PAUL C. THOMPSON
International President

DAN E. JOHNSON
General Secretary and Treasurer

  

14600 DETROIT AVENUE
CLEVELAND, OHIO 44107-4250
PHONE: 216-228-9400
FAX: 216-228-5755
www.utu.org

united transportation union
Mr. John J. Reps, Vice President-Labor Relations
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company
2650 Lot Menk Drive
Ft Worth, TX 76131
Tel: (817) 352-1020
Fax: (817)352-7319		  

April 14, 2005

 

Dear Sir:

It has been reported to me that the carrier’s supervisory personnel have very recently been directed by you to begin to discuss, during working hours, with employees represented by UTU and local UTU representatives, the benefits of UTU negotiating local crew consist agreement changes now. This is a very unfriendly act, even if it is not a violation of the law’s prohibition against negotiating directly with employees, which it may well be.

To UTU all this represents is the carrier welshing on the deals it has made on crew consist. I am quite aware of what happened to UTU’s local crew consist agreements in 1991, and lam determined not to let it happen again. That is why we sued the carrier and other carriers in East St. Louis for, among other things, violation of the “major dispute” provisions of the Railway Labor Act. UTU’s legal position is that the carriers cannot force negotiations about crew consist according to the plain meaning of the moratorium provisions that are in the local crew consist agreements. If we succeed in court, as I expect we will, the issue of crew consist will never make it to a third party, such as a Presidential Emergency Board or the Congress, for resolution.

As to your statements that the carrier has new technologies permitting safe and efficient train operations over the road with an engineer only, that is just a bunch of malarkey. We both know from a recent symposium held in the Washington, D.C. area by the NTSB that even the Association of American Railroads is of the opinion that none of the new technologies, including BNSF’s, are ready to operate. We also know from that symposium that none of the major carriers have systems that are interchangeable with each other. This issue is not at all about promoting more safe and efficient operations, and we both know it. It is plain and simple a smokescreen for the carriers to try to get at our valuable crew consist agreements. Your offer of fantastic labor protection in exchange for giving up the positions our members are entitled to work is an empty promise. A job is the best labor protection, and our local crew consist agreements assure that those jobs will be available until the local crew consist agreement moratorium provisions permit you and the other carriers to negotiate for changes. If the carrier were really concerned about more efficient operations, it wouldn’t be going around threatening our representatives with the sale or lease of major yards to third parties unless we give up crew consist. BN tried this tactic back in the late 1980’s when it sold a substantial portion of its trackage in Montana to Montana Rail Link because it was upset at its failure to achieve more favorable crew consist agreements with several of our General Committees, All that did was to make Dennis Washington, owner of Montana Rail Link a billionaire, and force the carrier to pay him high usage fees for use of what amounted to a bridge line.

I am also very concerned with reports that you have your local managers, such as trainmasters, preaching doom and gloom to the employees we represent, rather than doing what they are supposed to do with respect to promoting efficient operations and safe working practices. If I hear any report that your local managers are forcing our members to listen to the carrier’s fairytales about crew consist during working hours under pain of discipline, I will ask our Lawyers to see if we can add another count to our Complaint in East St. Louis.

Instead of the doom and gloom you’re spreading around, you should be informing your work force of the amount of the exorbitant bonuses you and the rest of the BNSF officials received this past year. Those bonuses were made possible because of your dedicated workers who spent more rime with BNSF than with their families. Their reward is your attempt to eliminate their jobs so that you and the rest of the BNSF officials can receive even bigger bonuses in fixture years. BNSF does not even appreciate its workers enough to honor their existing contracts, let alone throw a few crumbs their way.

UTU remains ready to bargain with you and the other carriers in national handling over any topic of mutual interest that is the proper subject of bargaining between the parties under the law. Crew consist is not such an issue, and your resort to the tactic of trying to scare our members into pressuring UTU into negotiations is unacceptable and unworthy of a carrier of your magnitude.



Sincerely,
Paul C. Thompson -
International President



cc: R. L. Marceau, Assistant President (OFFICE)
All international Officers, U.S. (FAX)
All General Chairpersons in National Handling (FAX and mail)
M. K. Rose, Chairman, President and CEO-BNSF (FAX 817-352-7430 and mail)
It F. Allen, Chairman, National Carriers’ Conference Committee (FAX 202-862-7230 and mail)

 

     

John J. Fleps

BNSF Railway Company

Vice President

2600 Lou Menk Drive

Labor Relations

Fort Worth, Texas 76131

 

 

 

Telephone (817) 352-1220

Fax (817) 352-7434 Fax

 

 

April 15, 2005

Mr. Paul C. Thompson
United Transportation Union
14600 Detroit Avenue
Cleveland, OH 441074250

Dear Mr. Thompson:

I want to offer a response to your letter of April 14, 2005.

I suppose my initial thought is that it's really too bad we’ve all been reduced to talking past each other over these issues, instead of dealing with them at the bargaining table.

First things first: We’ve tried to make it cleat that we want a safer operation, as the technology, which is here now, allows. Instead of just saying “no” we ought to be working together to make this a reality. It’s in everyone's interest.

Those of us at BNSF are very sensitive to your and other UTU leaders' feelings about the moratorium provisions. For now, of course, you have put their meaning in front of a federal court, and we believe the issue soon will be addressed in arbitration, where, if anywhere, it belongs. It’s enough to say here that we at BNSF have carefully reviewed OUT moratorium with UTU, and feel very confident that none of the proposals we’ve made in this bargaining round regarding crew consist or any other issue is barred by a moratorium. Let me stress that are not asking UTU to give up anything oar employees have now in the way of lonesome pay, reserve boards, or the productivity fund it’s plain to us that, at most, these are the only subjects as to which our moratoria could possibly still bar section 6 notices. CREW CONSIST ITSELF IS VERY LEGALLY, AS WELL, AS FAIRLY, ON THE TABLE.

Anyway, that's mainly technical stuff. What we’re primarily saying in this round is that private sector companies like BNSF and the other railroads should be able to freely make basic decisions about how to staff their operations, the same kind of decisions other employers make every day as safety, technology, and efficiency allow, especially when the affected people are protected. And, we have a hard time understanding why UTU would not at least give us a chance to air those issues in the right place ax the bargaining table, considering we arc willing to talk about how our people can share in the benefits. And, THE AGREEMENT WE ARE PROPOSING WOULD NOT PUT ANY OF OUR PEOPLE OUT OF A JOB.

We appreciate and, I suppose, kind of expected UTU's uncharitable reaction to our updating our employees. Here again it’s probably unproductive to debate legal nuances. It’s enough to say that at BNSF, we feel strongly that the company has a clear right under both the Railway Labor Act and the U.S. Constitution (1” Amendment) to keep our people informed about our position on issues like this which very much affect their futures. And, we really owe at least that much to them. NO ONE AT THE COMPANY OR UNION SHOULD BE THREATENING ANYONE WITH DISCIPLINE -- OR LAWSUITS -- IN THIS RESPECT

 The bottom line of all this is that we just want to get back to the table with UTU and BLET leaders an all of these important issues, Paul, we really believe that we have an approach that is in the best long term interests of BNSF employees and the company, and we’d like to talk with you about it. In the past, I've known you and other UTU leaders to have a lot of good ideas about how to work through these kinds of challenges. However, if it turns out UTU won’t this time, a third party undoubtedly will.

Very truly yours,

 

 

            cc:  Mart Rose
                  Cart Ice
                  Dave Dealy
                  Robert Allen
                  Rick Marceau
                  BNSF UTU General Chairmen