March 27, 2002

Mr. D. R. Pierce
General Chairman
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
801 Cherry Street. Suite 1010
Fort Worth, TX 76102

Dear Mr. Pierce:

I want to answer your February 27, 2002 letter in which you very thoroughly set forth BLE’s position concerning BNSF’s use of a remote control switching locomotive at Mandan, North Dakota. I’ll try to address your points in the order in which you presented them.

Your primary argument appears to be that Article 3 of our January 25, 1944 Memorandum of Agreement has been violated. Article 3 states:

In the application of this agreement it is understood that the existing duties and responsibilities of engineers will not be assigned to others. It is further understood that a second engineer is not required in multiple-unit service where the engineer operates the locomotive from one cab with one set of controls.

This provision still completely begs the question of what constituted "existing duties and responsibilities of engineers" way back in 1944. As we see it, those duties and responsibilities were confined to the operation of conventional, fixed cab controls, the safe and efficient use of which required extensive training, not unlike that which we still provide our locomotive engineers. And, the rest of Article 3, which you did not quote, acknowledging that the remote operation of a trailing multiple-unit locomotive does not require another engineer, further supports our view. Thus, with the new remote control operation at Mandan, the "duties and responsibilities of engineers" as contemplated by the 1944 agreement have not been assigned to "others". Rather, those duties and responsibilities have been eliminated by an on-board computer. Yardmen continue to perform essentially the same function as always -- sending instructions concerning the movement of the locomotive; however, in the operation at Mandan, these instructions are now received and executed by a computer. It simply cannot be said that any "duties and responsibilities" genuinely committed to engineers by our agreements have been assigned to others.

You also advise that, "In 1970, the then recently merged Burlington Northern implemented pilot projects at Kansas City and Pasco that utilized remote controlled technology in humping operations," and presumably rely on this observation as evidence of some sort of past practice supporting BLE’s position. You go on to allege that BN’s vice president - labor relations at the time, T. C. DeButts, made commitments which are inconsistent with our Mandan operation. We strongly disagree. Please note that the devices in question back in 1970, WABCO low speed control units, bore no meaningful similarity to the system now at issue. They were instead merely low speed regulators designed to assist an engineer during humping operations. Unlike the system recently installed on the locomotive at Mandan, the WABCO speed control was a tool intended specifically to make the engineer’s job easier in humping operations, rather than a comprehensive system which fundamentally eliminates the function performed by the engineer. Accordingly, we think you have completely miscast whatever import may legitimately be attributed to Mr. DeButts’ correspondence. Actually, Mr. DeButts’ February 5, 1971 letter recognizes the principle that an employee, other than the engineer, may control an engine through a remote system without violating the BLE agreement. In his closing paragraph, Mr. DeButts stated:

We do not see that the WABCO LED-I or the cab signals increase or decrease an engineer’s responsibility or in any way affect his work conditions except for the better. The Hump Yardmaster who formerly ordered hump speed verbally may now control speed through an automatic device and will be just as responsible for his actions as he would have been had he given the engineer verbal instructions.

So, even back then, the railroad was able to provide someone besides the engineer with a tool to set locomotive speed via remote control without negotiating a new agreement with the BLE. That did not change even after the BLE weighed in. But, anyway, the WABCO low speed regulator had a very narrow function, did not fully automate "existing [yard engineer] duties and responsibilities," and so did riot effectively eliminate the engineer’s position as the new system does. Plainly, Mr. DeButts’ representation about impacts on engineer positions was confined explicitly and exclusively to the immediate effect of the "WABCO... Low Speed. . . Systems," and was specific to the limited function and character of that device and the narrow issue it raised at the time. Mr. DeButts said nothing which could even conceivably be deemed some waiver of BNSF’s broad rights preserved by the totality of our agreements in connection with the latest state-of-the-art remote control operation.

You also somewhat curiously relied on a 1995 arbitration award denying BLE claims based on carmen’s remote control of a self-propelled machine at Havelock shop. Your theory there is equally unavailing. Not only did the award deny BLE’s claim, it did so on procedural grounds, offering no endorsement whatsoever of BLE’s erroneous position now regarding the Mandan operation.

Next, let me address your reference to a 1955 "Memorandum of Agreement between Northern Pacific... and [BLE] covering the manning of self-propelled machines on the rails of this Company by locomotive engineers." As to this, it’s sufficient to say that this old agreement, by its own clear terms, had nothing to do with the manning of locomotives. Its scope reached only what railroaders have long understood are "self-propelled machines," i.e., specialized maintenance of way vehicles and the like, not intended to make up or power trains in revenue service. To be sure, the operation of locomotives using "information age" remote control technology could not have been farther from the minds of the 1955 agreement’s negotiators. In short, that ancient document is irrelevant-to the situation we now face.

Finally, while I well appreciate BLE’s concern about BNSF’s joining other major railroads in the use of this dramatic new technology, I feel compelled to confess disappointment in the way you characterized our responsiveness to your concerns. Dennis, we, and I personally, have repeatedly been available to discuss this with you, and, of course, we already have talked about the issues at length, both "locally" and with BLE’ s International officers. Even though we at BNSF have felt for a long time that the railroad is well within its rights implementing this technology as we have, we early on volunteered our interest in discussing all the issues and especially new protective arrangements for affected engineers. The real problem is simply that we still don’t see eye-to-eye on the legitimate impacts this technology has on locomotive engineer positions. I just wish you had characterized the nature of the dispute in this way rather than, I think unfairly, by suggesting that we’ve been stonewalling.

We remain willing to work with you and other BLE leaders to resolve the issues cooperatively, and if we still can’t get there, to leave this to adjustment through statutory processes.

Very truly yours,

 John J. Fleps

cc: Don Hahs, BLE International President
Carl Ice
Dave Dealy
Milton Siegele

Byron A Boyd February 16, 2002
International President
United Transportation Union
14600 Detroit Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio ~1O7-4250
Fax: 216-228-5755

Dear Sir and Brother: 

I am writing you this letter with regard to your position concerning the "Black Box" and our membership handling such equipment. You have not only put us in a posture to do work we aren’t qualified for, but we don’t want to take jobs away from our fellow engineers any more than they want to take our jobs from us. Our members can be forced to work jobs that have remote control equipment and can be put in a posture so as to have to be responsible for a whole new set of rules, and we were never asked if’ we wanted this work.  

During the 1987 and 1991 United Transportation Union Conventions, of which you and I were in attendance, we the Delegates voted overwhelmingly for our representatives to seek to merger with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. At no time did we give consent to take them over and/or take work away from them. This is becoming an ugly mess and it will split the employees of all railroads right down the middle and cause great hardship for all of us. 

No matter the issues, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers voted not to merge with the United Transportation Union. It is my position that the Delegates and the Membership wish for a merger, not a "take over." It is my position that the Delegates and Membership also do not want to take another employees job from them. If the United Transportation Union is losing membership to the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, propose a merger that they can live with and do what is necessary to bring both sides together. 

I am giving up my position as Local Chairman of Local 627 that I have held for over 22 years at the end of my term because of the way this union is heading on many issues, but stealing jobs from those whom I have worked along side for over 35 years is unconscionable. 

I remain Fraternally yours, 

D.L. Porterfield
UTU-TE&C 627

UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION

February 28, 2009

Mr. D. L. Porterfield, Local Chairperson
United Transportation Union, Local 627
6561 Courtney Circle
Lincoln, Nebraska 68516

Dear Sir and Brother

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 16, 2002 addressed to President Byron  A. Boyd, Jr. President Boyd has requested that I respond to your comments regarding the issue over remote control.

We completely share your comments regarding taking jobs away from our fellow engineers. There are hundreds of engineers that belong to the UTU and work under a BLE Agreement. From knowing you and reading your letter it is very obvious that you do not know all the facts concerning the issues involving remote control. Protecting and preserving jobs is exactly why we have stepped forward and agreed to address the remote control issue. Remote control is nothing new. Some form or another has been around since the 1950’s however, it has just been in the last few years that the technology has advanced to the state of art it is in today.

Canadian railroads began operating remote control approximately twenty (20) years ago and within the last ten (10) years, the Canadian Railroads have advanced the so-called "pitch and catch" method. The American Carriers started discussing remote control in this country in the early 1990’s and we were successful, in keeping the Carriers at bay from moving quicker. The American Carriers have watched the success of remote control operations in Canada and started moving quickly for such operations in this country 

The BLE fought remote control in Canada and ended up losing all of the yard engineer positions with no protection to any of their people. In fact, the Arbitration Award in Canada basically stated that remote c6ntrol was nothing more than a communications device through which signals are transmitted to the on-board computer. The logic of the Arbitration Award is that train service employees have always been responsible for passing signals to the locomotive and the only change now is that instead of passing signals to an engineer, the signals are passed by the train service employee through the remote control device to the on-board computer.

This is one example of a third party involvement. In 1985 a Presidential Emergency Board issued recommendations that were very drastic and one of the recommendations can be found in Article VIII, Section 3 (9) of the October 31, 1985 National Agreement. That provision reads as follows:

Use communication devices: copy and handle train orders, clearances and/or other messages.

We started receiving indications that many of the American Railroads were buying remote control devices. In questioning the railroads, it also came to our attention that it was the Carriers position based upon the language contained in the BLE Arbitration Award that the above quoted provision would allow them to institute remote control operations without an agreement. We take strong exception to the Carriers’ position, but at the same time, we must keep an open mind on what a third party could do to our membership.

Knowing what I have explained, President Boyd, General Secretary & Treasurer Dan Johnson, myself and General Counsel Clint Miller met with BLE President Don Hahs and several of his Officers and their attorney within a couple of weeks of President Hahs’ election. President Boyd explained to Don Hahs how important it was that our two (2) Organizations get together mainly because of the remote control issue. President Halts was advised that if the merger were successful, he (BLE) would have a seat at the table when discussing remote control. This was extremely important to our UTU engineer members because it was the desire of the UTU to protect all of the operating employees, not just UTU members.

BLE President Don Hahs did nothing to promote the merger and the rest is history. Once the merger was voted down by the BLE, the BLE moved into the courthouse to try and stop the remote control operations. They lost and they now have cut themselves away from having any seat at the negotiating table regarding remote control. The only means the UTU now has of trying to protect engineers affected by remote control is through representation elections where we would obtain the right to represent engineers. We already have commitments from the Carriers that anyone affected by remote control will have protection. 

Had we gone the same route as the BLE and fought this technology, we stood to lose not only the positions, but also protection for UTU members. Each time we have fought new technology, we have lost and our membership has suffered. This administration is no longer going to let that happen because we are not going to see more injustice inflicted upon our members.

You indicate that the BLE does not want to take our jobs from us. would suggest that you get a copy of the recent agreement the BLE made on the Montana Rail Link on remote control.  Remember, on the Montana Rail Link the BLE represents not only engineers, but also train service employees. The BLE placed two (2) engineers on the ground basically eliminated the Conductor or Switch Foreman by allowing them to be pulled off of any remote control positions and forced to other positions including the extra board. Section 2 of the Montana Rail Link Agreement states as follows:

Whenever the crew of a remote controlled assignment consists of only two engineers. those two engineers will receive forty five minutes at the applicable engineer switcher rate per tour of duty.

Engineers on the Montana Rail Link were not affected by the implementation of remote control. In fact, they (engineers) picked-up one additional engineer’s position on each remote control assignment The train service employees are the ones who were adversely affected and Section 6 of the Agreement spells out their protection. It reads as follows:

It is also agreed that in the event implementation of this new technology results in any loss of jobs, preferences will be given to those affected employees when openings occur in other crafts for which they are qualified, or may be trained to qualify in a reasonable amount of time, consistent with the Carrier’s legal obligations and/or contractual obligations with any Organization.

The above protection is a far cry from that which the UTU is negotiating. As I stated earlier, we have hundreds of engineer members and we are going to do everything we possibly can to see that they are protected. The only way we can accomplish that task is to gain the right to represent the engineers craft.

There is no chance of ever putting together a merger with the ELF. We offered them everything, including transferring all of the UTU engineers into the BLE General Committees. We assured them that if the merger was completed, each remote control operation would consist of one (1) engineer. Nothing we could offer them would have resulted in a merger. When your top Leadership is afraid to speak out in favor of a merger, then there never will be one of these two (2) Organizations.

Trusting that this letter explains in more detail what is involved with remote control, I remain

 Fraternally yours,

Paul C. Thompson
Assistant President 

cc: Mr. B. A. Boyd, Jr., International President

Mr. Paul C. Thompson                             March 17. 2002
Assistant President
United Transportation Union
14600 Detroit Avenue
Cleveland Ohio 44 107-4250

Dear Sir and Brother:

I am writing you this letter in answer to your letter of February 28, 2002 to the undersigned regarding the issue of remote control. I have a great deal of respect for you, your family whom I have known for years, your gifted speaking ability; and for the United Transportation Union and what it is trying to do for its members.

Brother Thompson, there is always another perspective that all parties may not have looked at that needs to be heard and I feel compelled to state my opinion. First of all I do not agree with the current proposed wage negotiations. To be required to farther negotiate with our carrier and have our pay evaluated on present earnings that are being declined is unconscionable Everyone was against me with regard to my opinion on the 1985 Contract when I stated that it would come back to haunt us when we took away  parts of our pay from new hires, and now we are all going to suffer for it. It has also  caused a "we versus they" mentality between the BLE and the UTU as the BLE has told their people that they never intended to take away anything from their members and they recovered much for them. I don’t frankly buy their claim that the railroads won’t listen to them and will only negotiate with the UTU because any Local Chairman and/or member of any union would find a way to get their foot in the door over the many years of negotiations and contracts that the UTU has finalized our pay issues. Thus we all feel a need to merge, but arrogance will not bring a merger to reality. We as employees and union members need a merger in the worst way, not such terrible division between two powerful unions and their leaders. Never stop trying because of what they did or what our union has had to suffer through because this is truly the wrong approach for the members you represent.

You mentioned within your letter that the Canadian Railroads began operating remote control approximately twenty years ago and within ten years they have advanced the "pitch and catch" method. You stated that the American Railroads have been kept at bay without any mention of what transpired between "at bay" and the signing of an agreement with the American Railroads. Brother Thompson, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad brought a "Truck Railer" to Hastings, Nebraska many years ago from Canada for our approval on branch lines: This very large truck had a coupler at the rear and upon further examination. I stated that it wouldn’t work because of a design flaw. The FRA Representative present agreed with-me and the rest is history. My point is that all branches of this great union have kept at bay many issues and matters that the Canadians have gotten with less regulation. as well as have the BLE. I would also like to state that passing signals to the engineer is vastly different from running a remote control device and one only needs to perform those functions in order to give a proper evaluation. We are taking our evaluation of the contract much further from the scope of its intent as the carrier might do with this evaluation, because there was no mention of forcing a trainman who had never ran a locomotive to be in charge of its complete operation. I understand your position that one employee would be lost and that you wanted to protect our people to ensure that it wasn’t us, but you have also put us in the posture that we can now be trained to operate a locomotive to retain our seniority. With this fighting and bickering between the unions, we the employee loose and it wil1 ultimately cause division, confusion, loss of jobs, and discord between our friends that we have worked with for more years than any of our union leaders have been in office. If the "winner takes all" attitude continues, I foresee 100 to 300 employees corning to work in sweats, overalls, or white shirts and ties to a building where we have a cubical, desk, and monitor, for the expressed purpose of moving switch engines, cars, and trains over an expanded territory.

Our union leaders are playing into the hands of our employers and we are up to our necks with it all. If it persists and our fellow workers continue to get hammered with the reoccurring aspects and repercussions of the issues it brings to bear, we will have no choice but to rebel from the ideologies and practices of the administrations that have brought us to that point. This is a warning to both unions because the simple fact is that we care more about our fellow employee and what we might loose ourselves, than what any union might provide to meet the goals of their agenda and not show compassion and understanding for all employees they are in office to represent.

I remain Fraternally yours,

D.L. Porterfield

UTU-TE&C 627