Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

Mr. Don Hahs
International President
Mezzanine/The Standard Building
1370 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113-1702

Dear Sir and Brother:

Enclosed please find BNSF's response, dated August 14, 2002, to our letter dated July 30, 2002, concerning the operation of so called "remote controlled locomotives" from the control cab of the locomotive by other than locomotive engineers. Is it apparent by BNSF's response that the Carrier has no intention of discontinuing the operation of which we have complained. I am forwarding this response, as we have discussed, and I am also requesting that the International Division return to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and seek relief in this matter. When an employee other than the locomotive engineer occupies the control compartment of the locomotive and controls the locomotive based on input from the ground in the traditional manner, via hand signs, radio communications and or track side signals, the locomotive is not being operated remotely. In fact, the only portion of this operation that is truly remote is the impact on the location of the locomotive engineer as he is not remotely close to his rightful duties. The Carrier has now advised that they intend to use remote controlled yard assignments to operate in road territory to provide hours of service relief for road movements. These planned movements involve no operation of the locomotive from the ground as all duties in this service are to be performed from the cab. Trains will be operated on main line trackage on trackside signal indication over multiple crossing, all from within the cab, while an employee other than a locomotive engineer controls the movement sitting behind the control stand. The Carrier is clearly abusing the latitude given by the Court, hiding behind its so called implementation of remote controlled technology to eliminate locomotive engineers in what are essentially non remote controlled operations.

The Carrier argues in its letter that these actions are permissible as ground crew members previously rode in control compartments in non remote applications. Although that may be true, these same ground crew members did not previously operate the locomotive while in the control compartment and this new form of operation is in no way justified on that basis.

Please advise of the steps that can be taken to return this matter to the Court. The impact of remote control implementation on our members has been tremendous enough. We must not silently accept the Carrier's continual pushing of the proverbial envelope.

Fraternally,

Dennis R. Pierce
General Chairman

cc: Harold Ross, Esquire
BLE General Chairmen
Local Chairmen, BNSF Northlines/MRL

August 14, 2002

Mr. Dennis Pierce
General Chairman
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
801 Cherry Street, Suite 1010 Unit 8
Fort Worth, TX 76102

Dear Mr. Pierce:

I am writing to respond to your letter dated July 30, 2002, concerning the use of remote control devices by remote control operators while in the cab of the locomotive. You claim that these operations are outside the scope of Judge Gottschall's injunction in Civil Action No. 01-C-7743 and are contrary to the representations made by the carriers in that proceeding.

We appreciate your concerns about this matter and would like to assure you that the carrier is not attempting to stretch the meaning of the injunction or use remote control in a manner that is inconsistent with the contractual rights of employees you represent. BNSF does not require or encourage remote control operators to enter the cab of the locomotive while engaged in remote operations. Rather, we instruct remote control operators to position themselves in the most safe and efficient location to direct the movement of the train, just as a conductor or trainman would do. But regardless of where the remote control operator stands or sits during these operations, he continues to use remote control technology to direct the movement of the locomotive. So long as the remote control operator remains in remote mode, the on-board computer is doing the tasks formerly assigned to the engineer.

As such, the operations to which you refer are well within the scope of Judge Gottschall's injunction, which covers all disputes arising from the carriers' "use or plans to use remote control technology in the operation of locomotives in their terminal operations in or around terminals or work assignments in conjunction therewith." Regardless of whether the remote control operator enters the cab or not, all the work assignments in question arise in connection with routine "terminal operations" and all take place "in or around terminals."

Moreover, we cannot agree that the operations to which you refer are contrary to the carriers' representations to the court as to how remote control would be used. In fact, the carriers specifically noted in their filings that "[w]hen the locomotive moves in and around the terminal, the employee handling the remote control transmitter may ride in the locomotive (just as conductors and trainmen sometimes do in current operations), but will continue to use the transmitter and will not manipulate the locomotive controls directly." See, e.g.., Carriers' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 3; Complaint 9. Please keep in mind that, even in a conventional terminal operation, ground service employees routinely ride in the cab of the locomotive and direct various movements from that position. In short, there is nothing at all unusual about a remote control operator performing his duties from the cab, and we certainly made no representation to the court that we would in any way relinquish well established freedoms in that respect.

I hope this addresses your concerns. We are, of course, available to discuss this matter further with you. Should you wish to do so, please contact Milton Siegele.

Sincerely,

/s/ John J. Fleps

cc: Don Hahs