FYI

 

Roger,

As you can see, we thought that Gene had gone to an extreme on this matter, but signed the understanding anyway account it supported our position.  Subsequently, he signed a deal with GC Kerley to not expunge the ground seniority in direct contridiction (our view) with the 1986 National Agreement.  We tried to work this out and got no where, thus the end result.

Rick

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Gibbons [mailto:rick@bletgca.org]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:45 PM
To: 'rdumey@earthlink.net'; Apetz Bob (Robert.Apetz@bnsf.com)
Cc: Gene Shire (Gene.Shire@bnsf.com); Dave Clifton (David.Clifton@bnsf.com); Hundley Ed (Ralph.Hundley@bnsf.com); 'Charlie.McDaniels@bnsf.com'
Subject: RE: Engineer vs. Yardmaster

 

Bob,

I am trying to observe my first week of vacation in three years, but it looks as though we need to discuss this yardmaster issue yet one more time.  VC Dumey has been briefed on this matter at every turn except for the correspondence with Ed Hundley, and he fully understands our position, as he tried to convey to you during your telephone conversations with him today.

 

I am uncertain as to what the confusion is over the e-mail.  As I have conveyed to both you and Charlie McDaniels for quite some time, we were wanting to protect those 17 yardmasters that we identified as full time yardmasters and were absent their UTU mandated promotion to engineer by virtue of the 1985 National Agreements.  I am going to try to go through the whole process step by step to explain it again.  Since there was evidently a conference call that the Carrier did not want us involved in to explain this in person, I will do so here, and we’ll start at the beginning.

 

• It came to our attention when the UTU-Yardmasters demanded payment of “dues for seniority.”  Evidently the Carrier had been utilizing promoted engineers with Yardmaster seniority on an at-will basis.  Our position was that anything short of a leave of absence was in conflict with the working schedule and more specifically, Article 27, Section I(iv)-Leave of Absence.  Furthermore, we felt that in no way should our engineers have to protect vacancies created by “weekend warrior” Yardmasters, when those engineers continually have problems securing paid/unpaid leave due to manpower and arbitrary layoff allotments for specific locations.  These abuses were unnecessary and in direct conflict with agreement language (both BLET and supposedly UTU).
• When discussing this with Labor Relations, we found their position to be that they could use these employees with their own discretion.  After several debates on the matter, we received the letter requesting our concurrence.  In short, the letter supported our position, but as disclosed to you on more than one occasion, we felt it was extreme.  All we wanted to do was to ensure that the part-time Yardmasters issue would be resolved.  At no time did we want to disturb those Yardmasters that fell within the criteria of the aforementioned agreement.  Our office had internal discussions as to the next course of action, and we felt the Carrier would insist on the seniority of the individuals referenced in the letter to be expunged by this office.  To clarify, we would be the moving party.  We then made the crucial decision that, even though we agreed to the letter, we would not withdraw the names of these 17 Yardmasters from our seniority rosters until such time as they were removed from their Yardmasters positions and subsequently would not resume their responsibilities as engineers.
• Within our numerous discussions, we tried to negotiate language that would protect these 17 Yardmasters by virtue of “grandfathering” them.  The only request we made in exchange for this was for the UTU-Yardmasters to waive their mandatory dues assignments within their working schedule for these 17 employees.  We have yet to hear a counter offer on this proposal.
• We now hear tell that the Carrier has entered into an agreement with the UTU to protect the ground rights of any employees that choose to abandon their engineer’s seniority in favor of their Yardmaster’s seniority.  Obviously, BNSF has chosen to negotiate these issues with our counterparts, instead of trying to meet us in the middle. 
• You promised a letter to this office last week disclosing a timeline for those part-time Yardmasters’ decision on their future seniority.  We have yet to receive said letter, and it seems as though discussions are taking place absent this office and its position on these matters.  Vice Chairman Dumey offered our services to you today to ensure that all parties understood our position, but we can only surmise that there are backroom strategies taking place, and that our participation needs to be excluded.

 

We have tried to be as open and honest as we possibly can, but information is coming to us from the field that certain elements are trying to cast a dark shadow over our position and to discredit our objectives.  We have explained to our BLET division officers that this issue is unsettled, and no additional information should be forwarded to the field until we give our approval.  Obviously these elements have an agenda to use this matter as a tool to make this office the villain.

 

To try to make this perfectly clear, we have no intent to strip the seniority of any of these 17 permanent Yardmasters, and we are in hopes that any further communications from BNSF will echo our sentiments.   We understand that UTU-Yardmasters is not willing to afford us our request on the dues issue.  However, we intend to move forward anyway. 

 

In closing, you were involved in a conference call with GC Pierce and GC McDaniels where we offered resolution to your continuing problems by virtue of similar language to our dispatchers’ seniority agreement.  Even though we had a scheduling conflict for an arranged discussion by all concerned parties on this topic, we have not heard tell of any interest to resume those talks. 

 

I sincerely hope that our position is now brutally clear to you, as well as to all others copied on this e-mail.  I am now going to return to my vacation and my family.  I can only hope I don’t have to wait another 3 years for the next 5 days of vacation.

 

Sincerely,

Rick Gibbons

BLET General Chairman

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Dumey [mailto:rdumey@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:27 PM
To: Rick Gibbons
Subject: FW: Engineer vs Yardmaster

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Apetz, Robert L

To: Dumey, Randy

Sent: 7/26/04 9:37:36 AM

Subject: FW: Engineer vs Yardmaster

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hundley, Ralph E
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 8:20 AM
To: Apetz, Robert L; Beasley, Melissa A
Subject: FW: Engineer vs Yardmaster

I need some guidance here please....  and what's Rick referring to when he say "unless an employee fell under our Leave of Absence Language"?

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Gibbons [mailto:rick@bletgca.org]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 8:08 AM
To: 'Hundley, Ralph E'
Cc: Apetz Bob; George Haskins
Subject: RE: Engineer vs Yardmaster

Ed,

You might want to talk to Bob Apetz or Charlie McDaniels on this.  It is our position that unless an employee fell under our Leave of Absence language he could not bypass his/her engineers seniority to play yardmaster.  We pinpointed 17 yardmasters on the former SLSF that were within that criterion; all others should have received notification that they either needed to give up their engine seniority or yardmaster seniority.  I am not certain where KM Harris falls in this scenario.

Rick

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hundley, Ralph E [mailto:Ralph.Hundley@bnsf.com]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:00 AM
To: Rick Office
Subject: RE: Engineer vs Yardmaster

 

Rick,

 

We've never done this in the past.... has something changed?

 

Ed

 

-----Original Message-----
From: GEORGE HASKINS [mailto:ble672@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 11:36 PM
To: E Ralph Hundley
Cc: Rick Office; RJ Dumey
Subject: Engineer vs Yardmaster

Ed,

 

I just noticed that KM Harris is holding a position as Yardmaster with CD Snyder (his junior) on the Extraboard. Unless I'm mistaken, Harris is required to protect his engineer seniority.

 

Please advise.

 

George