Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Trip Rate Meeting San Antonio - 07-27-06 - Data Analysis

From: Gil Gore [mailto:thegores1@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 10:39 AM To: All BLET Local Chairmen UP Southern Region Subject: FW: Trip Rate Meeting San Antonio - 07-27-06 - Data Analysis

Brothers,

Attached is the data presented by the Carrier during our trip rate meeting in San Antonio (Click HERE to view PDF). This data covers the Houston to Livonia (B372 RE47 Pool). The fact that three crews were identified as having been paid combined miles for their deadhead after the service portion of their trip, works against our position in this dispute. Those earnings were included as a single trip in the trip rate data. If there is a record of consistently handling the pools in that fashion, we will have a steep hill to climb. Below is my response to that information and meeting. Absent resolution within the next couple of weeks, we are going to forward this issue to the disputes committee for resolution as provided in Article V, Part B, Section 6 of the BLET 2003 National Agreement as quoted below:

Section 6 - National Disputes Committee A National Disputes Committee (“Disputes Committee”) is established for the purpose of resolving any disputes that may arise under this Article. Such Committee shall consist of the President of the BLE and the Chairman of the NCCC, and a neutral Chairman selected by the parties or, absent agreement, appointed by the National Mediation Board. Each partisan member may select others to serve on the Committee at his discretion. If the partisan members of the Committee are unable to agree on resolution of any dispute within ten (10) days after convening, the matter will be referred to the neutral Chairman for resolution. The neutral Chairman will resolve the dispute within ten (10) days after referral of the matter. Each party shall bear its own costs and shall equally share the fees and expenses of the neutral. Any resolution by the Committee or by the neutral shall be final and binding and shall be enforceable and reviewable under Section 3 of the Railway Labor Act. Discussions are ongoing and I will keep you posted regarding referring this to the disputes Committee for resolution.

In the meantime, it is imperative that we keep a record of crews that performed work and terminal to terminal deadheads during this dispute period. If you would download a KBM for your respective pools with the N (Name) function, it will list all employees both regular and extra that worked your pools during this dispute and will be helpful in identifying any shortages for these trips. It is essential that every member keep all of his payroll records and tie up sheets so that we can guarantee proper payments if this issue is resolved in our favor. Additionally, if there are any members who have their payroll data during the test period (July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003) where they were deadheaded terminal to terminal separate and apart from service in connection with a work event, please have them forward that information to our office immediately. I have attached a shortage sheet that you can distribute to our members so that they can keep track of the trips where they have performed service associated with a terminal to terminal deadhead and not been paid two trip rates (Click HERE to get a PDF). Fraternally, Gil Gore From: Gil Gore [mailto:thegores1@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 10:00 AM To: 'TGTAGGAR@up.com' Cc: 'epruitt@eatel.net'; Mike Futhey (mbfuthey@bellsouth.net); 'tjutu27@hotmail.com'; 'go577@prodigy.net'; 'Russell R. Elley'; 'GL Perrien'; 'Dave Phillips'; 'frankatamisiea@up.com'; 'alweed@up.com' Subject: Trip Rate Meeting San Antonio - 07-27-06 - Data Analysis

Gary,

After meeting with you in San Antonio on Thursday, August 27, 2006 I have reviewed the data that you have presented. While I know that I have formally raised my objection to this dispute verbally, please note that this Committee takes great exception to Union Pacific’s position on the terminal to terminal deadhead application. I would like to review the data you presented. For the sake of reference, I have numbered the 6 trips you have identified and the pages of the supporting documentation (Exhibit A). I would like to review each trip you have provided.

Trip #

Date

Name – Miles

Explanation

Comments

#1

06-22-03

LR Jeanlouis – 399 miles – pages 6 – 9

Called out of Livonia TB114 and transported to B544 Kinder to get train QBLLI – 20 and work back to Livonia then deadhead to B372 Houston

Crew was paid miles transported for service and 243 mile deadhead. WORK HISTORY DOES NOT SHOW COMBINED DEADHEAD

#2

01-18-03

WW Biddle – 389 miles – pages 2 – 5

Called out of Livonia TB114 and transported to B570 to get train QBTLI – 18 and worked same back to Livonia – Then transported from TB114 to B610 to get second train QBTLI – 17 worked back into TB114 (Livonia) then deadheaded from TB114 to Houston combined with service

Crew was paid combined service deadhead 243 miles back to Houston. Work history shows combined with service

#3

07-26-03

GA Lewis – 385 miles – pages 10 – 11

No FRA report provided – Comments indicate went on duty at Livonia took train to B544 Kinder (77 miles) – took train B544 to Alexandria C625 (60 miles) transported C625 to Houston B372 (248 miles)

Crew was paid miles transported and worked. WORK HISTORY DOES NOT SHOW COMBINED DEADHEAD.

#4

10-18-02

AE Neimeyer – 377 miles – pages 12 – 15

Called out of Houston B372 – transported to Hardy Street LS368 (10 miles) LS368 to B382 Settegast Jct – (10 miles) Work Train ALDLI – 17 to Livonia – transport Lafayette (296 miles) – no rooms in Lafayette – transported to Baton Rouge (50 miles) – no rooms Baton Rouge – transported to Port Allen (11 miles). Total 377 miles

Trip does not involve terminal to terminal deadhead. Crew used HoustonLivoniaLafayetteBaton Rouge – Port Allen in straight away service

#5

03-24-03

DL Monroe – 375 miles – pages 16 – 19

Worked train IGSAT5 – 24 from B372 Houston to TB114 Livonia – transported for reposition to Alexandria under Side Letter 1 Houston Hub Agreement.

Trip does not involve terminal to terminal deadhead Crew used in straight away service HoustonLivonia and repositioned to Alexandria per Side Letter 1.

#6

10-02-02

WJ Howard – 373 miles – pages 21 – 22

Crew repositioned from LS609 Lafayette to TB114 Livonia per side letter 1 and worked train INOLBR – 02 from TB114 Livonia to B372 Houston

Trip does not involve terminal to terminal deadhead. Crew repositioned per Side Letter 1 from Lafayette to Livonia and worked train Livonia to Houston.

As you can see by the above bold denoted trips, three of the six trips (#’s 4 – 5 – 6) provided do not have anything to do with the use of crews deadheaded terminal to terminal after performing service. Additionally, Exhibit A page 23 lists a group of trips that were paid two trips in the same calendar day. I have numbered those trips (7-19) for ease of reference and provided an explanation for the same.

Trip #

Date

Name

Explanation

Comments

7

02-19-03 MPBBT-18

RE Partridge – 248 miles on train 8 hours Separate and apart deadhead – page 24

Crew deadheaded Separate and apart from Service B372 Houston to C625 Alexandria and worked train back from Alexandria to Houston

Shows crews were deadheaded separate and apart from service terminal to terminal connected with service during the test period.

8

07-09-02 MNPEW-07

LR Punch – 248 miles on train 8 hours Separate and apart deadhead – page 25

Crew worked train B372 – C625 and then deadheaded Separate and apart from service back to B372 Houston

Shows crews were deadheaded separate and apart from service terminal to terminal connected with service during the test period.

9

07-08-02 GSCOHO-05

RJ Stutes – 248 miles on train 8 housr Separate and apart deadhead – page 26

Crew deadheaded B372 to C625 Separate and apart from service and worked train C625 back to B372

Shows crews were deadheaded separate and apart from service terminal to terminal connected with service during the test period.

10

08-31-02 MPBBT-29

RJ Stutes – 248 miles on train – 8 hours Separate and apart deadhead – page 27

Crew deadheaded B372 to C625 Separate and apart from service and worked train C625 back to B372

Shows crews were deadheaded separate and apart from service terminal to terminal connected with service during the test period.

11

07-08-02 MPBB2-08

AE Neimeyer – 248 miles – 8 hours Separate and apart deadhead – page 28

Crew deadheaded Separate and apart B372 to C625 and worked train from C625 to B372

Shows crews were deadheaded separate and apart from service terminal to terminal connected with service during the test period.

12

07-03-02 MPBBW-03 and QDYNL-02

KW Booker – 248 miles each way on each train – page 29

Crew worked train B372 to C625 and worked train back C625 to B372

Crew worked train Houston – Alexandria and then worked 2nd train back Alexnadria – Houstonx`

13

07-02-02 – MNOEWB-02

EM Perkins – 218 miles and 8 hours Separate and apart deadhead – page 31

Crew deadheaded Separate and apart from Houston B372 to LS609 Lafayette and worked train LS609 back to Houston B372

Shows crews were deadheaded separate and apart from service terminal to terminal connected with service during the test period..

14

12-15-02 – RDTBT-14

AN Deloach – 334 miles and 8 hours Separate and apart Deadhead – page 32

Crew worked train Houston B372 to Lafayette LS609 and deadheaded Separate and apart Lafayette to Houston

Shows crews were deadheaded separate and apart from service terminal to terminal connected with service during the test period.

15

07-06-02 QBLLI-05 and MNOEWB-06

LR Punch – 334 miles and 218 miles – page 33

Crew worked train LS609 to B372 and worked train B372 to LS609

No deadheads worked train both ways

16

11-30-02

DR Hardin – paid 8 hours Separate and apart Deadhead both legs of trip – page 34

Crew deadheaded Separate and apart from service both directions Houston B372 to Lafayette LS609

Crew deadheaded Separate and apart from service both directions from Houston to Lafayette. Cross deadhead diluting trip rate

17

12-26-02 – MNOEWB-26

GE Mitchell – paid 218 miles and 8 hours Separate and apart Deadhead – page 35

Crew deadheaded Separate and apart from Houston B372 to LS609 Lafayette and worked train LS609 back to Houston B372

Shows crews were deadheaded separate and apart from service terminal to terminal connected with service during the test period..

18

07-05-02 – MNOEWB-05

A Hazley – paid 218 miles and 8 hours Separate and apart deadhead – page 36

Crew deadheaded Separate and apart from Houston B372 to LS609 Lafayette and worked train LS609 back to Houston B372

Shows crews were deadheaded separate and apart from service terminal to terminal connected with service during the test period.

19

12-23-02 – IAPAT – 20

EM Perkins – paid 296 miles and 8 hours Separate and apart deadhead page 38

Crew worked B372 Houston to TB114 Livonia and deadhead Separate and apart from TB114 to B372

Shows crews were deadheaded separate and apart from service terminal to terminal connected with service during the test period..

The above examples, clearly show that crews were traditionally deadheaded by the carrier in the most economical way. We have three examples where crews were paid combined miles and 11 examples where they were deadheaded Separate and apart terminal to terminal and paid only 8 hours for that service. While there may have been a few combined deadheads paid, it is illogical to believe that Union Pacific is going to pay 296 combined miles when they could pay only 130 miles for the same service. There is no question that logic dictates these crews were deadheaded Separate and apart from service between terminals as proved in the 11 examples quoted above (Trips 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19). Two of the above referenced trips include cross deadheads to and from the away from home terminal in the same day. These cross deadheads do nothing but dilute the working trip rate. While Union Pacific has stopped paying the second trip rate for hours of service relief in all pools consisting of virtually thousands of trips, you have provided examples of only three instances in one pool where crews were paid combined miles for the return trip home after performing hours of service relief out of the away from home terminal. Three payments of combined miles does not outweigh the 11 trips where crews were worked into the away from home terminal and paid only 8 hours for a Separate and apart deadhead back to the home terminal. Three trips also do not provide conclusive evidence when weighed against the thousands of trips used to calculate trip rates in all of the pools. This communication is meant to address the data you provided at our meeting in San Antonio on August 27, 2006. There are other matters concerning this issue that will be outlined in future correspondence regarding this dispute. Please advise. Gil Gore

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

DOT DMS Docket No. FRA-2006-24840 - Remote Authority Technology

From: Gil Gore [mailto:thegores1@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 6:56 PM To: All Local Chairmen BLET UP Southern Region Subject: FW: DOT DMS Docket No. FRA-2006-24840

Brothers,

Attached is a waiver request submitted to FRA by Union Pacific seeking to facilitate automated granting and releasing of track authority for MOW employees via electronic communication with Union Pacific’s Computer Added Dispatching (CAD) system (Click HERE to view the document in PDF). If you have any comments or issues regarding this proposal, please provide the same to this office so that we may compile our issues and forward them to Brother Ponto for presentation. I would ask that you provide your input no later than August 15, 2006. Thanking you in advance for your assistance, I remain. Fraternally,

Gil Gore


From: Pontolillo, Tom [mailto:pontolillo@ble-t.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 9:16 AM To: Donnigan, Tim; Gore, Gil; Hannah, Bill; MacArthur, Bruce; Rightnowar, Charles; Young, Michael A.; 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: Tolman, John Subject: DOT DMS Docket No. FRA-2006-24840

Brothers,

On May 4, 2006, Union Pacific Railroad (“UP”) filed a petition for permanent waiver from compliance with certain FRA regulations pertaining to mandatory procedures to be followed by a Roadway Worker in Charge (“RWIC”) when he/she obtains foul time, track permit, track and time, or track warrant authority to occupy a main track or other controlled track, which petition was assigned the above-referenced DOT DMS docket number. The stated purpose for this waiver request is UP’s intention to implement what it calls “Remote Authority” technology, by which a RWIC can obtain the various authorities via the Internet without the participation of the Train Dispatcher. FRA published notice of the petition on July 27, 2006, opening a comment period that runs until August 25, 2006. I have attached for your information and input a copy of the docket. Comments opposing the petition are being drafted, and I would ask that any issues you wish to be considered for inclusion be provided to me — preferably electronically — no later than the close of business on August 18, 2006. Thanks for your consideration and input.

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

Saturday, August 05, 2006

United Health Care - CEO Excesses

August 5, 2006 TO: ALL BLET / GTW LOCAL CHAIRMEN

Dear Sirs and Brothers:

Attached is research which I have recently completed regarding our health care provider, United Health Care (UHC). (Click Here to view in PDF)

The attached document is about exposing the unacceptable and obnoxious excesses in connection with our CEO at UHC (Mr. William McGuire) and other executive compensation excesses at UHC.

The attached document is to also make an argument / connection in regard to the so called rising health care costs at UHC and the funding of the UHC sky-rocketing executive compensation monies, which we ultimately are paying for.

I recently presented the attached document to our National President, Brother Don Hahs, while at the International Western Convention, in Rapid City, South Dakota.

From the podium, during the closed BLET session, President Hahs discussed some of the details of the attached report to the audience at the Western Convention. President Hahs then allowed me to elaborate, a bit more, to the audience, which I did.

President Hahs also stated from the podium that he will give the attached information, to our national negotiating team, so they can use it as ammunition on the national level in regard to battling the Carriers on the health care issue.

Why? It is because the Carriers on the national level have served their Section 6 Notice in connection with health care (which will include GTW Engineers).

The Carriers, via their Section 6 Notice, are requesting health care concessions, in the form of desiring to immediately increase our monthly health care premium to a whopping $ 378.42 per month out of our own pockets!

That’s right! You heard right---a whopping $378.42 per month out of our own pockets every month! And all this “concession talk” from a company (CN) that is awash in cash, and bragging about it!!!

The Carrier currently pays $ 1,146.44 per month, per Engineer, for Health Care. Now the Carriers (including GTW Management) only want to pay $ 768.02 per month, with us paying the other $ 378.42 per month! Guess who gets the “big bonus” out the so-called “savings” of such a concession? One clue—not us!!!

While at the Western Convention, there was a lot of interest, to say the least, in the attached report. Many eye-brows were raised, to say the least.

Please read and post. However, make sure you are sitting down when you read about these examples of compensation extravaganzas at UHC!

Fraternally,

J. M. Karakian General Chairman, BLET/GTW

CC: D. Hahs, NP

E. Rodzwicz, FVP

W. Walpert, GST

Paul Sorrow, NVP

J. Tolman, NVP/NLR

J. Murphy, Director/Teamsters Rail Conference.

D. Cameron, Public Relations/Teamsters

D. Hiatt, General Chairman / UTU – GTW

Any and All who may (and should) be interested.

Friday, August 04, 2006

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

 

Thursday, August 03, 2006

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

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

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

Friday, July 21, 2006

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