Terminal Facility Sale/Lease T-6, Rivergate et al

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

This is in regard to the above reference and in limited response to BLET rhetoric.

Regarding the BNSF intentions to sell or lease Terminal Facilities in Portland/Vancouver, the undersigned did submit a counter proposal to BNSF. That, proposal was premised on existing agreements and BNSF’s stated desire to establish two (2) person crews on yard engines in the involved area’s T—6 and Rivergate. We proposed those assignments be operated as RCO assignments.

In addressing BNSF’s concern we offered to require one of those two (2) crew members be qualified to operate the locomotive from the console without establishing any engineer seniority.

While the BLET has chosen to object to our proposal, they have likewise failed to offer any counter proposal, other than that initially proffered by BNSF. Based upon the present contention of BLET with regard and application of their “Primary Recall Agreement”, it was felt their members, if the BLET position is correct, could readily access the UTU proposed positions from ground service.

BLET members have already demonstrated their desire to remain in ground service in the Portland/Vancouver Terminal by selective listings on their “job selections”. By such action those members remain in or go to ground service when they can hold active positions in ground service, picking and choosing the engine service assignments they will accept.

In response to the counter proposal UTU offered, BLET General Chairman D.R. Pierce took great exception, resorting to arguendo rather than solution. In Mr. Pierce’s response to BNSF Labor Relations Bell, Mr. Pierce referenced an alleged initialed proposal, however, the undersigned did not initial that proposal. The undersigned did take a proposed change to members in Whitefish, MT, however, those members chose not to consider that method of operation.

Subsequent correspondence from BNSF Labor Relations, indicates BNSF has likewise chosen not to counter the UTU offer, but would instead, proceed with a potential sale/lease of the involved facilities.

BNSF’s actions from the beginning were disingenuous to say the least. While BNSF was maintaining the façade of negotiating with UTU and ostensibly with BLET, they were also involved in on going discussions with at least one short line operator who would potentially lease or buy the involved facilities.

Additionally, the Port of Portland was moving forward in discussions with Anaconda Pacific, which would allow Anaconda Pacific or a subsidiary thereof, to operate not only T—6 and Rivergate but other Port of Portland Terminals, facilities and other industrial accesses. It would be very unlikely BNSF was not aware of or involved in those discussions.

Veracity and integrity are absolute necessities in adversarial discussions, and there can be no doubt this is adversarial. In the instant case it would appear BNSF was duplicitous, while the BLET would rather cast stones than counter with their own proposal, assuming BLET and BNSF do not share the same ideas, intentions and proposals.

With regard to the Kansas City sale/lease, the undersigned was not directly involved. However it is my understanding that the only solution acceptable to both the BLET and BNSF was to eliminate one ground service position and allow the engineer to work on the ground with an RC unit and/or from the engine console. Again the onerous and effect would have fallen on ground service members to the benefit of engine service employees. Not much of a trade off.

Alas, the BLET and BNSF would ask that I consider and accept the sacrifice of ground service positions to save an engine service position.

In sum, the undersigned represents the interest of ground service employees. I do not represent the interest of engine service employees, and I cannot in good conscience sacrifice ground service employees to the benefit of engine service employees.

With best wishes, I am,

/s/J.D. Fitzgerald
General Chairman

cc: BNSF UTU General Chairmen
GO-386 BNSF Local Chairmen
J. Babler
D.R. Pierce

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

Of Counsel M. M. WINTER	July 19, 2005

WA. BELL GENERAL DIRECTOR-LABOR RELATIONS BNSF Railway Company P.O. Box 961030 FT. WORTH, TX 76161—0030	Re: T 6 Rivergate Sale/Lease Issue

Dear Mr. Bell:

This is in regard to the above reference and your short missive dated July 13, 2005.

BNSF’s position is evidently not to counter or offer any response and rest solely on your initial position and offer. Likewise I have received no counter proposal from BLET either.

Be-that-as-it-may, I find it difficult to believe our discussions to be representative of true bargaining. To begin with, during our meeting in Fort Worth, I advised you of statements and minutes of the Clark County Rail Commission, wherein Mr. Temple made known his discussions with BNSF concerning the operation of the involved facilities. After being confronted with that information you acknowledged those discussions.

In subsequent discussion I was advised the potential deal with Temple was in question, however, you did not address other discussions being held between the Port of Portland and Anaconda Pacific, concern Anaconda Pacific’s operations of Port of Portland Terminals, facilities and industrial accesses.

This office is aware that Vice President D. Dealy has made several trips to Portland to discuss the terminal operations, ostensibly with the Port of Portland and likely the Union Pacific.

We, the UTU, have offered a realistic proposal under the belief we were in honest bargaining over the respective terminal facilities and operation thereof. It is now obvious there were not fair and honorable negotiations due to the duplicitous actions with Temple and Anaconda Pacific.

The undersigned is still ready and willing to discuss any realistic counter proposal put forth by the BNSF or the BLET. Such discussions will, however, only occur in an open and honest environment subject to fair bargaining practices and without hidden agendas.

Respectfully,

/s/J.D. Fitzgerald
General Chairman

Of Counsel M. M. WINTER	July 19, 2005

Open Letter All Members UTU GO-386	Re: Terminal Facility Sale/Lease T-6, Rivergate et al