 28
through April 30, 2006.

      With  respect  to  Mr.  Rogers'  laying  off  for  union  business on
Saturday, April 29 and Sunday April 30, Union Pacific and several respected
labor  arbitrators  apply  the  twin  concepts  of reasonableness and undue
burden  as  limitations  upon  requests  for  leaves  of  absence for Union
activities.  What  these  two  concepts  mean, when construed together with
regularity  of  attendance,  is  that  if  the  union  activity in question
reasonably  can be done on off-duty time without encroaching on work hours,
it  should  be done then. In such case the need of the Company for services
exceeds  the need to be absent from work, which is what undue burden means.
Given  the  amount  of guarantee in question and time off during the month,
there  was  a  considerable  time available to have scheduled and completed
union  activities  without  encroaching  on work hours. Replacing an absent
extra board employee ordinarily places an undue burden and added expense. A
concept  of  reasonableness  requires  accommodation  by  both  sides.  Any
perceived  entitlement  to  extra  board  guarantee  for  service under the
auspices  of  union  activities and chaining together layoffs is simply not
reasonable by any measure nor is it supported by the agreement.

Gil Gore Wrote

Randy,

Here is the info we discussed on the phone regarding MT Rogers Guarantee
Shortage

Please get back to me.
Gil

 (See attached file: Rogers MT PSW.pdf)(See attached file: Rogers MT
PSG.pdf)