September 4, 1981
File: Art.600 4/29/81 Ops.36—81/32-LC

Mr. R. F. May, LC 32
129 Garden Drive
Montgomery, Illinois 60538
Boulder Hill

Dear Sir and Brother:

In conference with Mr. Waldron on September 3, 1981, I advised him of your problem with the Engineers’ Extra List mileage regulation of counting all mileage earned.

He was to handle for correction and trust it has been handled by now to your satisfaction.

We also discussed deadhead miles being counted and I advised him our position that deadheads terminal to terminal (100 miles or more) or in a case where it is an engineer’s day’s pay miles it should be counted.

If deadhead is, say for 20 miles and working an outlying assignment, and paid as an arbitrary, then the miles do not count.

I believe he will acquire further advice from some higher Labor Relations officers before he agrees or disagrees with this.

Trusting this provides additional information and corrects the problem I remain,


Return to 600 rules

 

Mr. T. E. Stewart, LC 629
Rt. 2 Box 161
New London, Missouri 63459
October 22, 1984
File: 629/600 Rules —
       601.5(1), 601.6(1), 601.10
Dear Sir and Brother:

This letter has reference to Brother Danny Dudgeon’s undated letter to this office and, also your recent telephone conversation.

Brother Dudgeon in his letter asked in essence if a small minority of people can control the division by their attendance at division meetings. Directly, he is asking if a division acts on a question and it passes, is it valid. In this particular incident a few members changed the mileage regulation of the pool and extra list.

Let me say, the answer to Brother Dudgeon’s question is more complex than it appears. Therefore, I will address a few generalities first and then address some specifics, which I hope answers both yours and Brother Dudgeon’s inquiries.

If a division takes action and has a quorum under the constitution, the action would stand. This does not mean anything is guaranteed to happen. As an example, if a motion was passed that needed the carrier’s approval, the division could only act to secure such approval and failing, the motion would carry and nothing would have changed.

Once a motion has been passed at a division meeting, there are two (2) ways to have it changed. At a future meeting a motion can be made to reconsider. It must be made by someone who voted with the majority; also, the second must be from the majority. A second way to effect a change is that at a future meeting a motion to rescind can be made from anyone and if carried, must lay over until the next division meeting. This is provided for in the BLE Constitution under Rules of Order Division, General Committees of Adjustment and Legislative Boards.

This is being explained to you so that you and your members understand their rights under the constitution.

Now, for the specific questions asked by telephone from you and in Brother Dudgeon’s letter. The regulation of the pool and the extra list is outside of the scope of the division and is solely entrusted   with the local chairman. See Section 601.10. This is not to say that a local chairman may not be wise to listen to the desires of the majority of his members when it comes to a mileage understanding with the local carrier official, but he is not subject to an ironclad mandate from division meetings. I think you can see the wisdom in this, in that few could control the destiny of many and the local chairman is supposed to represent the majority.

Also, keep in mind that the mileage figure agreed upon must be within the range of 3200 to 3800 as provided for in the agreement.

Enclosed is a copy off a letter former General Chairman W. M. Dunegan sent to East Ottumwa Local Chairman H. J. Worden which is about on point with the questions asked here.

Trusting this provides you with the required information, I remain,


Return to 600 rules

 

April 30, 1982
File: Sec.601 / 644-EO

Mr. H. J. Worden, Jr. LC Div. 644-EO
604 Walnut
Knoxville, Illinois 61448

Dear Sir and Brother:

This is reply to your letter of April 20, 1982, with copy to Div. Pres. Pepmeyer.

Your letter indicates there is some misunderstanding regarding your authority in regulating mileage under provisions of Section 601 of Article 600, per our agreement of April 24, 1981. (Copy enclosed for your ready reference.)

Your April 20, 1982, letter requested that I provide written information regarding your authority in regulating engineers’ mileage. By letter dated April 28, 1981, I provided just such information in the penultimate paragraph. (Copy enclosed for your ready reference.)

Section 601.10 was written in the specific manner it is because of information I have obtained during a survey regarding the mileage procedures desired by our various Divisions. Section 601.10 provides that the Local Chairman and the Carrier Officer will agree upon regulation of miles “within the range” of 3,200 and 3,800 miles per month.

Please note that Section 601.10 requires the designated Carrier Officer and the BLE Local Chairman agree on the mileage regulation. It does not provide for agreement involving the Local Committee of Adjustment, the Division or this office; it specifically and singularly designates the Local Chairman.

This will provide written aforemation of ray position that the Local Chairman is the BLE authorized representative to regulate miles per our April 24, 1981 Agreement.

Fraternally yours,

W. K. Dunegan
General Chairman

WDM:mcp

cc: Mr. G. H. Pepmeyer, Pres. Div. 644
      Mr. A. D. Gillham, S-T, Div. 644

P.S. Brother Gillham; Please accept this as reply to your letter of April 26, 1982. 


Return to 600 rules

 

 

March 11, 1982
File: Sec.601 / 616-LC

Mr. P. C. Couch, LC Div. 616
834 Brookfield Ave.
Brookfield, MO. 64628

Dear Sir and Brother:

This is in reply to your letter of March 8, 1982, regarding Section 601, Adjustment of Engineers' Working Lists.

You specifically disagree with my position that emergency miles be used in calculating adjustments of the extra list. You rely on Section 11(a) as found on page 217 of the BLE-CB&Q Schedule.

It is my position that mileage earned by engineers account the extra board being exhausted still fall within the scope of extra board mileage. Therefore, to accurately determine the number of extra engineers required it is necessary to calculate all extra miles, including so-called emergency miles.

It is also pertinent to realize that the mileage rules of all former schedules have been superseded by our Section 601.

You also state that you should have a free hand in dealing with the company so as to adjust the engineers extra list because of various factors.

You have been provided information in that regard through First Vice Chairman Pelava’s letter of July 8, 1981. (Copy enclosed for your ready reference.)

If I can be of further assistance please advise.


Return to 600 rules

St. Paul, Minnesota
October 8, 1981

All Division Superintendents
Burlington Northern Railroad Co.

In order to put to rest the dispute that has arisen regarding the BLE Mileage Agreement of April 24, 1981, and the resultant cancellations of local BLE agreements dealing with the same subject, please see that it is clearly understood that agreements entered into with BLE Local Chairmen pursuant to the April 24 agreement, but which are subject to approval of this office, are to be honored. It should be further understood that there is, and can only be, one duly authorized representative of Locomotive Engineers having singular contractual authority over Engineers’ working conditions and that that representative is the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.

It is further recognized that Local Carrier Officers and BLE Local Chairmen have the authority and responsibility to enter into local agreements reflecting the parties’ intent as set out in Section 601.10 of Memorandum of Agreement signed April 24, 1981, BN 4/24/81 Ops-36-81.

Please cancel any previous instructions to the contrary, however or by whomever authored.

Very truly yours,

Return to 600 rules