UTU RAID - Representation Vote
Brothers/Sisters,
The Southern Ontario TCRC Campaign Center is now open with
internet access, fax and phone service. If your timing is right,
there might even be a pot of fresh coffee on.
All CCROU members are encouraged to take full advantage of this
resource and check out the “facts” for themselves.
Contact Information: TCRCsouth@bellnet.ca 416-754-7689 /416-754-3122 fax
Have a safe and Happy Holiday Season,
TCRC Southern Ontario Campaign Center
DIVISION 295, - Members and
officers have mobilized to ask any members who had been blind
sided by a campaign launched to begin a representation vote for
running trades on Canadian Pacific Railway to rescind the card(s)
signed on the weekend of July 4th.
UTU members canvased CPR engineers with prevarication and half
truths that they themselves had beleived after being drilled only
two hous before the raid began with the effect of being more believable.
The raid was to last 72 hours. The UTU also held a meeting on
the Sunday of that weekend inviting BLE members disguising the
invitation as one being held by the CCROU to discuss contract
negotiations.
Those contract negotiations, which had been going smoothly, are
now held up due to the raid.
The UTU intends to present applications signed by engineers along
with names of all ESB Honorary BLE members, the later of whom
have not given consent, to the CIRB in order to approve a run
off vote. The process is to take no longer than 60 days.
Any union may apply to be on the ballot, but so far it is expected
to be between UTU and BLE.
If there are more than 35% of the BLE membership that have signed
the cards, the CIRB may consider authorizing a vote. More than
50% is automatic.
BLE members of 295 are available
to answer questions and provide those who had mistakenly signed
the cards with a form to sign rescinding the applications.
ESBs and those retired on bridging can also request their names
not be used by the UTU.
Forms for Members to Rescind Application
Forms for ESBs to refuse the use of their names in the raid
CLEVELAND, July 8 -- Leadership
of BLE Canada today strongly condemned an
attempted raid of its Canadian Pacific membership by the United
Transportation Union, while an elected BLE officer has been relieved
of
his duties for assisting the UTU raid.
BLE International President
Don Hahs appointed George Hucker, BLE
International Vice-President & National Legislative Representative-Canada,
as temporary trustee of the BLE’s CP Rail (East) General
Committee of
Adjustment. Special Representative R.J. Toole was also appointed
administrative assistant to Vice President Hucker.
In a letter dated July 8,
President Hahs invoked his authority under
Section 16 of the BLE Constitution & Bylaws and placed the
CP Rail GCofA
under trusteeship.
In his letter, President Hahs
told the officer in question that:
“Specifically, you have violated your duty by using your
BLE title and
office to promote the election of the United Transportation Union
(UTU) to
replace the BLE as collective bargaining representative for Canadian
Pacific engineers and may have expended BLE funds to further that
campaign.
“You are hereby directed
to relinquish to Brother Hucker and Brother Toole
possession and control of all the funds, books, papers and other
properties of the general committee.”
On July 4, UTU representatives
approached BLE members at their work
terminals and invited them to sign applications in order to join
the UTU.
In a letter to Ken Georgetti,
President of the Canadian Labour Congress
(CLC), BLE Canadian Director Gilles Hallé said that the
UTU’s actions
violate the “no raiding” provisions of the CLC Constitution.
He also
requested that Georgetti immediately appoint a neutral umpire
to
investigate the UTU’s actions.
In the United States, the
UTU was found guilty of violating the
“no-raiding” clause of the AFL-CIO constitution on numerous
occasions. In
fact, UTU withdrew from the AFL-CIO several years ago to avoid
financial
penalties for its constant raiding of BLE.
A joint letter from Canadian
Director Halle and Vice-President Hucker
accuses the UTU of timing its raiding campaign in an attempt to
derail the
proposed merger of the BLE and the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters.
“(T)he UTU recognizes
the powerful stranglehold on surface transportation
that could result with a BLE-Teamster merger,” the letter
states. “The
size of the membership, the resources and money behind such a
merger, if
it were to take place, would in itself be a huge threat to the
negotiating
abilities and long-term survival of the UTU.”
Brothers Hallé and
Hucker also said the raid will have long-term, negative
consequences on the workers and has damaged each union’s
ability to
negotiate with the carriers.
“The UTU, by these actions,
has done what the company has been attempting
to achieve for countless years -- divide and conquer.”
I have condensed the details of facts into hyperlinks, to
keep this commentary short. Even without the details, there is
something logical and intuitive about why the UTU is not where
a Locomotive Engineer wants to be, nor where a Conductor would
like to share craft representation.
First, with the details of the history
of the UTUs malicious actions against our Brotherhood and
against other unions, and second, their history of minimally representing
individual crafts within their own membership.
To the second point, there need be no details or proof because
the UTU has repeatedly insisted again and again that there ARE NO CRAFTS and acted upon that insistence
each and every chance they had an opportunity to represent both
conductors and engineers on one property.
Where the interests of the two crafts interfere with each other,
only the UTU Politician will be assured protection and what ever
circumstance offered by the particular railway, will determine
the working environment. The UTU says nothing can be done. Case
in point, soon after the Quebec North Shore & Labrador became
wholly represented by the UTU; Came this apology for agreeing
to ENGINEER ONLY environment.
The only time the words "Craft Autonomy" come
from the UTU, are times spent trying to justify a merger-takeover
to another union.
Just notice how many times over the years the term 'train and
engine service employee' comes up. What does the term mean? There
is no conductor, Locomotive engineer, or trainman, they are all
train or engine service employees. The word EMPLOYEE should send
out the message.
Unions and Brotherhoods that represent what they consider to be
a Craft, represent and assist those Craftsmen IN and OUT of employment.
The UTU insists on employed personel only, for membership as a
Train Service EMPLOYEE. The term 'Company Union' takes on even
more signifigance noting that the three representatives from Canadian
Pacific Railway that attended the arguments for a representation
vote at the CIRB
hearings (pdf), accompanied the UTU.
At Via, during negotiations, it became clear that conductors would
be lost. Instead of focusing their attention to getting the best
deal for their conductors, the UTU dropped them like a hot potato
in favour of a shrewd business decision to raid the BLE membership
of Engineers. For a recap of the debacle as VIA went Engineer
only:
VIA RAID by UTU and the consequences.
Fined and expelled by the AFL-CIO for their malicious attacks
on other unions, the UTU showed no remorse. Expelled by the Canadian
Labour Congress.
Insensitive to the importance of preservation of crafts.
Insensitive to the specific needs of the craftsmen, who would
in fact be the members.
Fiscally irresponsible by spending tens of millions, yes TENS
OF MILLIONS raiding other unions, who had posed no threat to the
UTU organisation, funneling members money
illegally to prohibited areas of their organisation.
Top leaders who have been involved in criminal
activity for years and some have since pleaded guilty to the charges
and named even their president and vice presidents as prime conspirators.
Before the 1999 UTU convention, I began to explore the ideas and
vigilant warnings of their then International Treasurer Roger
D Griffeth, and would urge all conductors and trainmen to have
a look at his new
web site.
Those who know me, understand that I have been strongly critical of the BLE- IBTeamster merger, and even after its member ratification, I also urge every Engineer to continue to be vigilant monitoring the TDU web site. The words printed here are my own and I would not allow any other dictate my free expression or any one elses free expression on these editorials.
But I do contend that the worst scenario, for all of us,
is for either of our two unions to dominate our bargaining environment.
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers does not seek to represent
the conductors and trainmen, because inherently, where there are
jurisdictional conflicts, fair representation is impossible for
every craft. Stop the UTU raid.
We should not allow the craft of either the UTU or the Teamster
Politician to ruin our carreers by giving either of them, free
reign.
Finally, to those who commendably feel they should remain true to their perspective unions, I can only say, IT IS YOUR UNION THAT SHOULD REMAIN LOYAL TO YOU.
J. Paul Bellis
"Over the last seven years, the dramatic acceleration
of hiring and the
quick integration of operating employees have changed the foundation
of
the railroad industry and the rail labour world. The simple reality
is
that because of this change the distinction between the duties
and
training of an engineer, brakeman and trainman have been blurred
to the
point of extinction."
"The UTU believes that for rail labour to remain relevant
it should
consolidate into one strong operating craft represented by one
union,
which will have more than 100,000 members in North America."
"The UTU's filing with the NMB contends that as "a
matter of functional
integration and community of interest, the line between the craft
or
class of engineers on the one hand, and conductors and trainmen
on the
other, has been blurred to the point of practical extinction."
The UTU
also said that in "today's world on the nation's railroads,
trainmen,
conductors and engineers share a community of interest and a degree
of
functional integration hitherto unknown."
Looks like the only 'CRAFT' autonomy was that of Union Politician.
Anybody remember that group of poor old lost puppies, when they
migrated here to Toronto for work?
The BLE speak to the matter of the Quebec North Shore & Labrador Railway (QNS&L) where UTU has represented all the operating crafts for many years. While it is true that engineer-only operations have been implemented on this property, the BLE, as usual, forgets to tell the whole story. The way they attempt to paint the picture verifies their inability to fabricate something of any value and their poor appreciation of art.
Under Canadian law, the employer can virtually implement any operational change they want, without government approval, unlike in the United States where the FRA is integrally involved in the process right from inception.
When the General Committee was confronted with a notice to implement engineer-only operations on the QNS&L, they were faced with the reality of having something shoved down their throats. They could sit idly by and do nothing, or they could negotiate and attempt to mitigate any losses while trying to get the most for their members, given the inevitability of the situation.
As a result of the negotiations, those members adversely affected received large separation/benefit/pension packages and the constraints placed on the QNS&L were such that they could not operate engineer-only trains for over a year-and-a-half, and only then after they had met 64 requirements placed on them by Transport Canada. Furthermore, those left working were protected as well.
Additionally, the BLE failed to mention the fact that these engineer-only trains (not all trains are operated in this fashion) run in the most desolate part of North America were there is only one level grade crossing in over 300 miles of track. The constraints on the employer are so stringent that in the event communication with the UTU locomotive engineer is lost, a helicopter is immediately dispatched to determine the reasons why.
In terms of the dovetailing of the roster at QNS&L,
the roster was again determined by a craft vote.
So its everybody elses fault and nothing could be done,
when you are all in that one Union and each craft has been assimilated.
This 'single craft -one big happy union' seems to be just what
a Railroad Company loves.
Following is an old letter from M.W. Simpson Genral Chairman
BLE detailing the Via Rail Agreement that led to the CIRB hearing.
It was forwarded when some members on the BLE list including myself,
had demanded some sort of explaination. It is probably wise to
read if anyone has been subjected to its rumous and is quite enlightening.
If we vote no and retain the CCROU
We will have DETENTE, neither union will dare to ignore its members
wishes in the future.
CIRB VIA RAIL DECISION
To BLE Sisters and Brothers:
This is in response to the many posts on the BLE Members
page concerning
the CIRB decision in the Cairns et al Section 37 complaint. By
way of
introduction, I am the BLE General Chairman for CN and VIA Western
Lines
and one of the signatories to the June 12, 1998 VIA Collective
Agreement
which included, as an appendix, the Crew Consist Adjustment Agreement.
Save any criticism directed at the International officers concerning
the
VIA agreement. Vice Presidents, at least in Canada, do not negotiate
and
sign collective agreements, General Chairmen do.
Those of you who have asked for information on the BLE Members
page
concerning the CIRB decision, have presented me with a very difficult
challenge.... How to explain what has taken place without those
seeking
the explanation, having a full and complete understanding of the
VIA
negotiations, the tri party Transfer Agreements (there are two
- 1
negotiated by the BLE and 1 inherited from the UTU after the
representation vote), the 2 collective agreements ( the BLE and
the
inherited UTU agreement) and the complexities of the seniority
provisions between the 2 crafts and the 2 companies. If all of
these are
not considered together when forming an opinion about the Cairns
decision, the chances of reaching the wrong conclusion are greatly
enhanced. In my view, Madam Pineau, did not understand or take
into
account all of the relevant factors, and this alone may explain
why the
decision reads as it does.
The UTU understands how partial information without history
and relevant
documents can work in their favour. This is the reason that they
were so
quick to put out a press release containing excerpts from the
Cairns
CIRB decision. Provide just enough information to start the fire
and let
fertile minds fill in the blanks. From reading the posts to the
members
page, the UTU disinformation campaign appears to be working, at
least on
some. Attempting to provide you with a complete understanding
of the
issues is near to impossible however, a basic knowledge of the
above
mentioned factors is essential to understanding what has taken
place. In
providing this information I will only deal with CN and VIA and
I make
no representations or profess to speak for any of the other General
Committees involved now or in the past.
Transfer Agreements
1. When VIA was formed the employees for the new corporation
were
obtained from CN Rail. This included carmen, clerks, locomotive
engineers, conductors and trainmen.
2. In 1986 the unions for the non-operating crafts (now
one union - the
CAW) negotiated "Employment Security" agreements for
their members that
provided a percentage of pay for their members upon layoff. The
operating unions (BLE and UTU) negotiated separate protection
agreements
for their respective members that provided for locomotive engineers,
or
conductors and trainmen, working at VIA the ability to "flow
back" to CN
when they could not hold work at VIA. As well, the "Transfer
Agreement"
provided that when additional operating employees were required
at VIA,
CN employees were given the first opportunity, in seniority order,
to
apply for these positions. CN spare boards continued to protect
vacancies at VIA Rail at locations where VIA did not maintain
a spare
board. This arrangement has worked well and benefited our members
for
many years.
3. CN has allowed operating employees to flow back to CN
when unable to
hold work on many past occasions. On one such occasion, when on
June 14,
1995, Justice Mackenzie abolished the UTU baggage position, CN
allowed
the affected employees to flow back without incident. Via continued
to
have access to a ready source of fully qualified operating employees
from CN.
VIA Negotiations/ Representation Vote
1. In Mach 1997 and prior to the representation vote at
VIA Rail, VIA
served the BLE and UTU separately with material change notices
that
intended to transfer the duties of the conductor and assistant
conductor
to the locomotive engineer on passenger trains. The balance of
the
conductors and assistant conductors duties were to be transferred
to the
on board services personal.
2. The BLE, as required by the provisions of the Collective
Agreement,
negotiated a settlement, not to abolish the conductors and assistant
conductors positions, rather to minimize the adverse effect on
locomotive engineers, should VIA be successful in eliminating
the
positions of conductor and assistant conductor and transferring
their
duties to the locomotive engineers. The "Material Change
Agreement" was
signed by 2 of the 3 BLE General Committees on May 12, 1997 and
contained two conditions, one that VIA conclude its material change
negotiations with the UTU and two, the BLE material change agreement
would become null and void if the crewing initiative was not completed
by December 31, 1998. Condition 1. was negotiated as the BLE felt
VIA
could not abolish the craft of conductor and assistant conductor
using
the material change provisions of the UTU collective agreement.
Condition 2. was negotiated to allow the BLE to renegotiate the
provisions of the agreement (if VIA was correct or the UTU agreed)
should conditions change during the time between the BLE signing
the
agreement and the conclusion of negotiations with the UTU. Many
of you
will have heard this May 12, 1997 material change agreement referred
to
by the UTU as the "Secret Agreement". Was it a secret
agreement? I don't
think so. This agreement was provided to the BLE members who would
be
affected by it if VIA and the UTU reached an agreement, or if
it was
otherwise achieved, to remove the conductor and assistant conductor
from
passenger trains. Was it shared with the UTU? Certainly not, this
was a
BLE agreement for the benefit of its members. Simply stated, it
just
wasn't any of the UTU's business how the BLE minimized the adverse
effects to locomotive engineers should the UTU agree with VIA
to remove
the conductor and assistant conductor from the train. Did the
BLE have
cause to think that the UTU might agree with VIA and sell the
jobs of
conductor and assistant conductor, just look at their history
and you
tell me.
3. In October of 1998 the BLE, on behalf of its members,
(the locomotive
engineers) served contract demands on VIA Rail (the current collective
agreements expired December 31, 1998). The UTU served similar
notice to
VIA of its intention to negotiate a new collective agreement (the
UTU
collective agreement also expired on December 31, 1998). Meetings
between VIA and the BLE took place to negotiate renewed collective
agreements.
4. It's important to remember, that prior to and while the
separate (BLE
and UTU) contract negotiations were taking place the CIRB was
hearing
the issues related to the abolishment of the conductors and assistant
conductors. VIA was asking the Board to order a "winner take
all"
representation vote between the BLE and the UTU. VIA's application
was
opposed by the BLE and supported by the UTU. Why would the UTU,
who had
fewer members at VIA, support VIA's application for a representation
vote? It is not that difficult to understand given, what was taking
place and the sequence of events at VIA Rail. In my view, the
UTU could
see the writing on the wall, they would most likely be unsuccessful
in
retaining the conductors and assistant conductors jobs at VIA
at an
arbitration hearing. If they lost the representation vote, the
BLE would
have to deal with that issue and if they won, the now emerging,
plan to
dovetail seniority rosters would be put into place. This is something
the UTU have been looking toward for many years. The UTU have
come to
understand that, while they have lots of members their jobs are
rapidly
disappearing.
5. On October 31, 1998 the results of the representation
vote became
known, the BLE had won the right to represent all operating craft
members including locomotive engineers, conductors, assistant
conductors
and yardmasters.
6. The BLE revised its contract demands to include the demands
of the
former UTU members at VIA. The revised demands were obtained from
the
UTU and presented to VIA shortly after the results of the representation
vote were known. The BLE maintained the position that VIA could
not
eliminate the craft of conductor and assistant conductor by using
the
material change provisions of the collective agreement, for two
reasons,
one, the provisions of the material change were not meant to deal
with
the abolishment of a craft and two, now that the parties were
in the
open period of the collective agreement any change to crew consist
provisions must be dealt with at the bargaining table. VIA did
not agree
and threatened that the Collective Agreements no longer existed
and that
it intended to implement its Crewing Initiative with or without
an
agreement with the BLE. The BLE filed a charge of unfair labour
practice
with the CIRB alleging that VIA was engaging in or threatening
to engage
in, an illegal lockout of employees. The Board agreed and sent
the
parties back to the bargaining table to deal with the collective
agreement issues "including the crew consist issue".
The Board decision
was clear, VIA could not implement its crewing initiative and
the BLE
must deal with the crew consist issues presented by VIA at the
bargaining table.
7. The BLE maintained the position throughout negotiations
that VIA's
"Crewing initiative" should be accomplished through
attrition. In order
to accelerate the attrition process the BLE proposed and negotiated
50/30 retirement packages for locomotive engineers and conductors,
locomotive engineer training opportunities for conductors and
assistant
conductors, an option to flow back to CN under the Transfer Agreement,
opportunities to continue to work at VIA in other jobs for those
not
covered by the flow back provisions, severance options for the
same
group. Remember, the BLE employed four VIA Rail conductors who
were
obtaining input from the conductors and assistant conductors by
direct
contact. I can not think of another negotiation where the membership,
on
a one on one basis were permitted to provide input to the bargaining
committee. The VIA conductor representatives, at one point in
the
negotiations, spoke to every member, on a one on one basis, concerning
the options that VIA had presented and how they felt about it.
8. Negotiations continued until June of 1998 when the BLE
was presented
with a final offer from VIA, either accept the memorandum of agreement
as presented or VIA would lockout the members. Not such an idle
threat
when you consider that VIA would be saving about a million dollars
a day
when not running its trains. Via works on a subsidy from the Canadian
Government, who is very interested in privatizing VIA Rail. Not
only
would the VIA members be affected by a lockout but the CN members
as
well (they report to work at the same locations in a number of
terminals). The members of my GC of A came together in June of
1998 and
for 3 1/2 days we debated and considered whether to accept the
memorandum of agreement and put it out for ratification or refuse
it and
place the members at VIA on the street. A decision was taken to
put the
memorandum out for ratification and allow our members to vote.
This was
done with the following results:
On my GCof A, 83.6 % of the ballots mailed were returned,
of those
ballots returned 64.1 % voted in favour of the tentative agreement
with
35.9 % against. It is my understanding that my GC of A had the
lowest
percentage of members in favour and that one of the GC of A's
had an 80%
plus in favour of the tentative agreement.
CIRB Cairns Decision
1. August 21, 1998 former UTU Via Rail conductor, George
Cairns filed a
complaint with the CIRB alleging unfair labour practice by the
BLE. His
charge included a great number of accusations that he believed
show
unfair labour practice, quantity, not quality, filled Mr. Cairns
charge
of unfair labour practice. The Board heard testimony from a number
of
individuals, including Vice-President and Canadian Director, Gilles
Halle, Guy Scarrow, Vice-President UTU, and a number of conductors
from
VIA Rail.
2. As you have noticed the complaint is filed under George
Cairns "et
al", the reason being many of the conductors and assistant
conductors
joined Mr. Cairns after the original complaint was filed. Why?
It is
quite simple, the conductors, many of whom had voted in favour
of the
memorandum of agreement, saw an opportunity to better their position
if
Cairns was successful. Viewed through their eyes, they had what
they had
and could only improve upon it. Don't forget that while these
individuals became BLE members, many never accepted that fact.
In the
evidence given by Mr. Doug Dillon (34 years as conductor) he complained
that the BLE Division 583 would not admit the conductors and assistant
conductors as regular members. The truth of the matter is that
the
former UTU members wanted to form their own Division and did not
want to
associate with the locomotive engineers of Division 583.
3. After all the evidence was heard, the Board upheld three
of the many
allegations filed by Mr. Cairns. They were:
1. the selection process for conductors and assistant conductors;
2. the seniority provisions as they affect conductors and
assistant conductors who qualify as locomotive engineers; and
3. the application of the Special Agreement negotiated between
the UTU, VIA and CN.
Lets take these findings one by one. I want to make it very
clear that I
agree with the first and third items in the Boards findings.
On the first finding the BLE has filed grievances and is
proceeding to
arbitration with the issue of the selection process for locomotive
engineer training. The position of the BLE is that VIA did not
give fair
and unprejudiced consideration to all applicants. Basically, the
BLE is
alleging that, for the most part, VIA selected candidates for
locomotive
engineer training that, if the other options were forced, would
have
produced extra costs for VIA (severance and bridging and retirement).
What VIA did was to disqualify most of the conductors and assistant
conductors who had flow back rights to CN - no additional cost
to VIA.
The grievances on this matter were filed shortly after the results
of
the selection process became known to the BLE. I am at a loss
to explain
why the Board would include this matter in the decision.
On the third finding concerning the flow back provisions
of the Special
Agreement (Transfer Agreement) the BLE has filed grievances and
the
issue is now before an arbitrator. The BLE maintains that the
Transfer
Agreement was negotiated to provide for operating employees to
flow back
to CN whenever they could not hold work at VIA. All evidence has
been
called and the arbitrator is in the process of formulating a decision
on
this matter. Once again I am at a loss to explain why the Board
has
included this matter in the decision.
On the second finding, I have a somewhat different opinion
of Madam
Pineau's findings. In my view she did not fully comprehend the
complexities of the seniority system between the two companies
and the
two crafts. Let me break this down into the different components.
1. The BLE and the UTU negotiated separate transfer agreements.
Each
would allow their own craft to flow back independent of the other.
ie
locomotive engineer unable to hold work as a locomotive engineer
at VIA
would flow back to CN, not bump into the conductors ranks as at
CN. The
interchangeable rights provisions apply to locomotive engineers
with a
seniority date prior to 1988.
2. When the locomotive engineer so displaced was able to
hold work
at VIA again a bulletin would be issued open to all locomotive
engineers
at CN in seniority order. The most senior locomotive engineer
applying
would be awarded the job. (not necessarily the locomotive engineer
who
was displaced from VIA waiting recall). The locomotive engineer
so
awarded the job at VIA would go to VIA and fill out a job choice
and
take what ever job his seniority allowed. ( not necessarily the
job that
was bid to get to VIA) In the end the junior locomotive engineer
would
end up on the least desired job.
3. Similarly the conductors would flow back and rebid jobs
at VIA.
The interchangeable rights provisions apply to conductors who
have a
seniority date prior to 1988.
Here is where the issue becomes more complicated. With the
advent of the
representation vote the BLE inherited the former UTU collective
agreements, including the transfer agreement. With no conductor
or
assistant conductors left at VIA the UTU Transfer Agreement would
appear
dead, except for one thing. What do you do when a former conductor,
now
trained as a locomotive engineer can no longer hold work at VIA.
How do
you let the displaced former conductor flow back to CN as a locomotive
engineer (where he/she has no standing on the locomotive engineers
list
at CN) under the BLE Transfer Agreement. Given the nature of the
BLE
Transfer Agreement and the fact that there are no conductors jobs
left
at VIA how would this individual ever be able to return to VIA
as a
locomotive engineer (the only jobs left at VIA). He would not
be able to
even apply for the job at VIA because he has no seniority on the
CN
locomotive engineers list.
Lets suppose that the BLE do as Madam Pineau is suggesting
and dovetail
the former conductors seniority at VIA Rail and cut these conductors
in
where their service date allows. Now we would have a mixture of
locomotive engineers and conductors displaced from VIA waiting
to flow
back to CN (CN would take the same position whether it was former
conductors or a mix of former conductors and locomotive engineers)
How
are we any closer to resolving the issue?
Lets suppose that CN allowed, or the arbitrator rules, that
the mixture
of former conductors and locomotive engineers can flow back to
CN. The
locomotive engineers would displace into the locomotive engineers
jobs
at CN, the conductors would flow back into the conductors jobs
at CN. If
a job came open at VIA, a bulletin would be issued and the senior
CN
locomotive engineer applying would go to VIA. The former conductor,
because he has no seniority standing at CN, would never be allowed
to
return to VIA to work. That is unless the BLE dovetailed the former
conductors seniority into the locomotive engineers at CN.
How do you think the CN locomotive engineers would feel
about that? How
do you think the UTU members at CN, waiting their opportunity
to become
locomotive engineers, would feel about that? If the BLE were to
dovetail
the seniority of the former conductors into the CN list what date
would
you use. Would you use their service date, the same as most of
the
locomotive engineers used to apply and become locomotive engineers?
Is
this a fair and equitable solution? What about senior conductors
who
passed up locomotive engineer training and at a later date qualified
as
locomotive engineers? All locomotive engineers who applied for
training
from the conductors ranks at CN, regardless of their conductors,
seniority took their turn on the bottom of the CN locomotive engineers
list when they qualified.(this is in accordance with the provisions
of
the UTU agreements with CN).
What if you used the date subsequent to the last bulletin
for locomotive
engineer training, passed up at CN by the former conductors? In
most
cases this would give the former conductors (locomotive engineer)
seniority outside the protection date for interchangeable rights
under
the transfer agreement.(1988) Because their locomotive engineers
seniority date would be subsequent to the date provided in the
Transfer
Agreement they would not be permitted to bid over to VIA. Still
we are
no further ahead.
How can the BLE negotiate a collective agreement that would
affect
employees in another Company without giving those employees an
opportunity to vote on the issue. Quite simply, you can't. Who
do you
think would be taking the BLE in front of the Board if any of
the above
scenarios were put into place without allowing the affected memberships
(VIA members, CN BLE members and CN UTU members) to vote on the
issue.
What do you think the chances of this being ratified?
The only realistic solution to this problem is what the
BLE negotiating
committee was proposing from the beginning. Allow the reduction
of the
conductors and assistant conductors positions to take place using
attrition. When a conductor or an assistant conductor retires,
bridges,
severs, qualifies as a locomotive engineer or otherwise leaves
the
service, the position is not filled.
I can't help but wonder if the UTU membership will continue
to hail Mr.
Cairns as a hero once they fully understand what he has done and
the
effect that his actions could have on them both at CN and VIA.
The BLE
will be making all these points and more when the Pineau decision
comes
before the Board for review and the Federal Court for judicial
review. I
am confident that one of the two will recognize the bias displayed
by
Madam Pineau and strike down her decision.
In closing I want to touch on the charge that the BLE and
VIA Rail acted
in concert to improperly remove the conductor and assistant conductor
from the train. All I can really say is you had to be there. This
was a
very tense and hard fought negotiation. Bitter feelings resulted
from
the negotiations and the "final offer" from VIA and
they remain to this
day. Madam Pineau took unsubstantiated statements of UTU Vice-President,
Guy Scarrow and two conductors, with an axe to grind, and turned
them
into fact. She disallowed or ignored the BLE statements as "gain
saying"
and formed her opinion on half the evidence.
I hope this helps you to understand the issues and the complexities
that
Madam Pineau has so thoughtlessly dealt with in her decision.
In solidarity,
M. W. Simpson
General Chairman
CN - VIA Lines West
Following Statements issued by the UTU International:
CLEVELAND -- The United Transportation Union (UTU), the
largest rail and
transportation union in North America, told a key carrier group
that it
"is no longer agreeable" to joint negotiating sessions
with the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE).
UTU sent a letter on May 20 to Robert F. Allen, chairman
of the National
Carriers' Conference Committee (NCCC) informing it of the union's
decision.
UTU International President Charles L. Little said, "Because
of the
unjustified recission of the November 19, 1998 Agreed-Upon Statement
of
Principles to be Incorporated into a Unification Agreement and
Constitution of a New Organization by the Advisory Board of the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) on or about May 10,
1999, this
is to advise you that the United Transportation Union (UTU) is
no longer
agreeable to joint sessions of the UTU-NCCC National Wage &
Rules Study
Panel with BLE."
------------------------------------
July 18 2000
CLEVELAND (July 18) - In light of the Federal Railroad Administration's
upcoming technical conference with respect to remote control operation
of locomotives, the United Transportation Union (UTU) and the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) have committed themselves
to
work together in developing a joint position before the railroad
industry and the federal government.
To that end, they agreed today to jointly develop a proposal
on
substantive provisions designed to ensure the safety of employees
represented by both unions, and to limit the use of remote control
to
those operations currently existing.
The parties intend to share all available data, research,
and other work
already done individually in developing a common position through
consensus.
The BLE, North America's oldest labor organization, has
58,000 members
and is the certified bargaining representative for, among others,
locomotive engineers on U.S. Class I and Canadian railroads, Canadian
rail traffic controllers and, through its American Train Dispatchers
Department, U. S. train dispatchers.
The UTU represents 135,000 transportation employees, and
is the
certified bargaining representative for, among others, conductors,
trainmen, switchmen, firemen, hostlers, hostler helpers and yardmasters
on U. S. Class I and Canadian railroads.
Both unions are headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.
-------------------------------------
February 9 2001 :
TRRA workers' choice of UTU validates single-craft representation
GRANITE CITY, Ill. (February 9, 2001) -- In a winner-take-all
election
with significance for all rail operating employees, train and
engine
service workers on the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
(TRRA)
have voted 83 to 17 as a single craft to choose the UTU as their
bargaining representative.
"This is a great and long-awaited moment for those
on the TRRA who
wanted and needed the assurance of having the best representation
available in the industry," UTU International President Byron
A. Boyd,
Jr. said. "Not only does this outcome represent a triumph
for TRRA
workers, but it hands a victory to all who understand the advantages
of
single-craft representation."
President Boyd thanked General Chairperson Dave B. Weir
(GO-919), Local
President Tom Kennedy and Secretary and Treasurer John I. Payer,
who are
members of Local 469, Madison, Ill, as well as Organizing Representative
J.R. Cumby of Local 1962, Toledo, Ohio, and Vice General Chairperson
Jim
Herndon (GO-436) of Local 565, Centralia, Ill., for their determined
and
successful efforts.
As a result of the election, GO-919 has become the first
unified UTU
general committee of adjustment composed completely of a class
of
employees certified by the National Mediation Board (NMB) as train
and
engine service employees.
Last year, UTU was certified on the Texas-Mexican Railroad
by the NMB to
represent train and engine service employees.
-----------------------------------------------
July 23 2001
UTU BLE Merger Agreement Reached
"After 3 1/2 years of on-again, off-again discussions,
it's time for the
members of both unions to decide on the question of merger. We
are
asking our members to approve the creation of the largest combined
rail,
bus and air union in North America. It joins the best of the proud,
historic and democratic principles embodied in both the UTU and
the BLE,
and has as its goal the protection and advancement of each of
the
autonomous crafts in which our members work."
----------------------------------------------
August 3 2001
BLE-UTU Merger Ballots to be mailed
"If more than one craft is directly affected by any
change in working
conditions and/or seniority, that change must be approved by a
majority
vote of each directly affected craft," said Boyd and Dubroski,
quoting
from the proposed constitution.
---------------------------------------------
?????
Aha. If only one craft is boned, too bad.
?????
---------------------------------------------
September 17 2001
Ballots Impounded;
UTU Promises "Major Announcement"
Federal District Court Judge Ann Aldrich on Monday, Sept.
17, 2001,
ordered that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the United
Transportation Union "instruct the American Arbitration Association
to
impound all ballots cast by members of the BLE, to refrain from
making
the results of any ongoing or final tally of the votes known to
any of
the parties or to any third party, and to preserve the cast ballots
under seal pending the resolution of this lawsuit."
The lawsuit was brought by three BLE officers seeking to
impound and
destroy the BLE ballots.
UTU International President Byron A. Boyd Jr. said he would
make "a
major announcement" on Tuesday, Sept. 18.
------------------------------------------
September 18 2001
"On Monday, Sept. 17, 2001, three dissident officers
of the BLE, at odds
with their own national leaders, obtained a preliminary injunction
from
a federal district court in Cleveland to impound the BLE ballots
cast in
the UTU-BLE merger vote. I believe the majority of the voting
members of
the UTU and the BLE have voted to approve this merger. We cannot
let
their desires go unheeded.
"With that reality, the UTU has asked the National
Mediation Board to
order a representation election on the Kansas City Southern Railway
so
that KCS train and engine service employees may decide
for themselves
whether to be represented by the UTU or the BLE. An overwhelming
majority of operating employees on the KCS requested that election
in
writing.
"The UTU sent signed authorization ("A")
cards to the NMB in Washington,
D.C., on Tuesday, Sept. 18. The policy of the NMB is to order
a
representation election when a majority of a craft or class of
workers
on a railroad requests such an election.
-----------------------------------------
?????
So much said for working together
?????
-----------------------------------------
October 4 2001
UTU gains jurisdiction over remote control
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- In an action designed to permit all railroad
operating employees to control their own destiny, the United
Transportation Union (UTU) and most of the nation's major railroads
have
signed a letter of intent assigning the work of remote control
operations to employees represented by the UTU.
The letter of intent was discussed in Cleveland on October
3 by UTU's
top officers with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers' (BLE)
new
leadership team.
The railroads include Burlington Northern Santa Fe, CSXT,
Kansas City
Southern, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific. All are members
of the
National Carriers' Conference Committee, which is the bargaining
arm of
most of the nation's Class I railroads. Remote control allows
a
locomotive to be operated from outside the cab through use of
a radio
transmitter and receiver system.
------------------------------------
>
??????
Now go back to the top of the page - July 18 2000 :
"to limit the use of remote control to those operations currently
existing."
??????
------------------------------------
>
October 22 2001
UTU-BLE Merger Again Moving Forward
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers will conduct a second
referendum
vote on whether to merge with the United Transportation Union.
In a
letter to his membership, BLE International President Don M. Hahs
said
the new ballots would be mailed to every active BLE member in
the United
States and Canada, with ballots to be mailed on Nov. 7 and counted
Dec. 10.
"I am extremely pleased that an agreement has been reached
that will
permit BLE members to express themselves on this most crucial
decision
of whether to merge the operating crafts, which will preserve
historical
craft autonomy," said UTU International President Byron A.
Boyd Jr. In
his letter to the BLE membership, Hahs said, "The final decision
rests
with you. Therefore, I urge you to exercise your right to vote
on what
is perhaps the most important issue in BLE history."
-----------------------------------------
November 12 2001
An Open Letter to
BLE International President Don Hahs
from UTU International President Byron A. Boyd, Jr.
"Dear Brother Hahs:
I have read the material accompanying the ballot sent to
BLE members
November 7 and wish to comment on the letter included with the
ballot,
which opposes a BLE-UTU merger."
.........etc
"A merger of the BLE and UTU is crucial to the current and
future
welfare of our members. The elected leadership of the BLE and
the UTU
must support and advance this merger now. The consequences
of not
merging are unthinkable.
Fraternally yours,
Byron A. Boyd, Jr.
International President"
---------------------------------------<
??????
Oooh, does this guy just bribe steal and tamper with witnesses
or has he
changed his mind again about the benefits of working in harmony.
??????
---------------------------------------<
December 10 2001
BLE Rejects UTU Merger
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
(BLE) has
voted not to merge with the United Transportation Union (UTU).
The
17,251-to-7,425 vote against merger was certified by the American
Arbitration Association (AAA) on Monday, Dec. 10. In October,
UTU
members voted six to one in favor of merger in a vote also certified
by
the AAA.
....etc
"The rank-and-file of the UTU has been pursuing a merger
of all railroad
operating unions for more than a quarter century," Boyd said.
"We now
will pursue our second alternative to strengthen the bargaining
power of
all railroad operating employees in North America. That alternative
is
winner-take-all representation elections on each of the major
railroads,
beginning with the Kansas City Southern.
"There is no question in my mind that the result will
be unification of
the historical operating crafts and that the unification will
be under
the umbrella of the UTU," Boyd said. "No one should
ever think otherwise."
-------------------------------------
Megalomaniac tells you how to think
?????
-------------------------------------
New Years 2001
"There were difficulties, for sure, in 2001. Chief
among them was the
frustration of working with two separate Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers administrations, both of which pledged support for a
UTU-BLE
merger. We attempted to work closely with those BLE officers.
Every UTU
press release and other statement we issued was first cleared
directly
through those BLE officers. After the railroads signed a letter
of
intent assuring UTU-represented employees operation of remote-control
technology, the UTU declined to begin negotiations until after
the BLE
merger ballots were counted. Had BLE members voted in favor
of merger,
the UTU intended that they be covered under the protective
agreement we
negotiate with the carriers."
Byron Boyd
------------------------------------>
?????
The work was going to the Engineers no wait engine service employees
?????
January 10 2002
Seniority and the Right to Fully Exercise It
by Paul Thompson
International Assistant President
United Transportation Union
We have been receiving inquires from general committees
desiring to
negotiate a provision that allows train and engine service
employees to
fully exercise their seniority in either historical craft. Such
a
provision was contained in 1996 Arbitration Award No. 559. However,
it
required an implementing agreement on the individual properties
before
becoming effective.
------------------------------------>
January 14, 2002
Railroad Remote Control Pilot Projects to be Implemented
"The panel believes that successful implementation
of remote control
technology will be substantially facilitated by the insights and
experience gained through these pilot projects," said a joint
statement
by NCCC Chairman Robert F. Allen and UTU International President
Byron
A. Boyd, Jr."
U.S. Labor Dept. upholds BLE claim that UTU misused Job Benefit Fund
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In a major setback for the United Transportation
Union (UTU), the U.S. Department of Labor agreed with the Brotherhood
of
Locomotive Engineers (BLE) in ruling that the UTU had misused
millions
of dollars in its Job Benefit Fund Income Security Program (JBF/ISP).
In short, the Department of Labor said the JBF/ISP is covered
by Title 1
of ERISA and that the UTU improperly used nearly $11 million to
fund
union operations. UTU may potentially be liable to JBF/ISP premium
payers for repayment from the union's General Fund to the JBF/ISP
Fund.
The significance of this Labor Department ruling is that
it completely
supports the BLE's position that merger with the UTU was financially
risky because of these questionable transactions.
Citing the potential violation of unemployment insurance
law, the BLE
warned the UTU and then ended all unification talks in May of
1999.
However, the UTU ignored the BLE's concern and claimed it had
legally
used the JBF/ISP and that the BLE had fabricated the story to
derail unification.
"We have been proven right once again," said BLE
International President
Edward Dubroski. "And once again, Charlie Little and the
UTU have been
proven wrong. We did the right thing and protected our members
from an
$11 million liability. No merger with any union is worth that
price."
The Department of Labor ruled that the UTU International
misused
approximately $11 million in JBF/ISP funds. It borrowed approximately
$10 million from the JBF to pay off two infamous legal judgments
-- the
Blankenbaker and Wilhelm cases. In addition, the UTU raided the
JBF of
more than $600,000 to purchase and outfit its political tour bus,
"Membership 1."
So far, the UTU has not reported this major setback to its
membership.
During the summer, UTU International President Charles L. Little
still
claimed that the BLE had made up the story about JBF/ISP just
to scuttle
unification.
Confident the Labor Department would side with it over the
BLE on the
JBF/ISP issue, the UTU asked it to determine which union's position
was
correct. After the Labor Department ruled against it in late October,
Little sent a memo to UTU officers saying he intends "to
litigate this
issue against the DOL."
Little has now suffered two major government setbacks in
cases he
promised UTU members he would win. In addition to losing his case
at the
Department of Labor over the JBF/ISP issue, he also lost last
March when
a special labor panel appointed by the National Mediation Board
stopped
the UTU from forcing an unfair representation election on the
Union
Pacific Railroad and eliminating the crafts of locomotive engineer,
conductor and brakeman. In both cases, Little has said he is appealing.
[Update 6/9/2003: In May we
reported that our union lost 48,000 members
last year, according to the LM-2 financial report filed by the
International Union.
Since that time, top officials
admitted at the Las Vegas Unity
Conference that 40,000 members were lost, and projected that if
the
current state of Teamster organizing is maintained our union will
lose
200,000 by the 2006 IBT Convention. This refreshing honesty was
part of
a report on the urgency of launching a major organizing program.
We will
report on that in our next issue.
As for the mysterious loss
of $61 million in 2001 in the same LM-2
report, we have yet to receive an answer. Stay tuned.]
Holes in IBT Financial Report
Raise Questions
Missing Money, Missing Members
The International Union?s financial report for 2002 is now out,
and it
reveals some shocking irregularities. Teamster members are entitled
to
honest answers to the troubling questions that are raised by the
report.
Record Loss of Members
The report states that our union suffered the largest net loss
in
membership in history. According to the union?s own documents,
Teamster
membership fell from 1,398,000 to 1,350,000 in just one year ?
a net
loss of 48,000 members. In the mid-1990s our union started to
grow once
again. Then, after Hoffa took office, small losses in membership
came
each year. Now this enormous loss. Members deserve a full explanation.
Record Loss of Money
The report states that our net assets fell by $61 million in 2002
? the
same year as the largest dues increase in Teamster history. The
$61
million budget deficit is so astronomical as to draw into question
the
accuracy of the whole report. Did the IBT really lose this unbelievable
sum? Or did our General President and Secretary-Treasurer sign
financial
documents that are inaccurate? Either way, members deserve a full
explanation.
Record Boost in Housing Perks
The report reflects that three top officials dramatically hiked
their
?housing allowance.? Secretary-Treasurer Keegel received $42,000,
James
Hoffa took $30,000 and Hoffa?s assistant Carlo Scalf bagged $28,000.
This housing allowance comes on top of the more than $200,000
that they
each take home from our dues money.
When Hoffa and Keegel ran
for office, they bragged that they would sell
the condominiums the IBT used to provide housing to some officials.
(Ron
Carey paid for his own housing). Hoffa and Keegel followed through
on
that promise. So now our union officers live in fancy D.C. hotels
with
our union dues picking up the tab!
Our union could buy a house
or condo for each of these officials at a
great savings. Members deserve an explanation for this crazy practice.
Fraudulent Reporting
Once again, Hoffa and Keegel signed a financial report that under
counts
the number of Hoffa administration officials who receive multiple
union
salaries. This is the fourth consecutive year that Hoffa and Keegel
have
misreported these facts to the members and the Department of Labour.
TDU Is Teamsters Taking Action
Members have a right to the straight story about how our dues
money is
being spent. TDU will be investigating and we will ensure that
members
get the facts on our union?s finances ? even if that takes legal
action.
TDU will also publish, after
extensive research, our annual $100,000
Club report with detailed information on our union?s finances,
including
a complete list of all Teamster officials who take home more than
$100,000 a year in union salaries.
Note: This information derived
from the LM-2 financial report for 2002
filed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters with the U.S.
Department of Labour. (This form is available at
http://union-reports.dol.gov <http://union-reports.dol.gov/>;
however at
the present time the Labour Department still has the form for
2001 posted.)
My own Welsh heritage of fighting off the invasions and
then returning to your homes and your work until the next one,-
becomes obvious. If we are still left standing after this recent
raid as proud members of the BLE, then what need is there for
the shelter of the IBT? We will have shown we can fight our own
battles. Instead of being tired of all the attacks and giving
up our flag to the Teamsters to stop the insanity, could it be
we have a new found confidence to fend the attackers off , or
has this merger jones taken on a life of its own?
Would the insanity realy stop with a teamster merger?
Would the conductors finally end up in the teamsters with us and
the conflict of crafts interests be inevitable? Just as 'not good
for us' as in the UTU merger scenario!
The difference being, we wont have the choices of an independent
craft Brotherhood.
Will the signifigance of the craft of Locomotive Engineer be lessened
because we dont' have a Brotherhood made for just that, anymore.
Will that signifigance be further lessened because we find ourselves
as distant cousins to the American Brothers by being a separate
satelite unit, both of us more closely tied to the IBT than to
each other?
Will we end up separated from the bulk of Engineers in North America,
have a separate Canadian Union but without a separate Canadian
vote?
To be continued.....
JPaul Bellis
Brothers,
Most if not all the information I get is about the IBT international. IBT Canada is quite separate from their American counterpart. The deal to merge is in the mail and all will be in black and white in your hands shortly. If our future well being is in mind only, then an honest assessment with an open mind is necessary to cast an informed vote.
I(e)(5) in our BLE constitution allows for a tally of the Canadian votes to decide weather or not BLE Canada will affiliate itself with the IBT Canada. This tally will only happen if our, the BLE vice presidents Halle’ and Hucker both call for it and a majority of the general chairman and provincial legislative board chairman. If the vote is called for and a majority of Canadian active members vote no then disaffiliation of the Canadian BLE will occur. Should the American’s vote in favour of the merger then I suppose we in Canada would be on our own to merge with whomever we like if we like. The perceived problem in this process is that our vice presidents have veto power over this segregated Canadian vote and neither to date as far as I’m aware, have gone on record in writing that they we enact 1e5, that portion of the constitution mentioned above.
I have been assured that Mike Wheton and our general chairman will lobby our vice-presidents hard to enact 1e5.
We (Ble members) have 135 days from the mailing date to have our ballots in to be counted (1e8). That provides time for some debate and deliberation before we jump into anything. It seems to me that BLE members should decide BLE members fate and not be pushed, scared or the like into anything on anyone else’s time table. Lets not be told what is best for us by anyone, particularly by those who have descended from mount high to provide us a choice as they say, a choice we likely had all along anyway.
Paul Proudlock
Note: If one counted heads at VIA and found that those qualified as engineers out number those not qualified, you have a simple answer to the 'unfair representation' legal battle that the BLE fairly represented its majority.
In the simplest scenario,
negotiating wages, you could get a good increase for the two thirds
conductor membership by whittling away at that increase for the
minority engineers and still get re-elected. I would suspect that
on wages, there would probably be an equal increase for everyone,
unless the conductors felt they should have parity. Hmm on that
note I think I recall UTU leadership suggesting just that!
But the inequality of representation can get far more serious
when it comes to matters of material changes and topics where
the interests of the two crafts conflict.
Remote operations is one example.
The UTU sees 'engineer only' in the future, their first move is
not to protect their membership, but to raid the BLE membership.
Down the road, when engineer only is reallity, their duty would
be to have the conductors trained and dovetailed into seniority.
They would also be dutified to get the very best severance packages
for those who would not qualify or refuse. (If they were to suddenly
become huhumanitarian)
This might be done at the sacrifice of favorable advancements
for engineers who have no issue with the change when there is
only so much money at the table for one bargaining unit.
Worse still, should ATCS be implemented to its full capacity,
and the only need for personel on a train is for set off lift
using a belt pack, who will go to the mat for Engineers when the
majority of UTU are conductors? How ominous and ironic when you
consider those crafts that disappeared after becoming UTU.
The above are extreme, and would expect that most of the losses
to engineers would be less obvious over time. (Nickle and Dimed
to death)
| -About us-|-Archives-|-Benefits-|-Crew Center-|-Collective Agreement-| |
| -C.R.O.R.-|-Diesel Dr.-|-Divisions-|-Editorials-|-Federal Legislation-| |
|
|
| -Local Agreements-|-Members-|-Photosection-|-Quiz-|-Timetable- |
| -Web Directory-|-Welcome-|-What's New-|-Your Voice-|-Store- |
