REVISED - REVISED - Steve Carmichael Marking Up Prior Rights Zone 4 of Houston

Brothers,

The below message improperly identified Steve Carmichael’s placement on the 127101 Zone 4 prior rights roster. Per his standing on the 06111 Merged UP – Katy Ft. Worth South Roster he would immediately slot ahead of DR Pruitt on the 127101 roster. His standing identified on all other zone roster in Houston remains unchanged.

Thanks to Brother Underwood for expeditiously catching this snafu.

Fraternally,

Gil Gore

Steve Carmichael, former manager for UP is returning to his engineer’s seniority. As a former Ft. Worth South Engineer he has elected to exercise his prior rights to Zone 4 of the Houston Hub and is entitled to the same per the excerpt from the Houston Hub Standby Agreement below (Article II B, Paragraphs 4 and 8).

These agreements are available in their entirety on our website at http://www.bleupsrgca.com/ under the agreements tab. He will have common seniority in the Houston Hub on the other zones 1, 2, 3 and 5 per Article II Paragraph D of the Houston Hub Standby Agreement quoted below.

Per the below information, he will be slotted ahead of DR Pruitt on the Zone 4 prior rights roster.

He has a 11/21/1980 promotion date which would put him following Jerry Rose and ahead of GR Fourroux on the 128101 Houston Dovetail. He would fall between Rose and Fourroux on all rosters for zones 2, 3 and 5 on those respective prior rights rosters. Fourroux is a zone 1 prior rights engineer so he would follow JL Rose on that roster (124101 Zone 1 prior rights roster).

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

Gil

Houston Hub Standby Agreement Article II B Paragraphs 4 and 8

B. Prior rights seniority rosters will be formed covering each of the five (5) zones • outlined above. Placement on these rosters and awarding of prior rights to their respective zones shall be based on the following:

1. Zone 1 - this roster will consist of former SP engineers with prior rights on the Morgan, Louisiana and Texas District (Roster #31) and former

UP engineers on the Avondale (Roster #16101), DeQuincy (Roster #05101) and TPMP (Roster#17101).

2. Zone 2 this rosterwill consist of former SP engineers with prior rights on the Houston-Lafayette District, T&NO (Roster #01) and former UP engineers on the DeQuincy (Roster #05101 ), Lake Charles/Louisiana Division (Roster #35101) and Baytown (Roster #04101).

3. Zone 3 this roster will consist of former SP engineers with prior rights on the Houston-Shreveport, HE&WT-H&S (Roster #03) and former UP engineers, Houston-Longview, on the Merged 10 Palestine (Roster #14111).

4. Zone 4 this roster will consist of former SP engineers with prior rights on the Houston-Heame District - H&TC (Roster #01), Houston-Lafayette District, T&NO (Roster #01), the Houston to Victoria/Del Rio District, GH&SA (Roster #26), and former UP engineers on the Merged 8 Ft. Worth South (Roster #06111), Kingsville (Roster #03101), and Merged 10 Palestine (Roster #14111).

5. Zone 5 - this roster will consist of those engineers in the final Houston Hub who hold dual (road/yard) or yard prior rights seniority.

8. Union Pacific engineers currently on an inactive roster pursuant to previous merger agreements and other UP or SP engineers who are on long term leave of absence shall not participate in the roster formulation process described above; however, in the event they return to active service, they will take the appropriate equity slot, to which they would have been entitled at time of formulation of said roster and stand immediately ahead of the engineer assigned that slot. The Carrier and Organization shall jointly agree on all names of employees which are excluded from the roster formulation process and placed on an inactive roster.

Houston Hub Standby Agreement Article II D

D. Engineers on each of the prior rights rosters described above will be afforded common seniority on the other zones outside their prior rights zone(s). Afl such common seniority shall be based upon the current date of seniority as a locomotive engineer. If this process results in employees having identical common seniority dates, seniority will be determined by the employee’s fireman’s date and if there are still identical dates, seniority will be determined by the employee’s earliest continuous hire date with their Gamer.

Roster 127101

29 E L GLOVER 07/07/1974 03101 HOU4 001

30 J L ROSE 02/24/1989 06111AHOU4 000

31 J D PITMAN 07/11/1974 150101HOU4 000

32 C A FIELDS 08/16/1974 03101 HOU4 001

33 D L WHITTREDGE 09/14/1973 130101HOU4 000

34 J K BESCH 07/11/1974 150101HOU4 000

35 J C BOLTON 02/06/1975 03101 HOU4 001

36 T R WARD JR 02/24/1989 14111AHOU4 000

37 E D CALLAWAY 02/06/1975 03101 HOU4 001

(Carmichael goes ahead of Miller)

38 G G MILLER 02/24/1989 06111AHOU4 000 Ft Worth So Slot

39 J G CANON 10/25/1974 150101HOU4 001

40 T G HENDERSON J 02/06/1975 03101 HOU4 001

41 L D CARNES 06/13/1974 130101HOU4 000

42 W E FIELDER 02/06/1975 03101 HOU4 001

43 C H BLUDAU 07/19/1978 150101HOU4 001

44 T ODEN 02/24/1989 14111AHOU4 000

45 R D JOHNSON 11/29/1975 03101 HOU4 001

46 D C BARR 02/15/1979 150101HOU4 001

47 D R PRUETT 02/24/1989 06111AHOU4 000 Ft Worth So Slot

This was roster 013111 Ft Worth South Slotted (from Katy Merger)

32+MA NUNNALLEE 02/24/89-119

33+JA RODRIGUEZ 02/24/89-123

34+JL ROSE 02/24/89-133

35+JP POWELL 02/24/89-135

36 GG MILLER 02/24/89-137

37+RD FORTENBERRY 02/24/89-139

38+CB BARNES 02/24/89-140

39+C MORGAN 02/24/89-150

40+DR #PRUETT 02/24/89-155

41+BW MARTIN 02/24/89-160

42+TM KELLEY 02/24/89-161

This was roster 013101 Ft Worth South (pre Katy) which shows Carmichael's

position relative to Rose. G. G. Miller on the slotted Katy 013111 was

from the Katy.

16+DA HARVEY 10/19/79-008

17+JS #STEPHENS *B 10/19/79-009

18+PG WILSON 01/04/80-001

19+JH MCDONALD 11/21/80-004

20+CR SEGURA 11/21/80-006

21+RH WICKSTROM 11/21/80-007

22+JA RODRIGUEZ 11/21/80-009

23+JL ROSE 11/21/80-010

24+JP POWELL 11/21/80-013

25+RD FORTENBERRY 11/21/80-014

26+SW #CARMICHAEL *B 11/21/80-015

27+C MORGAN 11/21/80-017

28+BW MARTIN 11/21/80-018

29+TM KELLEY 11/21/80-019

30+C CEDILLO 04/21/81-001

31+AD ROBERTS 04/21/81-003

32+JD MCDONALD 06/16/81-001

FW: DOT DMS Docket No. FRA-2006-24646

From: Pontolillo, Tom [mailto:pontolillo@ble-t.org]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 9:11 AM
To: Hahs, Don M.; McPherson, Dale; Lee Pruitt; Young, Michael A.; MacArthur, Bruce; Hannah, D; Donnigan, Tim; Rightnowar, Charles; Gore, Gil; Briggs, Terry D.; Carter, T. Joseph; Dimond, Tony; Hysell, Mike; Jones, Terry R.; Keele, James; Kelley, Brian P.; Kurtz, Jeff; Meek, Randy D.; Palmer, Scott G.; Perkovich, Thomas J.; Renfro, I. Perry; Ricci, Mark K.; Smith, Timothy L.; Svob, Robert S.; Todd, Arlin; Todd, Terry L.; Way, C. Edward; Weston, Michael; Worthington, Jeff
Cc: Cothen, Grady C.; Brunkenhoefer, James M.; Stem, James
Subject: DOT DMS Docket No. FRA-2006-24646

Brothers,

Per Brother Tolman, attached for your information and files is a copy of comments in opposition filed today in connection with the above-referenced docket (Click Here to view PDF Document), which pertains to Union Pacific’s petition to amend 49 CFR § 236.586(a) to provide that daily or after trip tests of automatic cab signal or train stop or train control systems would not be required so long as the system was inspected and tested once every 92 days.  The current rule waives daily or after trip tests only when the inspection and test cycle is less than 60 days.

Please note the new direct fax number listed below.  Anything faxed to that number will immediately be converted to a TIFF file and e-mailed to me.  If you use Outlook, the attached vCard can be used to bring your information up to date.

Fraternally,

Thomas A. Pontolillo

Director of Regulatory Affairs

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen

1370 Ontario Street, Standard Building Mezzanine

Cleveland, Ohio  44113-1702

Cle direct dial:  (216) 377-3503

DC direct dial:  (202) 624-8748

Direct fax:  (216) 694-0255

E-mail:  pontolillo@ble-t.org

 

BLET Urges Congress to Eliminate Limbo Time Abuses

From: Terry Briggs [mailto:tslbchair@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:08 PM To: 'Mike Davis' Cc: Gil Gore; Tolman@BLE.org Subject: RE: BLET Urges Congress to Eliminate Limbo Time Abuses

Brother Mike,

The hearing Brother Tolman testified at was a hearing on human factor causes of railroad accidents. Limbo time abuse was only one part of the testimony given by John Tolman and rail labor. John was joined by BRS President Dan Pickett, who spoke on technology, and UTU Alternate National Legislative Director, James Stem, who spoke on training issues.

Regarding staying alert during limbo time; Brother Tolman is referring to the practice of requiring a hogged-out crew to baby sit a train instead of securing the train before the expiration of the HOS. It is a common practice for a dispatcher to instruct a crew to not tie down a train because a relief crew is on the way. The only reason the crew is left on the train is to respond if something happens to cause the train to move. (See the attached FRA “attending a train” interpretation) A crew is also expected to direct the crew van to the train’s location. The railroads’ abuse limbo time because it saves time when the relieving crew does not have to knock hand brakes off the train, and the dispatcher can move the train closer to its destination during the time the crew would otherwise use to secure the train. In most instances the hogged-out crew does not even get paid extra for time spent after the expiration of the HOS.

Also, in the past five years on the UP railroad the number of crews exceeding 14-15 hours before tying up has steadily increased. This trend signals an increase in fatigue industry-wide because working long, irregular hours causes the build up of a sleep deficit which cannot be “paid back” in a single sleep event. The railroads’ abuse of limbo time contributes to this trend and must be addressed, possibly with legislation.

However, having said all this, I agree that knowing when you are going to be called to work is the single most important part of the whole fatigue issue. There is no reason why the railroads cannot provide a proper line-up, other than they are not willing to commit the resources to do so, and that reason is inexcusable.

In spite of testimony showing that =TL is a farce, the NTSB missed a golden opportunity to slap the UP on this issue in their report on the Macdona wreck. The board acknowledged the unpredictability of work, but rather than focus on the reason work is so unpredictable, (which resulted in the fatigued crew) they instead admonished the engineer and conductor for not taking advantage of a rest opportunity.

Getting a good train line-up is a top issue for the union, and John did discuss the issue at the hearing. He mentioned the final report produced by the collision analysis working group (CAWG) which concluded that management plays a major role in fatigue management, in particular, minimizing or eliminating unexpected and unplanned calls for duty. The release of CAWG’s Final Report has been delayed for nearly a year because the industry withdrew from the project after drafting was completed, largely because of CAWG’s conclusions concerning fatigue.

In summary, these are a couple of examples of the problem we face as a union in trying to get better train line ups. Also, although the article’s topic was abuse of limbo time, John’s testimony included other issues.

I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, let me know.

Fraternally,

Terry Briggs, State Legislative Chairman

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen - IBT

7083 Baker Blvd.

Richland Hills, TX 76118

817-285-7668

chairman@tslb.org

Part 40 Questions and Answers - Drug & Alcohol

From: Gil Gore [mailto:thegores1@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 4:05 PM To: All BLET Local Chairmen UP Southern Region Subject: FW: Part 40 Questions and Answers - Drug & Alcohol

Brothers,

Attached are Q&As issued by the Office of General Counsel of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance of the Department of Transportation in July 2006. As noted by Brother Simmerman, these Q&As constitute authoritative guidance and interpretation concerning 49CFR Part 40 - PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAMS. (Click Here to download a PDF Copy)

Please distribute this information to our membership for their information requesting that they pay particular attention to 40.141 below dealing with medications prescribed via an internet physician and the requirement for a direct doctor patient examination and relationship as well as connection of prescribed medication to a current medical problem. There are 4 criteria that must be met to reach the threshold of having a legitimate doctor – patient relationship.

1. – The patient has a medical complaint
2. – A medical history has been taken
3. – A physical examination has been performed
4. – Some logical connection exists between the complaint, the medical history, the physical examination, and the drug prescribed.

Taking medications prescribed by an “internet” doctor who has not physically examined you for your medical complaint per this interpretation would be illegal under the regulation.

All employees who have been prescribed medication via their personal physician to treat their medical issues will not have any problems. If you are taking medication prescribed via an internet physician, I suggest immediately contacting your local physician for prescriptions to cover the meds you are taking.

Please note that this is an interpretation from DOT General Counsel of the Code of Federal Regulations and not something that falls under the purview of collective bargaining.

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

Fraternally,

Gil Gore

---

From: Simmerman, Dennis [mailto:simmerman@ble-t.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:20 PM To: _NDOfficers; _General Chairmen US GCA; _Legislative Chairmen US GCA; _SpecialReps; _ExecStaff Subject: Part 40 Questions and Answers - Drug & Alcohol

Brothers:

President Hahs asked that I share the attached Questions and Answers issued by the Office of General Counsel and Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy andCompliance of the Department of Transportation in July 2006.

These constitute official and authoritative guidance and interpretation concerning 49 CFR Part 40.

Fraternally,

Dennis Simmerman

Director of Research

Macdona Safety Recommendation Union Pacific R-06-16

************************************************************
                   NTSB SAFETY RECOMMENDATION
************************************************************

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

July 20, 2006

************************************************************

Safety Recommendation R-06-16

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board makes the following
safety recommendation to the Union Pacific Railroad:

Use the Macdona collision as a case study in fatigue
awareness training to illustrate the shared responsibilities
of the carrier to provide an employee the opportunity for
adequate sleep and of the employee to acquire sleep
sufficient to work at a safe level of alertness, and the
options available if adequate sleep is not obtained. (R-06-
16)

The Safety Board also issued safety recommendations to the
Federal Railroad Administration, the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and the United
Transportation Union. The Board also reiterated previously
issued safety recommendations to the Federal Railroad
Administration. In addition, the Board reclassified safety
recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administration.

 

************************************************************

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/R06_16.pdf

************************************************************

The complete recommendation letter is available on the Web
at the URL indicated above.

The letter is in the Portable Document Format (PDF) and can
be read using the Acrobat Reader 3.0 or later from Adobe
(http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html).
       
An archive of recommendation letters is available at
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/letters.htm.
Please note that the electronic version of this letter may
not include enclosures; however, related publications,
accident briefs, and aviation accident synopses are also
available on the web site.

************************************************************

This message is delivered to you as a free service from the
National Transportation Safety Board.

You may unsubscribe at any time at
http://www.ntsb.gov/registration/registration.htm  

An archive of press releases is available at
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/pressrel.htm

Current job opportunities with the NTSB are listed at
http://www.ntsb.gov/vacancies/listing.htm

For questions/problems, contact pubinq@ntsb.gov

 

Macdona NTSB Safety Recommendation BLET and UTU R-06-17

************************************************************
                   NTSB SAFETY RECOMMENDATION
************************************************************

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

July 20, 2006

************************************************************

Safety Recommendation R-06-17

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board makes the following
safety recommendation to the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and Trainmen and the United Transportation Union:

Use this accident as a fatigue case study to illustrate the
responsibility of the carrier to provide an employee the
opportunity for adequate sleep and the responsibility of the
employee to acquire sleep sufficient to work at a safe level
of alertness, and the options available if adequate sleep is
not obtained. Present this case study to your members at
meetings, through written materials, and other appropriate
methods. (R-06-17)

The Safety Board also issued safety recommendations to the
Federal Railroad Administration and the Union Pacific
Railroad. The Board also reiterated previously issued safety
recommendations to the Federal Railroad Administration. In
addition, the Board reclassified safety recommendations to
the Federal Railroad Administration.

 

************************************************************

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/R06_17.pdf

************************************************************

The complete recommendation letter is available on the Web
at the URL indicated above.

The letter is in the Portable Document Format (PDF) and can
be read using the Acrobat Reader 3.0 or later from Adobe
(http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html).
       
An archive of recommendation letters is available at
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/letters.htm.
Please note that the electronic version of this letter may
not include enclosures; however, related publications,
accident briefs, and aviation accident synopses are also
available on the web site.

************************************************************

This message is delivered to you as a free service from the
National Transportation Safety Board.

You may unsubscribe at any time at
http://www.ntsb.gov/registration/registration.htm  

An archive of press releases is available at
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/pressrel.htm

Current job opportunities with the NTSB are listed at
http://www.ntsb.gov/vacancies/listing.htm

For questions/problems, contact pubinq@ntsb.gov

 

Macdona NTSB Safety Recommendation FRA R-06-14 and -15 (Revised)

************************************************************
                   NTSB SAFETY RECOMMENDATION
************************************************************

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

July 20, 2006

************************************************************

Safety Recommendation R06-14 and -15

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board makes the following
safety recommendations to the Federal Railroad
Administration:

Require railroads to use scientifically based principles
when assigning work schedules for train crewmembers, which
consider factors that impact sleep needs, to reduce the
effects of fatigue. (R-06-14)

Establish requirements that limit train crewmember limbo
time to address fatigue. (R-06-15)

Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board
reiterates the following safety recommendations to the
Federal Railroad Administration:

R-04-4
Conduct a comprehensive analysis to determine the impact
resistance of the steels in the shells of pressure tank cars
constructed before 1989. At a minimum, the safety analysis
should include the results of dynamic fracture toughness
tests and/or the results of nondestructive testing
techniques that provide information on material ductility
and fracture toughness. The data should come from samples of
steel from the tank shells from original manufacturing or
from a statistically representative sampling of the shells
of the pre-1989 pressure tank car fleet.

R-04-5
Based on the results of the Federal Railroad
Administration's comprehensive analysis to determine the
impact resistance of the steels in the shells of pressure
tank cars constructed before 1989, as addressed in Safety
Recommendation R-04-4, establish a program to rank those
cars according to their risk of catastrophic fracture and
separation and implement measures to eliminate or mitigate
this risk. This ranking should take into consideration
operating temperatures, pressures, and maximum train speeds.

R-04-6
Validate the predictive model the Federal Railroad
Administration is developing to quantify the maximum dynamic
forces acting on railroad tank cars under accident
conditions.

 

R-04-7
Develop and implement tank car design-specific fracture
toughness standards, such as a minimum average Charpy value,
for steels and other materials of construction for pressure
tank cars used for the transportation of U.S. Department of
Transportation class 2 hazardous materials, including those
in "low-temperature" service. The performance criteria must
apply to the material orientation with the minimum impact
resistance and take into account the entire range of
operating temperatures of the tank car.

R-05-16
Require railroads to implement operating measures, such as
positioning tank cars toward the rear of trains and reducing
speeds through populated areas, to minimize impact forces
from accidents and reduce the vulnerability of tank cars
transporting chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, and other
liquefied gases designated as poisonous by inhalation.

R-05-17
Determine the most effective methods of providing emergency
escape breathing apparatus for all crewmembers on freight
trains carrying hazardous materials that would pose an
inhalation hazard in the event of unintentional release, and
then require railroads to provide these breathing apparatus
to their crewmembers along with appropriate training.

In addition, Safety Recommendations R-04-4 and -7,
previously classified "Open-Unacceptable Response," were
reclassified "Open-Acceptable Response." Safety
Recommendation R-05-16, previously classified "Open-Await
Response," was reclassified "Open-Response Received;" and
Safety Recommendation R-05-17, previously classified "Open-
Await Response," was reclassified "Open-Acceptable
Response."

The Safety Board also issued safety recommendations to the
Union Pacific Railroad, the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers and Trainmen, and the United Transportation Union.
In your response to the recommendations in this letter,
please refer to Safety Recommendations R-06-14 and -15, R-
04-4 through -7, and R-05-16 and -17. If you need additional
information, you may call (202) 314-6177.

************************************************************

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/R06_14_15.pdf

************************************************************

The complete recommendation letter is available on the Web
at the URL indicated above.

The letter is in the Portable Document Format (PDF) and can
be read using the Acrobat Reader 3.0 or later from Adobe
(http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html).
       
An archive of recommendation letters is available at
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/letters.htm.
Please note that the electronic version of this letter may
not include enclosures; however, related publications,
accident briefs, and aviation accident synopses are also
available on the web site.

************************************************************

This message is delivered to you as a free service from the
National Transportation Safety Board.

You may unsubscribe at any time at
http://www.ntsb.gov/registration/registration.htm  

An archive of press releases is available at
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/pressrel.htm

Current job opportunities with the NTSB are listed at
http://www.ntsb.gov/vacancies/listing.htm

For questions/problems, contact pubinq@ntsb.gov

 

FW: Guarantee reroutes pools.

-----Original Message----- From: Gil Gore [mailto:gilgore@bletsr.org] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:00 PM To: All DFW - Longview Local Chairmen Subject: FW: Guarantee reroutes pools.

Brothers,

Below is a message sent by Harry to timekeeping setting up the guarantee for the below listed pools associated with the reroute of trains allegedly beginning July 16th 2006. The Guarantee will go into effect on July 16, 2006 for the listed pools. These will remain in effect until the reroutes are over which is projected to be about 6 weeks. In exchange for this guarantee we have agreed to add turns to the following pools to accommodate the traffic at UP's request.

TS316 RE84 - 2 turns TP250 RE55 - 4 turns TP215 RE85 - 6 turns TP215 RE81 - 6 turns

Those turns have been advanced bulletined and placed at the bottom of the respective boards in inactive status so that we can have them assigned when the work arrives. They have also filled all the requests for the respective extra boards to accommodate this service.

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

-----Original Message----- From: HASTRAUB@up.com [mailto:HASTRAUB@up.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:12 PM To: PGKENNY@up.com; DKSTEPHE@up.com; SFBOONE@up.com Cc: MBRAZYTIS@UP.COM; JRKEY@up.com; lfritz@up.com; JDJONES@up.com; MMWHATLE@up.com; GDWORKMA@up.com; RMSCOGGI@up.com; JJMAGEE@up.com; gilgore@bletsr.org Subject: Guarantee reroutes pools.

Due to the large amount of reroutes resulting from the Del Rio sub curfew I would like the following Ft. Worth hub pools guraranteed at the following rates for the duration of the curfew starting 07/16/06 for approx 6 weeks. I have talked to both General Chairmen and all Local Chairmen regarding the guarantees listed below. Any questions please call me 591-3700.

Shreveport to Longview TS316 RE84 & RT83 Extra board guarantee rate plus bonus day

Dallas to Hearne TP215 RE85 & RT85 Extra board guarantee rate plus bonus day

Dallas to Sweetwater TP215 RE81 & RT81 10 starts per half including short crew pay

Ft. Worth to Sweetwater TP250 RE55 & RT55 Extra board guarantee rate plus bonus day

Sweetwater to Pecos TP448 RE50 & RT50 Extra board guarantee rate plus bonus day

From:>From: gilgore1@gmail.com [mailto:gilgore1@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 5:00 AMTo: All BLET UP Southern Region GCA Subject: 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 -----Original Message----- From: Gil Gore [mailto:thegores1@cox.net] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 9:08 AM To: 'Mark Rogers' Subject: FW: MT Rogers Guarantee Shortage -----Original Message----- From: RPGUIDRY@up.com [mailto:RPGUIDRY@up.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 2:35 PM To: Gil Gore Cc: ROROSCO@up.com; FRANKATAMISIEA@UP.COM; SFBOONE@up.com; VLWARREN@UP.COM 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 decisons 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. Case 1, Award 1 Case 2, Award 2 (See attached file: Priv Arb 040 A001.pdf) (See attached file: Priv Arb 040 A002.pdf) "Gil Gore" Subject: MT Rogers Guarantee Shortage 05/02/2006 01:14 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)

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)

Labor College plans radioactive waste handling course

From: Gil Gore [mailto:thegores1@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 8:30 AM
To: All Local Chairmen
Subject: Hazmat Training

Labor College plans radioactive waste handling course
CLEVELAND, May 5 — The National Labor College (NLC) is offering a special radioactive materials training course to railroad workers at the George Meany Center during the week of July 10. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the number of rail shipments involving radioactive materials is expected to increase in coming years. Beginning as early as 2007, the DOE is expected to begin a 38-year project to transport spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste from DOE sites to storage and disposal facilities. With the increase in rail shipments comes the increased risk for rail incidents involving radioactive material. This year, the Rail Workers Hazmat Training Program was awarded funding to provide training to rail workers to increase their knowledge of the transportation of radioactive materials. To meet this training need, during the week of July 10, 2006, the Rail Program will conduct a 3-1/2 day hazmat awareness and security training course combined with a radiological transportation train the trainer course. The 10-hour hazmat awareness and security training course will be followed by a two-day DOE-sponsored Modular Emergency Response Radiological Transportation Training (MERRTT) train the trainer course. All training will be conducted on the George Meany Campus of the National Labor College in Silver Spring, Md.The program will begin on Monday, July 10, at 7 p.m., and end by 3 p.m. on Thursday, July 13. Funding for this course will cover overnight room accommodations and three meals a day at NLC. Limited scholarships are available to cover travel expenses and provide stipends for participants unable to secure paid time off from the railroad, or other sources. Call Carol Rodgers at the Hazmat office (301-439-2440) for more information on scholarships.Since space for this course is limited, completed registration forms should be faxed, mailed or e-mailed to the Hazmat office (see below) as soon as possible. Interested rail workers may also call the Hazmat office to register by phone, or register online:http://www.hazmatgmc.org.Rail Workers Hazardous Materials Training Program10000 New Hampshire AvenueSilver Spring, Maryland 20903(301) 439-2440(301) 628-0165 -faxcrodgers@nationallaborcollege.orgThis training is funded in whole or in part with Federal Funds from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and supplemental funding to support peer training from the North American Railway Foundation (NARF).A copy of the registration form is available as PDF from the BLET website at: http://www.ble-t.org/pr/pdf/DOEtrainingapp.pdf
Friday, May 05, 2006bentley@ble.org
http://www.ble.org/pr/news/newsflash.asp?id=4294
© 2006 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmenhttp://www.ble.org

FMLA Lawsuit

From: Gil Gore [mailto:thegores1@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:23 PM To: All Local Chairmen BLET UP Southern Region GCA Subject: FW: FMLA Lawsuit Brothers, I have sent the attached communication to John Marchant via overnight delivery (Click here to view in PDF) regarding the FMLA lawsuit filed by BLET and various other unions. Please advise everyone who is having compensated days deducted from them to claim time as outlined below for each compensated day that they lose. I will advise you regarding the response received. Fraternally, Gil Gore From: Gil Gore [mailto:gilgore@bletsr.org] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:28 PM To: All Local Chairmen BLET Southern Region Subject: FMLA Lawsuit Brothers, I have been verbally advised by Union Pacific that their attorneys are considering appealing the FMLA decision rendered by the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. (Case No. 03 C 9419 and consolidated Case No 04 C 163). We have also been advised that UP intends to continue enforcement of their policy until that appeals process is complete. I am circulating a letter now internally that will go to Marchant on this issue the first part of next week. The same will be provided to you when it has been determined that my language will cause no problems with handling of our court case. In the meantime, I suggest that all members who are forced to take compensated leave when laid off Family Medical Leave, should submit a claim for each day compensation is forced on them using the following language: This claim for a basic day is being processed without prejudice to the organization’s position that the carrier’s revised FMLA policy is unenforceable because it was implemented unilaterally in violation of the carrier’s status quo and bargaining obligations under the Railway Labor Act and in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The organization is litigating that issue in federal court. The carrier has refused to suspend the requirements of the contract claims process until that dispute is resolved. Therefore, the organization is processing this claim at this time to ensure that the contractual requirements are satisfied in the event the court holds that the dispute must be resolved via the Section 3 processes of the Rail Way Labor Act. I will work on a claim code over the weekend and get the same out to you for handling the claims via our online claims process. I will also keep you apprised of further development in this case. Fraternally, Gil Gore