1- Reply Submission of The

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

1- Reply Submission of The REPLY SUBMISSION OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS Introduction BLE’s Opening Submission explained how locomotive operations have traditionally been conducted and the collective bargaining agreement rules that apply to such operations. BLE showed how the rules in the collective bargaining agreements and past practice between BLE and the carriers (both nationally and locally) require that a locomotive engineer be part of the crew, and that the carriers may not assign the duties and responsibilities of an engineer to other employees. We also showed that there are no exceptions to these rules that apply in this dispute. Despite the agreements and historical practice, BLE showed, the carriers have in fact reassigned the duties and responsibilities of the engineer to UTU-represented employees whom they have named Remote Control Operators. The carriers argue that the portable operating control unit that the RCOs are using, known as a belt pack, is a “communication device” within the meaning of the Incidental Work Rule in the UTU and BLE agreements; BLE has demonstrated why that argument is not credible. As for the argument that technology has eliminated the need for an engineer, BLE showed (1) that engineers have always been the employees to use locomotive-operating remote control devices and microprocessors in the past, and (2) that the engineer’s duties and responsibilities, in truth, have not been transferred to electronics, but have been assumed by the RCO. Finally, we established that technology issues involving the operating crafts have always been resolved at the bargaining table in the past and that the arbitral precedent on which the carriers rely for a different conclusion is not -1- convincing here.1 In this Reply Submission, we will show that the carriers and UTU have not presented any evidence that should cause this Board to hold anything other than that the carriers’ assignment of other than locomotive engineers to operate locomotives via remote control in connection with the movement of cars, trains and/or engines in terminal operations is a violation of the exclusive rights of locomotive engineers to perform such service pursuant to existing BLE Agreements and established practice. In response to UTU’s Question, the Board should answer that the involved carriers were not proper in their assignment of trainmen (yard conductors and yard helpers) to perform remote control operations in their terminals. In response to the Carriers’ Question, the Board should hold that under the Carriers’ collective bargaining agreements with BLE and UTU, the Carriers may not assign use of remote control technology to ground service employees represented by the UTU, thereby eliminating the locomotive engineer position. 1 In separate presentations by the BLE General Committees of Adjustment, BLE provided the Board with an analysis of rules that are particular to certain carrier systems, or parts of systems. (Because BLE was uncertain of Conrail’s intentions prior to receiving the Carriers’ Opening Submission, it did not initially submit the relevant governing local rules on hat property. That submission is attached hereto.) As we explained, there are common facts and agreements that provide this Board with a sound basis for holding that BLE’s position should be sustained without having to examine individual property rules. If the Board finds, as we do not believe it should, that the common facts and agreements do not lead to a uniform finding in favor of BLE, then the Board must look at the rules and practices on the properties one-by-one to determine whether BLE’s position should be sustained locally. -2- REPLY ARGUMENT I. THIS DISPUTE IS NOT OVER ALL OF THE REMOTE CONTROL OPERATOR’S WORK; RATHER, IT IS WHETHER THE RCO HAS BEEN ASSIGNED ENGINEER’S WORK CONTRARY TO BLE AGREEMENTS. The Carrier’s Opening Submission (p. 4-7, 46-50) focuses on everything the RCO does and argues that, overall, the RCO is more like a trainman than an engineer. But that is not the issue this Board has been asked to decide. This Board has to decide whether, when the RCO is using the OCU to control locomotive movements, he is performing work that belongs to the engineers2. The carriers would deflect the Board away from that question by examining everything else they are assigning to the RCO, but that other work is not being contested. The question of how to characterize the craft to which an employee belongs is not for this Board to determine. That question is a representation matter solely within the jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board. As this Board is well-aware, craft and class distinctions have been the source of litigation before the NMB as a result of applications filed by the UTU to determine that there no longer are separate train and engine service crafts on the major carriers. The NMB has determined twice in recent years that there are3; it is not an issue with which this Board should be concerned. Whether some or even most of what the RCO does is what a switchmen does in a conventional operation, or whether most of the time he works is spent doing it, is irrelevant to the determination whether the non-switchmen work he does is work that belongs to the engineers. The latter question is what this Board has to decide. The carriers’ focus on the “core work” of the RCO is misdirected. It is the duties and 2 The carriers have instructed RCOs that they may not use the conventional locomotive controls to operate locomotives. Carriers’ Exhibit 8, ¶ 18. They concede, as they must, that were the RCO to use the conventional controls, he would be doing engineer’s work 3 27 NMB 244, 27 NMB 247 (2000); 29 NMB 410 (2002). -3- responsibilities of the engineer that the RCO is performing that is significant here. Whatever else the RCO may be doing, if the RCO is performing the engineer’s work, then the carriers have violated their agreements with BLE. The significance of “core work” in the NMB proceedings resulted from the UTU’s argument that the separate train and engine service crafts on the carriers had become one. In response to UTU’s application on Union Pacific, the Board referred the dispute “to a three-member Panel of prominent labor relations professionals” (Arnold Zack, Richard Bloch, and Richard Kasher), that rejected UTU’s application. United Transportation Union and Union Pacific Railroad Company, 27 NMB 247, 249 (2000)(Carriers’ Exhibit 99, p. 3). That panel found that locomotive engineers check the condition of the locomotive before and after each tour of duty, control the starting, stopping, and speed of trains, checking meters and gauges to determine speed, fuel, power, and air pressure. They observe signals indicating moves of other trains, obstacles on the track, equipment malfunctions, and speed amounts. Engineers are trained as apprentices in classes and on simulators with daily tests leading to certification of those receiving 85% or more on their final exam. Pursuant to the Railway Safety Improvement Act of 1988, engineers must be federally certified, with suspension or loss of certification facing those guilty of serious rules infractions. Id., 27 NMB at 249. It concluded that an order for a single craft or class was not justified. There is no question that the conductors and engineers share many joint responsibilities and work together as a team in much of the operation of the train. They have interrelated functions, utilize seniority in the ebb and flow of work and have access to a single line of progression to the engineers seat. But the evidence shows that the engineers and conductors have historically organized themselves as separate crafts and classes, with the BLE representing primarily engineers for more than a century. That separation has long recognized the statutory and training requirements for entry into the engineer craft and class and supports the conclusion that engineers have separate and distinct core duties compared to those of the conductor craft and class. Indeed, despite the mandatory progression since November 1, 1985, movement into the engineer position is not automatic, but rather dependent on carrier discretion in calling for a class, and its determination as to successful bidding as well as a completion of training and fitness -4- to fill the engineer position. Additionally the evidence is clear that becoming an engineer requires a federal certification in order to be legally qualified to be in control of a throttle that operates the train. Id. at 254-255. The NMB adopted the Panel’s determination. United Transportation Union and Union Pacific Railroad Company, 27 NMB 244 (2000)(Carriers’ Exhibit 99, p. 1). Most recently, UTU unsuccessfully sought to accomplish a craft merger on Kansas City Southern Railway. On August 14, 2002, the NMB rejected UTU’s attempt to merge the two separate crafts and classes. United Transportation Union and The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, 29 NMB 410 (2002)(BLE EXHIBIT 62). Among the reasons for the Board’s ruling were these: Train service employees are not authorized to take over the engineer's role at any time. Even train service employees with engineer certification, qualified on the route on which they are currently operating, are not authorized to take over the engineer's role. Id. at 426. Although train service employees and engineers have joint responsibilities, such as the safe operation of the train, most of their duties are job specific. Simply put, train service employees instruct the engineer on where to go and how to get there while the engineer moves the train. In addition, engineers are required to obtain Carrier certification in accordance with Federal regulations. Id. at 429 (emphasis added).
Recommended publications
  • Original Web Bulletin Board System
    Original Web Bulletin Board System Tony’s Train Exchange March 3, 2008 Tony’s Train Exchange http://TonysTrains.com Pinewood Plaza 57 River Rd, Suite 1023 Essex Jct VT 05452 Voice: 800-978-3472 (USA and Canada) Voice: +1-802-878-5005 (Worldwide) Fax: +1-802-878-5550 Contents Turntable Wiring ............................................................................. 16 Turntable Wiring ............................................................................. 16 Re-motoring Athearn RTR SD40 ..................................................8 Super Service................................................................................... 17 Decoder for Proto2000 E8/9 loco ..............................................8 Tony ..................................................................................................... 17 NCE .........................................................................................................8 How to get through to Tony?..................................................... 17 Proto2000 0-6-0 tender .................................................................8 dcc for tortoise ................................................................................ 17 Proto 2000 GP-9 Phase III Pilot ..................................................8 Reverse Loop ................................................................................... 17 UR91 ......................................................................................................8 Shipment Time ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reviews with Bob Keller and the CTT Staff
    reviews With Bob Keller and the CTT Staff Product reviews in Classic Toy Trains magazine Inclusive from Fall 1987 through December 2010 issue Manufacturer Issue Product and reviewer 3rd Rail Jan 94 O gauge brass Pennsylvania RR S2 6-8-6 Turbine by 3rd Rail – Dick Christianson 3rd Rail May 94 O gauge brass Pennsylvania RR 2-10-0 by 3rd Rail – Tom Rollo 3rd Rail Jan 96 Update on review of O gauge S2 6-8-6 Turbine by 3rd Rail – Marty McGuirk 3rd Rail May 96 O gauge brass Union Pacific 4-8-8-4 Big Boy by 3rd Rail – Marty McGuirk 3rd Rail Sep 97 O gauge brass Union Pacific 4-6-6-4 Challenger by 3rd Rail – Bob Keller 3rd Rail Jan 98 O gauge brass Pennsylvania RR 2-10-4 by 3rd Rail – Bob Keller 3rd Rail Nov 98 O gauge brass Pennsylvania RR Q2 4-4-6-4 by 3rd Rail – Bob Keller 3rd Rail Jan 99 O gauge Santa Fe Dash 8 by 3rd Rail – Bob Keller 3rd Rail Mar 99 O gauge Southern Pacific 4-8-8-2 cab-forward by 3rd Rail – Bob Keller 3rd Rail Nov 99 O gauge Pennsylvania RR S1 6-4-4-6 by 3rd Rail – Bob Keller 3rd Rail Sep 00 CTT Online review: Pennsylvania RR 2-10-2 – Bob Keller 3rd Rail Jul 01 O gauge brass UP & SP 2-8-0s by 3rd Rail – Bob Keller 3rd Rail Jan 02 O gauge brass Erie 0-8-8-0 by 3rd Rail – Bob Keller 3rd Rail Jul 02 O gauge brass Union Pacific 4-6-6-4 Challenger by 3rd Rail – Bob Keller 3rd Rail Oct 02 O gauge die-cast metal NYC Mercury 4-6-2 Pacific by 3rd Rail – Bob Keller 3rd Rail Nov 02 O gauge brass NYC 4-8-4 Northern by 3rd Rail – Bob Keller 3rd Rail May 04 O gauge brass Pennsylvania RR Q1 4-6-4-4 locomotives – Bob Keller 3rd Rail July 08 O gauge brass C&O 4-8-4 by Third Rail – Bob Keller Academy Models Dec 02 1:48 scale tanks by Academy Models – Bob Keller Ace Trains Sep 00 O gauge 4-4-4T and car set by Ace Trains – Neil Besougloff Ace Trains Jan 01 Southern (UK) Ry.
    [Show full text]
  • Modeling the Hi-Level Cars in HO Scale from Train Station Kits
    HO and N Sc~le PRECISION RAILROAD MODELS International Model Railroad Catalo... - ----l Item #25-100 Starter Set Modules Start-Sets At last! The KATO catalog the market has been waiting for! Complete information and color photographs of all the North American models produced by KATO in ,~ HO and N scale over the last decade. ~-- Enjoy page after page of KATO models past and present (and even a couple of --- ------ hints of future productsJ). Several .,_--- .--==....-----_.-- -- ----------- European and Japanese prototype models are also featured. The text is printed in both English and German throughout the 68 pages. Many specialty items and full UN/TRACK details are also included. Whether you're a KATO enthusiast, HO or N scale modeler/collector or a model railroad operator ... you'll want a copy of the KATO International Railroad Catalog. The KATO International Model Railroad Catalog has a suggested retail price of $9.98 (U.S. dollars) and is available at fine hobby shops worldwide. If your retailer is temporarily out-of-stock, you can order direct from KATO U.S.A. with your Visa or MasterCard. To order direct, call 1-847-781-9500. Add $5.00 shipping and handling for U.S./Canadian orders and $9.00 for all foreign orders. IL residents add 8.25% sales tax. IIIiI!1 KATO U.S.A., INC. ·100 Remington Road· Schaumburg, IL 60173 April 1998 • Volume 9, Number 11 ALL SCALES: Modeling Industry: Cold Storage Warehouses in abandoned m~~ ....... ....... ...... ...................... .... .. 9 Model the Turner Creamery at Unity, Maine ........................ .. .... .... ........... 55 Time Capsule: Extra 22, on the Santa Fe, at Saint Louis, Missouri, September 15, 1997 ........
    [Show full text]
  • Virtual-Ly Reality
    Virtual-ly Reality EMD SD40-2 SNOOT NOSE ACF 70-TON CLOSED-SIDE NEW! In stores in April COVERED HOPPER, Two Car Set Item # Roadname and Number Item # Roadname and Numbers 176-4900 Undecorated 186-0201 Erie Lackawanna 21019 and 21035 176-4901 Burlington Northern Santa Fe 6799 186-0202 Erie Lackawanna 21028 and 21047 176-4902 Burlington Northern Santa Fe 6340 Milwaukee Road and 176-4903 British Columbia Railway 751 186-0203 99073 99208 176-4904 British Columbia Railway 756 186-0204 Milwaukee Road 99142 and 99099 176-4905 Canadian Pacific 5864 186-0205 Nickel Plate Road 91034 and 91085 176-4906 Canadian Pacific 5904 186-0206 Nickel Plate Road 91067 and 91078 176-4907 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 5026 186-0207 Denver & Rio Grande Western 18335 and 18372 176-4908 Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe 5027 186-0208 Denver & Rio Grande Western 18364 and 18368 176-4909 Union Pacific 3379 176-4910 Union Pacific 3401 186-0209 Seaboard Air Line 8100 and 8247 186-0210 Southern Pacific 90602 and 90801 All SNOOT NOSE models will be equipped with white 186-0211 Southern Pacific 90735 and 90798 LED directional headlight and KATO semi-automatic knuckle couplers. The heavy, split metal frame will be 186-0212 Southern Pacific 90654 and 90785 "DCC friendly" for the easy drop-in installation of digital decoder. A set of printed numberboards (to be installed by hobbyist) will be supplied in box ... please check to be www.katousa.com sure the correct boards are with the model before purchasing. ImI�1KATO U.S.A., INC. ·100 Remington Road· Schaumburg, Il60173 Why risk derailing your railroad project? Your perfectly crafted models deserve the perfect paints from the Floquil line of enamels and Polly Scale acrylics.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Fe Photo Index Organizational Structure
    Santa Fe Photo Index Organizational Structure As of 06 Dec 2011 Key Dates are often useful in helping to identify the era of photographs but please remember that not all locos, cars etc were painted (or the events happened) at once as there is a time lag for all of the equipment to be repainted etc & there were exceptions that never got updated. Thanks to many others contributions, many of the key dates are listed below. To help in finding those dates: Locos are colored Blue, Frt Cars are colored Red, Pax Cars are colored Green, MOW are colored purple & structures are colored Orange. 1995 09 22: Santa Fe (fm 1868 Oct 28 or 1859) combined with Burlington Northern to become BNSF 1995: EMD SD75Ms delivered (#200-250) in red & silver warbonnet 1994 08 to 1994 09: MK1200Gs delivered by Morrison-Knudsen (#1200-1201) in yellow warbonnet 1994: GE –944CWs delivered (#600-699) in red & silver warbonnet 1994: Chico logo discontinued 1993 circa: Ditch lights begin to be retrofitted to blue and yellow power 1992 04 to 1992 10: GE –840CWs delivered (#800-951) in red & silver warbonnet 1992 03 to 1995 03: Second Q logo for Managing Top Quality replaced earlier version 1991 early to late 1993 / early 1994: US flag stickers on locomotives for the first Gulf War 1991 07 to 1991 09: EMD GP60Bs delivered (#325-347) in silver with red lettering & red yel blk stripes 1991 03 to 1995 03: Q logo first appeared & discontinued in 1995 1990 10 to 1992: GE –840BWs delivered (#500-582) in red & silver warbonnet 1990 08 13: Special train with GP60M #146 painted for Maersk Lines promotional film on Cajon Pass 1990 05 to 1990 06: EMD GP60Ms delivered (#100-162) mostly red & silver warbonnet (12 in primer) 1990 01: First Q logo for Managing Top Quality (used on frt cars fm 1991 Mar to 1993 May) 1989 to 1991: Amber beacons start vanishing (essentially gone by the end of 1991) 1989 07: Red and silver warbonnet reappears on FP45's.
    [Show full text]