united transportation union
GENERAL COMMITTEE of ADJUSTMENT GO-386
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Montana Western Railroad

Dear Sirs and Brothers:

In regards to the above reference, I attach for your review pages 9 and 10 and the cover of transcript of the April 20, 2000 status hearing on the referenced case by Judge Sullivan.

From the statements of the UTU International’s retained counsel, the UTU International is “simply” following the procedures of its own Constitution and has no interest beyond that endeavor.

Counsel for UTU International stated:  (there was no reason for any discovery from the UTU because the case concerning the UTU has) "NOTHING TO DO WITH LOCAL VS. NATIONAL HANDLING. IT’S SIMPLY A MATTER OF THE UNION ABIDING BY IT OWN CONSTITUTION.”

The UTU International has touted the autonomy of crafts and General Committees on a regular basis. Now in the D.C. District Court, the UTU Internationals’ position is to simply abide with our Constitution rather than vigorously defend same.

Such lack of endeavor and direction will tend to demonstrate the Internationals desire that the District Court rule against UTU General Committees, thereby changing the Constitution by fiat.

I certainly hope the above is not true and was merely a faux pas of UTU Internationals counsel. As a nearly thirty (30) year member and nearly twenty-five (25) year officer, I would hope and encourage the UTU International to support the General Committees positions and the UTU Constitution rather than be an unaffected observer.

Fraternally,

J.D. Fitzgerald
General Chairman

 

cc: BNSF General Chairmen
     G.O. Hartsock
     D.R. Howard
     J.L. Schollmeyer
     J. O’B. Clarke

+++++<Page 19>+++++

1       ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AND HOW THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES WERE

2      HANDLED IN THE PAST. BUT WE, WITH THE COURT’S PERMISSION,

3     WOULD FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE THAT

4     WE’RE RAISING, AS TO WHICH BODY OF LAW APPLIES -5 THE COURT: RIGHT.

6     MR. CLARKE: -- AND THAT CAN BE, WE SUBMIT, HANDLED I

7     WE FILE IT ON THE 19TH OF MAY. WE WOULD HAVE IT READY FOR A

8     DECISION BY THIS COURT SOMETIME IN THE LATTER PART OF JUNE.

9     THE COURT: THANK YOU.

10     MR. CLARKE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

11    MR. MUNRO: YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD, BRIEFLY.

12     THE COURT: YES, COUNSEL, BUT LET ME HEAR FROM THE

13    DEFENDANT.

14     MR. CLAYMAN: I THINK WE SHOULD BE HEARD.

15    MR. MUNRO: ABSOLUTELY.

16   THE COURT: YES.

17    MR. CLAYMAN: THANK YOU.

18    WE WOULD AGREE WITH MR. MOORE, BUT FOR DIFFERENT

19    REASONS. THAT IS, EFFECTIVELY, WE WOULD ULTIMATELY PREFER TO

20    STAY DISCOVERY PENDING OUR FILING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY

21    JUDGMENT. AS THE UTU, WHAT THE UNION HAS DONE HERE IS

22    BASICALLY COMPLIED WITH ITS OWN PROCEDURES, ITS OWN

23    CONSTITUTION, IN PERMITTING THESE GENERAL COMMITTEES TO OPT OU

24     OF NATIONAL HANDLING. THERE’S A SPECIFIC PROCEDURE WHICH THEY

25     COMPLIED WITH AND, IN TURN, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO OPT OUT.

+++++<Page 10>+++++

1         ULTIMATELY WHAT HAPPENS IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC

2       ISSUES AND THE ISSUES RAISED BY MR. CLARKE, THAT IS NOT REALLY,

3        THAT DOESN’ T REALLY HAVE ANY EFFECT ON IT. THE ONLY ISSUE

4       BEFORE YOU WITH REGARD TO UTU, WHICH IS, CAN UTU BE COMPELLED

5       TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS POINT, HAVING SIMPLY, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWE

6      THE PROCEDURES OF ITS OWN CONSTITUTION, AND IF THE COURT

7 DECIDES EITHER TO ALLOW THOSE COMMITTEES TO ENGAGE IN LOCAL

8 HANDLING OR COMPELS THEM, THE GENERAL COMMITTEES, TO ENGAGE IN

9 NATIONAL HANDLING, THAT IS SOMETHING BETWEEN YOU AND THE

10    GENERAL COMMITTEES.

11    AS FAR AS UTU, THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER WE COULD BE

12    COMPELLED TO, IN ESSENCE, VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTION BY FORCING,

13     SOMEHOW FORCING, WHICH I DON’T THINK WE CAN DO UNDER OUR

14 CONSTITUTION, FORCING THESE GENERAL COMMITTEES TO DO SOMETHING

15 WHICH THEY’VE ALREADY INFORMED US THAT THEY DON’T WANT TO DO,

16 AND SO THERE’S REALLY NO DISCOVERY ATTENDANT TO THAT ISSUE AT

17 ALL. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOCAL VS. NATIONAL HANDLING.

18 IT’S SIMPLY A MATTER OF THE UNION ABIDING BY ITS OWN

19 CONSTITUTION.

20     THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

21     COUNSEL.

22      MR. MUNRO: YOUR HONOR, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH

23 MY COLLEAGUES ON HOW THIS CASE SETS UP. WE DON’T SEE A

24 DISTINCTION IN THE ISSUES HERE. RATHER, WHAT I SUGGEST IS

25 HAPPENING IS, MR. CLARKE IS ASKING TO PROCEED WITH HIS CASE