Vacation change protest
From Rob Newhouse
General Committee of Adjustment GO-261
SOO LINE R.R.
J. H. Nelson Chairman
139W Cook Street
Portage, WI 53901
Office 608-745-1700
FAX·608-742-1·708
E-Mail: g0261@verizon.net
August 16, 2010
Ms. Cathryn Frankenberg
AVP - Labor Relations & Human Resources
Canadian Pacific Railway
501 Marquette Avenue, South - Suite 1715
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Reference: Unilaterally imposed change for scheduling and awarding 2011 vacations
Dear Ms. Frankenberg,
This Office is in receipt of a letter dated August 9, 2010, authored by the CMC Manager Mike Manz, addressed to the UTU Local Chairmen pertaining to vacation scheduling for the year 2011. We have reviewed the language of this letter and find the contents therein are not in keeping with the 1949 National Vacation Agreement, as amended, the longstanding practices and interpretations regarding vacation scheduling on this property. Essentially, the August 9, 2010 letter unilaterally mandates changes in working conditions and abrogates the longstanding application of rules and practices without the benefit of negotiations. This is a clear violation of the Railway Labor Act, as mended. CMC's unilateral implementation of assigning the 2011 vacations via some sort of a "bulletin bid" scheduling method with no input or involvement from the UTU Local Chairpersons is in violation of the 1949 Vacation Agreement as interpreted by Award 1 of Public Law Board No. 4548, Awards 1 and 2 of Special Board of Adjustment, BLE vs. UP, Referee John LaRocco - 1993.
We also find controlling Article 39 - Vacations, of the collective bargaining agreement,
we quote there from:
"Part 6
Vacations shall be taken between January 1st and December 31st however, it is recognized that the exigencies of the service create practical difficulties in providing vacations in all instances. Due regard, consistent with requirements of the service, shall be given to the
preference of the employee in his/her seniority order in the class of service in which engaged when granting vacations. Representatives of the Company and of the employees will cooperate in arranging vacation periods, administering vacations and releasing employees
when requirements of the service will permit. It is understood and agreed that vacationing employees will be paid their vacation allowances by the company as soon as possible after the vacation period but the parties recognize that there may be some delay in such payments. It is understood that in any event such employee will be paid his/her vacation allowance no later than the second succeeding payroll period following the date claim for vacation allowance is filed. The agreement to "flat line" vacations is in Section A of Appendix 18." (Bolding added) There is decades of past practice wherein the UTU Local Chairpersons and local carrier field managers reviewed the vacation requests from the employees, assigned the vacations and then submitted the vacation rosters to CMC, or prior to CMC, the crew calling offices. This method of awarding and assigning vacations is in keeping with the 1949 Vacation Agreement, as amended.
It is noteworthy, that this Office has not received one complaint from CP's Labor Relations Department or CMC pertaining to the past performance of the UTU Local Chairmen's vacation scheduling methods or parameters. In fact, CMC and local managers have in the past the UTU Local Chairmen on the reasonableness of the vacation schedules.
Vacation scheduling issues crop up every year and this Organization has contested in writing the Carrier's unilateral attempt to impose changes. The vacation scheduling issues include allocations of vacation allotments, qualification for vacation time, locations where the individuals vacations were earned, and which rosters they should awarded vacations, along with the single day vacation restrictions. Last year as in previous years, each UTU Local Chairperson review the vacation requests from the employees working under his jurisdiction, took into account the number of vacation weeks to be scheduled and develop the vacation rosters based on historic and projected needs of service. This was done in consultation with the CP's local management team at the respective locations. This method has worked well for both the Organization and Carrier in the past. There is no evidence that these same parameters and vacation scheduling practice/method will not work for the year 2011.
In the past, the UTU Local Chairpersons have utilized their knowledge of the territory, historic and projected manpower needs and the desired vacation time normally requested by the employees working under their jurisdiction when compiling the vacation rosters. This forethought on the part of the UTU Local Chairpersons has worked to the advantage of both parties. Granted, there were some trains held for manpower in these areas, however, it was not the result of vacation scheduling. It was the result of inadequate manpower resulting from CP's failed transfer and hiring practices for those areas. No vacation scheduling method or juggling of vacation time is going to make-up for an inadequate supply of manpower at a location.
Our time spent on vacation scheduling disputes could be better-spent compiling accurate vacation scheduling information and foretelling good faith traffic projections. The information should be and forwarded to UTU Local Chairpersons in a timely manner. This will permit the Labor and management "professionals" in the field who have firsthand knowledge of the day-to-day operations to schedule vacations in a manner to account for "the exigencies and requirements of the service" as contemplated by the Vacation Agreement.
This Office and the Local Chairmen are fully aware of the impact a lopsided vacation schedule could have on manpower needs and serving our customers. With that in mind, we will continue to work with your departments to ensure that the method for scheduling of vacations remains intact and it will result in reasonable vacation schedules to accommodate the employees' requests that we represent. And, at the same time insure that vacation time will not overtly affect manpower to protect business levels at the respective terminals. However, we will not accept the unilateral imposed "vacation bid" process as the method for scheduling vacations.
In closing, as the result of the seriousness of this issue and the irreparable harm it may cause the employees that we represent, we must request that the "status quo" remain, an immediate written response and a meeting in our Portage office to timely resolve this dispute. We await your response so that a mutually agreed upon time can be set for this
meeting.
James H. Nelson
General Chairman - UTU
cc: Malcolm Futhey, International President - UTU
John Babler, International Vice President - UTU
UTU Local Chairpersons, GO-261
Clinton Miller, III, General Council- UTU
3
Posted in News on 08.18.2010 1:54pm
Complaint For Declaratory Relief
From Rob Newhouse
This is the Complaint made on UTU's behalf against CP Rail with regards to the carrier's threat to staff trains with managers instead of UTU conductors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION )
24950 Country Club Blvd., Ste. 340 )
North Olmsted, Ohio 44070 )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No.
)
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLATORY
501 Marquette Avenue ) RELIEF UNDER THE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, ) RAILWAY LABOR ACT
)
Defendant. )
Plaintiff United Transportation Union (“UTU”) submits the following as and for its complaint for declaratory relief against Defendant Canadian Pacific Railway (“CP”).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (Act regulating commerce, viz., the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.), 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory judgments), and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Act).
2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b), (c) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred herein, and because CP is subject to personal jurisdiction herein.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff UTU is the duly designated representative under the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., on the property of CP for train service employees (conductors/foremen and brakemen/helpers). UTU is an unincorporated labor organization with its headquarters located at 24950 Country Club Blvd., Ste. 340, North Olmsted, Ohio and is a “representative” as defined in Section 1 Sixth of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 151 Sixth.
4. Defendant CP is a carrier by rail transporting goods in interstate commerce, and is a “carrier” as defined in Section 1 First of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 151 First. CP is a corporation with its United States headquarters at 501 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which operates within this judicial district.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
5. Section 2 First of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152 First, provides that:
It shall be the duty of all carriers, their officers, agents, and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof.
6. Section 2 Seventh of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152 Seventh, provides that:
No carrier, its officers or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules or working conditions of its employees as a class as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in Section 156 of this title.
7. Section 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156, provides that:
Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at least thirty days written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules of working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon, as required by section 155 of this title, by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board.
8. Article 7 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement dated January 28, 2003, entitled “CREW CONSIST (ROAD AND YARD SERVICE),” provides, in pertinent part:
(a)The basic crew consist for all crews shall be (1) conductor/foreman and (1) brakeman/helper. A crew consisting of only a conductor or a foreman shall be called a conductor-only crew.
***
(c) Conductor-only operations may be instituted at the Company’s option in all classes of service and at all locations.
***
(h) No Company supervisor, official, nor craft employee, other than those working under the UTU agreement, will be used to supplant or perform work exclusively reserved to UTU-represented employees.
9. On or about June 6, 2010 CP Assistant Director-Labor Relations Bjarne Henderson left a voicemail on the cell phone of UTU General Chairperson James H. Nelson, stating, in pertinent part:
[A]pparently we are having another service meltdown issue, not exactly sure how bad it is. But one of the options they wanted me to let you know about is the potential, although we are not sure it is going to happen, is the need to use people other than UTU-represented people in conductor service over the weekend.
I think the plan would be to have managers on trains if it came to that, but I have gotten Mike Mac Namara’s personal assurance that option would not be utilized unless no UTU personnel are available to cover the work. So we will try our best to find every available UTU person to cover the work and if we can’t, and we still have to move a train we would have to do so.
I would like to talk to you more in person, maybe you have some ideas that could help us avoid the situation, so if you have chance, please call me over the weekend. Thanks, Jim, I look forward to hearing from you. If you get this message Monday please call me then as soon as you can.
10. On or about June 9, 2010, UTU General Chairperson Nelson and UTU Vice President John Babler were on a telephone conference call with CP Assistant Director-Labor Relations Henderson regarding the changes to the Hours of Service Act (“HSA”), 45 U.S.C. § 61, et seq., contained in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“RSIA”), Pub. L. No. 110-432, Div. A, 122 Stat, 4848, et seq., and its impact on the availability of train crews. Mr. Henderson stated it was CP’s position that it would not permit the RSIA requirements to stand in the way of interstate commerce and if crews were not rested, the new law had no prohibition against the carrier using managers to staff the trains. Messrs. Nelson and Babler made it very clear to Mr. Henderson that the RSIA had no impact on the UTU crew consist agreements, and that UTU would defend its contractual right to have the trains staffed by trainmen working under the UTU collective bargaining agreements.
11. On June 15, 2010, UTU General Chairperson Nelson wrote a letter to CP Assistant Vice President, Labor Relations and Human Resources-United States Cathryn Frankenberg, stating, in pertinent part:
Recently it was brought to this Office’s attention that some carriers may be viewing the 2008 Rail Safety Bill as a mechanism to abrogate various collective bargaining agreements with respect to manpower and the staffing of train service positions.
It is noteworthy, that CP has at its disposal to protect train service positions over 200 trainmen in furlough status who are subject to recall within a fifteen (15) days time frame pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. In addition, CP has Standby Agreements at various locations wherein trainmen can be placed on a standby board for service and are subject to a very short recall period. And, most important in regard to staffing of train service positions is Article 7 – Crew Consist (Road and Yard Service), we quote there from:
“(h) No Company supervisor, official nor craft employees, other than those working under the UTU agreement, will be used to supplant or perform work exclusively reserved to UTU-represented employees.”
It is important to note that Article 7 – Crew Consist does not provide for any exceptions to paragraph (h).
Ms. Frankenberg has not responded to Mr. Nelson’s June 15, 2010 letter to date.
12. On June 17, 2010, Mr. Nelson wrote another letter to Ms. Frankenberg, stating, in pertinent part:
On a final and extremely serious point, Mr. Henderson has stated that the CP may use managers in lieu of trainmen to operate trains when a shortage of rested crews exists. We at UTU view this as a very serious, flagrant and carrier induced violation of the crew consist agreement. We will defend against such encroachment on our crew consist agreement and work with the full authority vested in us under the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Inasmuch as the aforementioned are solely of the carrier’s actions or inaction as the case may be, we must insist an immediate response in writing and meeting in our Portage office to address these matters. Please contact this office for an agreeable time and date.
Ms. Frankenberg has not responded to Mr. Nelson’s June 17, 2010 letter to date.
13. On July 26, 2010, Mr. Nelson wrote yet another letter to Ms. Frankenberg, stating, in pertinent part:
[I]t has been brought to my attention by several high-level managers that because of the carrier’s self-induced manpower shortage it is your department’s contention that CP may use managers on trains as conductors in lieu of UTU represented train service employees. This is our second non-acquiescence letter to your department regarding this matter and a reminder that Article 7 forbids the use of managers to protect UTU represented positions.
“(h) No company supervisor, official, nor craft employee, other than those working under the UTU agreement, will be used to suppliant or perform work exclusively reserved to UTU represented employees.”
We must reiterate again on this extremely serious and sensitive issue, CP may not use managers in lieu of trainmen to operate trains; regardless if a shortage of rested trainmen may exists. UTU views the use of managers on trains as a very serious, flagrant and Carrier induced violation of the crew consist agreement. Keep in mind, that CP’s failure to hire sufficient train service employees, which in turn resulted in a manpower shortage, does not abrogate the collective bargaining agreements between UTU and CP. We will defend against such encroachment on our crew consist agreement and rightful work with the full authority vested us under the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
[I]n light of the seriousness of this situation, please promptly contact this Office for an agreeable date, time, and location to discuss this matter. We await your written response.
Ms. Frankenberg has not responded to Mr. Nelson’s July 26, 2010 letter to date.
14. A “major dispute” under the RLA is a dispute concerning changes in existing agreements [Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 723 (1945)], and a carrier is prohibited by the status quo provisions of the RLA quoted hereinabove at ¶¶ 5-7 from changing agreement provisions and altering the status quo without first complying with the mandatory negotiation and mediation provisions of the RLA. If a carrier alters the status quo without complying with those provisions, the representative is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief without having to make the traditional showing of irreparable harm. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Executives Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299, 302-03 (1989).
15. CP’s threats to use management crews and its failure to respond to UTU’s letters about those threats are the reasons UTU seeks a declaration from the court that this dispute is a major dispute under the RLA, and that any alteration of the status quo by CP’s use of management crews would entitle UTU to preliminary status quo injunctive relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff UTU respectfully requests that:
1. This court issue a declaratory judgment that the parties’ dispute concerning CP’s threats to use management crews is a major dispute under the RLA, which would entitle UTU to preliminary injunctive relief.
2. This court grant any other and further relief that may be appropriate in the premises.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Richard A. Williams, Jr.
Williams & Iversen, P.A.
1611 West County Road B, Ste. 208
St. Paul, Minnesota 55113
(651) 848-0280
Fax (651) 848-0282
rwilliams@williamsiversen.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
United Transportation Union
OF COUNSEL:
Clinton J. Miller, III
General Counsel
United Transportation Union
24950 Country Club Blvd., Ste. 340
North Olmsted, Ohio 44070
(216) 228-9400
Fax (216) 228-0937
Posted in News on 08.18.2010 11:57am
Email from Hill to Nelson
From Rob Newhouse
Chairman Nelson
Received the attached notice from CMC that T & E vacations for 2011 will be scheduled by CMC using a bid form.
There is no reference to Part 6 of Article 39 whereas representatives of the company and the organization will cooperate in arranging , administering and releasing employees.
Looks like there taking us out of the process.
Whats our recourse.
R J Hill
LC 911
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the letter from the Company...
August 9,2010
To: All BLE/UTE Local Chairmen
Re: 2011 Vacations
Please be advised that the T&E vacations for 2011 will be scheduled by CMC. The
granting of vacations will be given to the preference of the employee in seniority
order.
CMC will put out a MOR notice with a BID FORM and instructions on how to request
the 2011 vacations by August 18, 2010 with a closing date of September 15, 2010. If
the BID FORM is not returned by the closing date, vacations will be scheduled in
open slots based on seniority order.
Please contact Theresa Yeager-Novotny or Julie Washick at 612-904-****. If you
have any questions concerning.
Respectfully,
Mike Manz
Posted in News on 08.16.2010 9:45pm
MOY 50 5 day work week
From Rob Newhouse
August 9, 2010
J. J. Stoffer
Manager Operations Yard
1000 Shop Road, Building 860
St. Paul, MN. 55106
RE: MOY-TCT Notice # 50 Yard Service Employees Getting Five (5) Starts
Dear Mr. Stoffer
Reference is made to your MOY notice # 50 with regards to instructions issued to employees who are unable to work five (5) straight time yard starts in there work week.
Informing them if they so desire the option to work one or both of their rest days to achieve five straight time starts in there work week if requested will be placed in service for call ahead of the applicable shift GEL.
Consider this letter as a formal complaint that this Committee takes exception to the referenced notice. It is our position that the Carrier is in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) by holding yard service employees out of the daily board mark during the course of their five day work week.
It is our position that the reference yard service employees must be added to the daily board mark. The following agreements support our position.
Article 110 – Five Day Work Week (g) 2. States in part, yard service employee or employees who because of their seniority standing or for other reasons, are unable to place themselves on a regular job or assignment on the days or days their job or assignment is annulled, will revert to the extra board and be placed thereon, in addition to the men then on the extra board, in accordance with rules in effect on the property.
Article 128 Guaranteed Extra Board Yard states that the guaranteed extra board is considered a regular assignment and the exercise of seniority to and from shall be made under existing scheduled agreement rules.
Be advise, that if any yard service employee is placed in service ahead of the GEL as reference in your notice. It will be this Committee position that the Carrier has again violated the CBA. Penalty claims will be filed to protect our position.
Any changes to the calling practices and procedures can only be made under the guidelines of the Railway Labor Act not by Local management putting out notices.
Respectfully,
R. J. Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU 911
CC: J. H. Nelson, Chairman
J P Serrin, VLC 911
D. W. Towner, S 911
Posted in News on 08.11.2010 3:40pm
2nd response to 911 LC complaint
From Rob Newhouse
July 26,2010
Dear Sirs:
I am in receipt of your letter dated July 1, 2010 concerning your further response to the Carrier's advertisement for boomers and permanent transfers from the St. Paul MN Seniority District to the Portage WI Seniority District. I have identified seven issues that you raise in this letter and will respond to each in turn.
(1) The Monthly Board Review: The Minneapolis Crew Management Center provides the UTU a monthly report with an analysis of the Staffing levels at each crew board point. As stated in my letter of June 30, 2010, this report is in full compliance with the GEL Agreement and other written and verbal commitments to UTU General Chairman Nelson. The monthly meetings you attended until October 21, 2009 concerning this report were suspended not only due to the economic downturn, but also because the same information provided in these meetings could be conveyed via e-mail format. I am still not aware of any exceptions having been taken to these emailed reports. This being said, the Carrier has already honored your request to reinstate these meetings on a monthly basis.
(2) Portage Vacation Cancellation: Your question as to why the Portage vacations were cancelled in June of this year has already been answered through extensive correspondence with the Organization, including weekly conference calls with UTU General Chairman Nelson and Portage Local Chairman Jim Croft. Further, the Vacation Moratorium Notice issued June 16, 2010 references the "unexpected exigencies and requirements of service" that necessitated the cancellation and also outlines the Carrier's initiatives to increase staffing levels to allow for the Moratorium to be lifted. These initiatives, while still ongoing, have already provided sufficient staffing to allow the restoration of solid week vacations beginning July 24,2010.
(3) St. Paul Vacation Cancellation: The St. Paul Seniority District is currently adequately staffed to meet the anticipated needs of service. The Carrier has no plans to cancel St. Paul vacations at this time.
(4) St. Paul Staffing Levels: You reference a time line of events concerning discussions over the Staffing levels in the St. Paul Seniority District. These discussions culminated in a November 3, 2009 meeting with UTU VP Kerley, GC Nelson, LC Hill and CP representatives Henderson, Bagaus, McNamara, Huettl, and Isaacson to address concerns over the "20% GEL dispute." The methodology used in determination of the 20% GEL requirement as reported in the monthly Crew Board Review is in full compliance with the Agreement and with past handling over a period of over fourteen years. Thus, the Carrier believes the issues raised were resolved through a mutual commitment towards better communication on specific staffing circumstances.
(5) St. Paul New Hire Conductor Plan: The cancellation of new hire training in 2009 was necessitated by the severe economic downturn. By the third quarter of 2009, with both current and projected business volumes rebounding, over fifty people had been re-called from furlough in the St. Paul Terminal alone. A robust 2010 St. Paul training plan was developed. Seven new hires were marked up in May and an additional five in July of 2010. An additional twenty-one students are currently in training and are expected to be available for service by year's end. This should more than cover anticipated attrition for the balance of 2010.
(6) Denied Layoffs: An Employee requesting a safety or personal leave day is required to make application within 48 hours of the date of request. In the event a layoff request made during this time frame is denied, a record is maintained by the Minneapolis Crew Management Center. Your statement that the Carrier does not record this information is incorrect. As stated in my letter of June 30, 2010, no systemic pattern of denying safety days or personal leave days for the current year exists in the St. Paul Terminal. You have failed to provide any proof whatsoever to the contrary.
(7) Daily Mark: The Carrier does not "hold yard service employees out of the board mark" as you advise, rather their seniority does not allow them to hold a position for which they are rested under the Hours of Service Law. Clearly, an Employee cannot be placed to a position for which s/he is not legally rested to protect. The changes to the Hours of Service Law in July 2009 in combination with the existing Shift GEL airangement is the driving dynamic that provoked this issue. As you are aware, the Carrier has presented several different and innovative solutions to move to a mutually beneficial resolution of the issue, all of which have thus far been rejected by the Organization. The Carrier will continue to work with the Organization to resolve this matter going forward.
In conclusion, I must again suggest that you more carefully check your facts before making the sort of unsubstantiated allegations that appear in your letter.
Sincerely,
John Stoffer
cc: James Nelson
Dennis Towner
Steve Moerke
Ron Pierce
Terry Bagaus
Mike McNamara
Mike Manz
Bjarne Henderson
John Cartlidge
Fred Green
Vern Graham
Posted in News on 07.31.2010 10:12am
2nd letter from Bob Hill/Jerry Ott to Stoffer/Bagaus
From Rob Newhouse
July 1, 2010
J. J. Stoffer
Manager Operations Yard
1000 Shop Road, Building 860
St. Paul, MN. 55106
Dear Mr. Stoffer,
In receipt of your letter of June 30, 2010 in response to Local Chairperson J. J. Ott and myself making a formal written objection to the Carrier’s notice advertising for boomers and permanent transfers, from the St. Paul Seniority District (Twin Cities Terminal, River, Westside Eastside Districts) to the Portage WI seniority District.
This objection was made account of the June 14, 2010 Vacation Moratorium Notice to all Portage train service employees by Steve Moerke – Manager Operations and I quote from the notice “ The unexpected exigencies and requirements of the service has forced CP to exercise it option under Article 39 of the collective agreement to cancel all vacations scheduled for conductors, yard foreman, and switchman at Portage effective Saturday June 19, 2010 through and including the week of Friday, July 23, 2010.
Our respective Committees felt that if a formal objection isn’t made concerning further reducing the staffing levels at St Paul for the reasons referenced. What’s going to stop the Carrier from canceling vacations here? I hope this helps you understand our concerns.
In regards to you letter. I would now like to respond to several issues that you referenced, the first being the monthly report provided by the Minneapolis Crew Management Center. Showing the active conductors compared to the required number of conductors based on the number of jobs operated stating that the Company is in full compliance with the GEL agreement and other written and verbal commitment to the UTU.
You state sir, the Company has delegated you the responsibility to respond. Then I ask you if the Company is in full compliance with the GEL agreement then why are vacations being cancelled?
Second, you are correct, I have been designated by UTU General Chairman Nelson to represent the Committee at monthly meetings with Staffing and Training department representatives, in order to review and update staffing requirements. I attended my first meeting on January 16, 2008 in the office of M. F. McNamara, Director, Crew Management Center (CMC).
I attended this meeting monthly until October 21, 2009 when Mr. McNamara suggested that they be suspended due to the economic down turn and pending furloughs around the system. I will be contacting General Chairman Nelson and CMC with my concerns that the monthly staffing requirement meeting are reinstated immediately.
Third, you reference the October 26, 2005 Letter of Understanding being advised that no issues have been raised with regard to the staffing levels at St. Paul.
My records indicate that on November 10, 2007 UTU Local 911 made a formal written request to General Chairman Nelson for an immediate meeting pursuant to the provisions of the October 26, 2005 letter of understanding concerning the inadequate staffing levels for train crews in the Twin Cities. Below is a time line of this complaint, pursuant to the provisions of the October 26, 2005 Letter of Understanding.
November 21, 2007 General Chairman Nelson sent a request to Labor Relations for a meeting over staffing levels for train crews in the Twin Cities.
September 10, 2008 General Chairman Nelson notified C S Frankenberg AVP Labor Relations CP Railway that a dispute exists concerning the data arrived at the 20% formula on the Guaranteed Extra List (GEL).
December 22, 2008 General Chairman Nelson to AVP Frankenberg made a formal request to invoke paragraph nine (9) of the October 26, 2005 letter concerning staffing levels.
May 21, 2009 General Chairman Nelson to AVP Frankenberg unable to resolve issue making a formal request to invoke paragraph ten(10) of the October 26, 2005 letter concerning staffing levels.
November 3, 2009, 1000 hours meeting convened with UTU VP Kerley, GC Nelson, LC Hill and CP representatives Henderson, Bagaus, McNamara, Huettl, and Isaacson to address the concerns over 20% GEL dispute. This meeting was recessed, dispute still pending.
Hiring, the Carrier suspended the new hire process in 2009 letting go the remaining student conductors that were in training. Not listening to the UTU recommendations and to continue the training. The May 24 mark up of seven (7) new hires makes it well over a year before any new hires where marked for service in the Twin Cities.
Records not showing denied layoffs, safety days, personal leave days in St Paul. The reason company records do not show this information is because it is not recorded. I bet if we listened to taped crew board conversations between train service personal requesting reasonable lay off, safety days, personal leave and crew dispatchers. A pattern of denying layoffs, safety days and personal leave days would be substantiated.
Lastly, your statement that since the ‘new’ hour of service regulation, there have been an increasing number of yard service employees move ahead a shift or work on their day off is attributed to the impracticality of the shift GEL.
It is not the shift GEL that has created this problem, CMC has created this problem under the direction of there superiors, by holding yard service employees out of the board mark which is a clear violation of the collective bargaining agreement.
I have carefully included all the facts substantiating our position. If you would like this information it can be made available for your review.
Respectfully,
R. J. Hill and on behalf of J. J. Ott
Local Chairperson / Yard Local Chairperson / Road
UTU 911 UTU 911
CC: Steve Moerke, MOR
Ron Pierce, MOR
J. H. Nelson, Chairman
J P Serrin, VLC 911
D. W. Towner, S 911
Posted in News on 07.31.2010 9:05am
New ADOs Posted
From Rob Newhouse
August assigned days off posted under ADO List.
Posted in News on 07.31.2010 4:02am
Battle Creek Flagman issue
From Rob Newhouse
From Bob Hill...
Anyone witnessing flagmen on duty at St. Paul during the battle creek project please contact Bob with the specifics time, date and location. Mr. Hill's fax number is 651-768-7352.
Bob will then file a claim to protect the agreement. This is our work and if we don't file a claim it could go away.
Posted in News on 07.07.2010 11:20pm
Battle Creek Flagman complaint
From Rob Newhouse
R J Hill Local Chairperson 911 Cell: 651 503 9817
6910 Idsen Avenue South Fax: 651 768 7352
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
united transportation union
June 30,2010
J. J. Stoffer
Manager Operations Yard
1000 Shop Road, Building 860
St. Paul, MN. 55106
RE: Flagman Battle Creek Project
Dear Mr. Stoffer,
After the start up of the Phase 1 Battle Creek project beginning on Monday, June 7 2010
General Contractor personnel and B & B forces were observed providing flag protection
for Kramer Brothers heavy truck traffic over the crossing just west of the old yard office.
Dump trucks were hauling material for the Battle Creek project and flag protection was
being provided for train and yard movements over that crossing several days a week,
twelve hours a day.
When I received this information concerning the unauthorized flag protection I called
Yard Manager Larsen who you had placed in charge of the project to inquire why a yard
service employee was not marked up providing flag protection for train and yard
movements. He informed me that he was unaware of the situation and would check in to
it.
The following week I ran into Mr. Larsen and was told that B & B forces were providing
flag protection. I reminded him that if there was going to be flag protection required then
a yard service employee must be placed on that assignment.
On Wednesday, June 23, 2010 I met with you and addressed my concerns that flag
protection was still being provided by B & B forces and I requested that you make
arrangements to place a yard service employee on site to perform the required flag
protection. I also informed you that Article 28 of the 2003 General Labor Agreement
supports our position.
A yard service employee has yet to be place on assignment to perform the necessary flag
protection referenced.
Consider this letter as a formal complaint that the Carrier is in violation of Article 28 (a)
5. of the 2003 General Labor Agreement which states:
At points where yard service employees are employed, the following shall be
considered yard work and shall be performed by yard service employees. Flag
protection for train and yard movements when required in general construction
work or maintenance work within defined switching limits.
Instructions must be given to the crew management center (CMC) to place the referenced
flag protection assignment when required into the daily mark so that yard service
employees will be used to provide the required protection.
Be advised if a yard service employee isn't placed on the referenced flag protection
assignment when required. This Committee will have no choice but to issue instructions
to begin the process and file penalty claims to protect the agreement.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated
Respectfully,
R. J. Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU911
CC:
J. H. Nelson, Chairman
JPSerrin,VLC911
D. W. Towner, S911
Posted in News on 07.01.2010 3:19pm
Limbo Board
From Rob Newhouse
Via email May 21, 2010
Mr. BjarneHenderson, Ms. Jennifer Isaacson and Mr. Ryan Huettl,
Re: Letter of protest regarding F7 board and restriction of seniority rights In as much as Mr. Huettl’s email indicates that CP is unable to meet on this most serious issue until some time two weeks from now, please restore the status quo with respect to marking to the yard extra boards across the Milwaukee/Soo System.
Switchmen are entitled by contract to mark to the extra board,seniority permitting, regardless of when they are rested for the next start.Marking to the extra board is an inherit function of seniority and has no bearing on when a switchman is or will be rested.
CMC’s unilateral actionto remove switchmen from the extra board who have sufficient seniority to holdthe board and placing them to the non-contract carrier created “F7 board,a.k.a. limbo board” is a serious contract violation and a change inworking conditions and rights without negotiations.
James Nelson
General Chairman - UTU
Posted in News on 06.20.2010 11:58am
Locker Request Form
From Rob Newhouse
*** note, I'm not sure if this will work on the site but here is the form for requesting a locker.***
Locker Request Form Page 1 of 1
Locker Request
Date___________________________
Please be advised that I am submitting a formal request for a locker(s).
Employee Name Employee #
Current Assignment__________________________
Request at location (s)
Twin Cities Terminal :
St Paul Yard ‘Island’ Yard Office ______________
St Paul Yard ‘Old ‘ Yard Office _______________
St Paul Yard “ Hump Tower”_________________
Humboldt Yard Office ______________________
Shoreham Yard Office ______________________
Ford Yard Office __________________________
Glenwood , MN ___________________________
This request is made in accordance with ARTILCE 40 – WELFARE- LOCKER ROOM FACILITIES of the 2003 General Labor Agreement
Signed ______________________________
Twin Cities Terminal / Glenwood Yard
Please forward this request to Manager Operations Yard J J Stoffer via fax
651-778-3636. Retain this copy and receipt of successful transmittal for your records.
***Submit a copy of this request with, all penalty claims for non-compliance.
Posted in News on 06.20.2010 11:43am
Letter from Bob Hill to John Stoffer
From Rob Newhouse
June 8, 2010
J. J. Stoffer
Manager Operations Yard 1000 Shop Road, Building 860 St. Paul, MN. 55106
RE: Penalty Claims
Dear Mr. Stoffer,
The Railway Labor Act provides for labor organizations to be duly designated and authorized to represent employees on any U. S. rail carrier or carriers.
As Local Chairperson I have a duty to handle claims and grievances when presented. This Committee pursuant to the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is authorized to file claims and grievances including those where time has not been claimed, or where claims were filed incorrectly.
It is this Committees responsibility to see that the Collective Bargaining Agreement is being adhered to by the Carrier. When contract violations occur as a result of an oversight or complete disregard by a local carrier of the provisions in the CBA this committee will file a time claim for the purpose of enforcing employee rights under the agreement. And that penalty should be severe enough to make it unprofitable for the carrier to repeat the violation.
In March of this year I was presented with documentation that a west side crew was instructed to transfer equipment from St Paul Yard to Humboldt Yard. These locations are within the defined switching limits of the Twin Cities Terminal where yard crews are employed.
I subsequently submitted a penalty time claim in behalf of the person of record, rested and available, but not called to protect the agreement for violation of Article 28, (A) 2.of the 2003 General Labor Agreement.
After submitting this penalty claim in the usual manner I received the following denial from the Carrier's time keeping department. " must provide name of CP manager that approved this move".
Apparently this response is in regards to the instructions issued to all field operations on January 1, 2010 in SAM Notice NO. 37 which states " To all T & E employees Required information when submitting Arbitrary/ Penalty claims. Arbitrary and/or penalty claim must identify the name of the employee/manager ( i.e., Yardmaster, Footboard Yardmaster, Train/ Crew Dispatcher, foreign line employee/ manager etc) who instructed you to perform the service".
In regards to SAM notice 37 this Committee takes the position that when a penalty claim is filed to protect the agreement it is under the authority of the Railway Labor Act and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In addition it is the position of this Committee that any instructions issued to perform service which is considered a violation of the CBA comes under the authority of the Manager of Operations Yard Mr. J. J. Stoffer Twin Cities Terminal.
The Carrier and its officers have an obligation to have knowledge of the scheduled rules and abide by those rules.
If you care to discuss this Committees position on this matter further. Please advise me of the time and place.
Respectfully,
R. J. Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU911
CC: J. H. Nelson, Chairman J P Serrin, VLC 91 1 D. W. Towner, S911
Posted in News on 06.20.2010 10:59am
Facilities Complaint
From Rob Newhouse
united transportation union
May 21,2010
John Stoffer
Manager Operations Yard
Twin Cities Terminal
Steve Moerke
Manager Operations Road
River District
Ron Pierce
Manager Operations Road
West Side / East Side
RE: Biannual Rules Facilities Gentlemen;
A complaint has been made to our respective Committees concerning the facilities the Carrier is requiring Twin Cities Train and Engine employees to report to in order to attend the required two days biannual rules seminar and testing.
The location of this facility is at the west end of Shoreham yard in a trailer with no running water and proper sanitary facilities.
This location is an unacceptable facility with regards to instructing Twin Cities T & E employees to report to and attend two day rules class. We respectfully request that the rules classes be suspended until arrangements are made for proper facilities to be found that are acceptable for everyone involved.
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 40 —Welfare-Locker Room Facilities of the 2003 General Labor Agreement, Section (f). In the event that some problem with respect to locker rooms, washroom or toilet facilities is brought to the Company's attention, and is not adequately addressed by the local Company Officer, joint inspection will be arranged between the Manager of Road or Yard Operations responsible for that location and the Local Chairman upon request to determine if corrections in complained of conditions are necessary.
Consider this letter our official notification that the referenced problem exists and that if a joint inspection is necessary it will be made by J Stoffer, Manager Operation Yard and R J Hill, Local Chairperson Yard, or there designees, and that it be made sometime during business hours Monday, May 24,2010.
Please advise.
Respectfully,
J.JOtt
Local Chairperson
UTU911
R. J. Hill
Local Chairperson
UTU911
CC: J. H. Nelson, Chairman D. W.Towner, S911 M. Manz, NMC
Posted in News on 06.20.2010 10:49am
"Equity Deadheads" For No Pay
From Rob Newhouse
*note from Rob Newhouse*
(Due to some of the limitations of the website and the conversion software that I use to create text files from .pdf there may be grammatical errors e.g. ID will sometimes appear as ill. I hand corrected this but may have missed some.)
Executive Committee
T. H. Baird, Vice Chair
G.R. Rutledge, Vice Chair
R. G. Haugen, Vice Chair
R. J. Hill, Secretary
Ms. Cathryn S. Frankenberg
AVP Labor Relations & Human Resources - US
Canadian Pacific Railway
501 Marquette Avenue, South - Suite 1715
Minneapolis, MN 55402
May 7, 2010
RE: Non-compensated deadhead trips and manpower in the Portage - St. Paul corridor ID Pools
Dear Ms. Frankenberg,
This office is in receipt of your letter dated April 28, 2010, which was hand-delivered to me by one of your staff members six (6) days later, at noon, on May 4, 2010, while I was at CP's MiImeapolis headquarters for other matters. Inasmuch as I now have had time to read your letter, please consider this letter as UTU's official response.
In this letter you demand that no later than May 4, 2010 that UTU provide Terry Bagaus, Director NMC South with various records. First and foremost, Mr. Bagaus as Director of CMC has immediate access to these records. Your demand for this information with only a moments notice is unconscionable and demonstrates your department's ongoing unwillingness to resolve CMC's self-inflicted problem.
In regards, to your comment pertaining to the regulation of the inactive/active list and detennining the number of crews assigned at Portage and St. Paul ill Pools these two items are UTU contractual entitlements. Any changes in the collective bargaining agreements shall be made by mutual written agreement between the parties to amend the existing agreements, namely the River District Agreement No.2 and La Crosse District Agreement No.8.
In the last paragraph on page three of our April 19, 2010 letter, we set forth several conditions that must be met so that accurate ID Pools regulation could take place. Or, CP would be in violation and UTU regulators could 110t be held responsible (not that UTU could be held responsible in any fashion) for regulation suggestions made in good-faith on what was data that was questionable at best. CMC absent a change in the controlling agreements has unilaterally taken over the regulation of the active/inactive ID Pools lists effective May 6, 2010. This action acknowledges that CP is incapable of providing accurate
data and train line-ups to the UTU regulators to base their suggestions for the active/inactive ID Pools lists.
Consequently, as the result of CP's actions on May 6, 2010, UTU is absolved of any demands or alleged damages - not that such demands or alleged damages have or had any merit. However, CP is still responsible for prudent regulation, albeit such sole regulation by CMC is in violation of the current controlling agreements. As I am sure that you are aware, UTU· has at its disposal the means to seek restitution for CP's willful contract violations.
In regards to department's continuing threat of pursuing damages against UTU for merely offering ID Pools regulation suggestions, CP can not find comfort in the RLA itself as it does not provide for any such claim. Indeed, the Act and cases interpreting and applying it have found that a carrier is not entitled to any monetary penalty against a union.
Burlington Northern v. Bll/lYVE, 961 F.2d 86, 89 (5th Cir. 1991)
(extending damages prohibition explained in ILouisville & Nashville v. Brown, 252 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1958) to § 153); N07folkSouthern Railway Co. v. BLE, 217 F.3d 181, 189-191 (4th Cir. 2000) (in 74 year history of the RLA courts have refrained in all but one case that damages are an appropriate remedy ... will not upset delicate balance set up by Congress); CSA'T v. Marquar, 980 F.2d 359, 380-81 (6th Cir.1992) (J. Guy concurring) (damage award inappropriate as it would upset delicate balance).
Had the parties intended for CP to have the ability to file a claim against the UTU, surely this process would have been agreed to when the existing Agreement commonly referred to as the Article 35 - Time Limit On Claims, was renegotiated in Side Letter No.8 in June 2008. However, this Agreement is silent with respect to any such procedure for claims or damages to be filed on behalf of CP. The omission of such a procedure in the Agreement clearly telegraphs that it was never contemplated for CP to file claims or seek damages against the Union for alleged damages from an operation under total control of the carrier.
This theory is clearly supported in Award No.1, Public Law Board No. 2857, Referee Fred Blackwell, pertinent part reading as such:
"Indeed, the key phrase of the test reading "a claim for compensation alleged to be
due is not allowed" can only be construed as referring to a claim that runs from the
Employees against the Carrier. The Carrier is never entitled to receive "compensation" from the Employees." (Underscore added)
The remedy CP seeks clearly has no basis under the Agreement or in the law. CP has not demonstrated during the handling on the property any rule or authority whatsoever supporting its baseless threat for damages. Further, a diligent search of First Division and PLB awards did not reveal any worthy precedent whatsoever for a claim against the UTU. The absence of any such awards speaks volumes to the merits of the validity of such damages and penalty claims. Indeed, CP has ventured into dangerously uncharted waters without so much as a compass to guide its intimating and harassing endeavor.
In your letter you have alleged that CP has incurred excessive expenses. It is noteworthy, that you have failed to specify the specific expenses resulting from alleged suggestions made by UTU regulators. Moreover, you offer no evidence to substantiate your baseless allegation. Nor, is there any evidence on record that the regulation of the ID pools was actually done per suggestions made by the UTU pool regulators and not unilateral actions made by individuals in CMC. Keep in mind, when it came to regulating the ID pool and designating which trains that would be protected by the ill Pools, CP did not forego its managerial right to manage its operations.
The Carrier's St. Paul- Portage corridor ID Pools records indicate that CP operated 436 eastbound crews from St. Paul to Portage, and 392 westbound crews were operated from Portage to St. Paul during the March 1 through April 15, 2010 time frame, an imbalance of forty-four (44) eastbound crews. Keep in mind that the aforementioned numbers are derived directly from CMC's ID Pools records. This assumes that your office will concede the CMC's ID pools records have some degree of accuracy. These are the same records provided to the UTU Pool Regulators to base their regulation suggestions. During this same time frame, CP deadheaded forty-three (43) crews westbound from Portage to St. Paul of which thirtyfive (35) of the westbound deadhead trips were performed by the River District (St. Paul) crews to return them home to St. Paul. The remaining eight (8) westbound deadhead trips to St. Paul were perfonned by the Portage crews. What is noteworthy is in most cases CMC waited until the River District (St. Paul) crews were on HAFHT allowances at Portage before they were called to perform westbound deadhead trips to St. Paul. Furthennore, during this same forty-six (46) days period, CP called thirty-six (36) eastbound relief crews on duty at St. Paul. This resulted in the operation of these trains from St. Paul to Portage with two crews (first crew and relief crew) which were all tied up at Portage. Clearly, CP through its day-to-day inefficient operations perpetuated it own imbalance of crews at the away from home terminals. CP has the sole managerial right to determine which through freight trains will be operated in the St. Paul- Portage corridor ID service. If CP creates an imbalance of trains and crews in this corridor, which they have done, it does so at their own peril.
There are large swings in the number of crews in the movement of eastbound trains versus westbound trains in this corridor. We have listed some of the more glaring examples below:
Date Crews
March 2 - 14 eastbound vs. 11 westbound
March 4 - 9 eastbound vs. 6 westbound
March 7 - 16 eastbound vs. 11 westbound
March 13 - 12 eastbound vs. 8 westbound
April 2 - 11 eastbound vs. 6 westbound
April 3 - 6 eastbound vs. 10 westbound
April 4 - 9 eastbound vs. 4 westbound
April 5 - 7 eastbound vs. 12 westbound
April 6 - 11 eastbound vs. 5 westbound
April 12 - 9 eastbound vs. 5 westbound
Imbalance
3
3
5
4
5
4
5
5
6
4
On the other dates in March 1 through April 15 checking period, the imbalance oftrains was often limited a swing of one or two trains per day. But, constant imbalances add up and the effects are cumulative. As the result of CP's willful lopsided operation in the St. Paul - Portage conidor ill service, where the eastbound trains outnumbered the westbound trains, the River District (St. Paul) owes the La Crosse District (POliage) 120 trains (60 roundtrips) as of May 4,2010. Clearly the ever increasing shortage to the La Crosse (Portage) crews could have avoided if the carrier would have regulated the traffic (trains) in the St. Paul - Portage in a more balanced fashion. This issue is further compounded because the carrier has failed to maintain sufficient workforce at POliage to protect the ID service work.
Your commitment in your April 28, 2010 letter that the parties could meet to further discuss this matter during the regularly scheduled May 4 and 5 claims conference is very telling. You waited six (6) days, until mid-day on May 4, to hand-deliver the letter to me at CP's headquarters. Consequently, it became evident to me that your department had no intention in entering into fruitful discussions regarding this matter. In fact, I find your shenanigans on this matter unprofessional and clearly designed to frustrate any meaning dialoged to resolve this issue. In this regard, I have previously wamed you and your department that I will not tolerate the ongoing intimidation and harassment of this office and the finger pointing to assess blame against the UTU for what is clearly the carrier's failure to manage it ID Pools operations.
The Carrier's recent addition of the "mini-pools" in this same corridor has resulted in the employees receiving even less accurate train line-ups. Often times the same trains are listed in the line-ups for both the ID Pools and mini-pools. This makes it impossible for the crews to determine when they will work which affects their ability to come to work physically rested, compromises safety, and erodes the quality of life for the crews and their families.
In closing, over the years the UTU ID Pools regulators have made every effort to work with their counterparts in CMC. Often times their good-faith suggestions fell on deaf ears which required even more drastic regulation over the following days. The real issue is CMC's reluctance to deadhead crews because the trip rate increased the cost to CP for deadhead service (but decrease the cost for the working trips). In that regard, it was CP that opted to implement the trip rates for these ID Pools.
Sincerely,
James H. Nelson
General Chainnan
cc: Malcolm Futhey, President - UTU
Local Chairpersons, GO-261 - UTU
Clinton Miller, III, General Counsel - UTU
4
Posted in News on 05.20.2010 1:25am
Z1 claims for deadheads on the IDs
From Rob Newhouse
General Committee of Adjustment GO-261
Soo Line R.R.
J. H. Nelson Chairman
139 W Cook Street
Portage, WI 53901
Office 608-745-1700
FAX 608-742-1708
E-Mail: g0261@verizon.net
May 7, 2010
Executive Committee
T. H. Baird, Vice Chair
G.R. Rutledge, Vice Chair
R. G. Haugen, Vice Chair
R. 1. Hill, Secretary
Ms. Cathryn S. Frankenberg
AVP - Labor Relations & Human Resources - US
Canadian Pacific Railway
501 Marquette Avenue, South - Suite 1715
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RE:Z1 miscellaneous claim for deadhead trips in the Portage-St. Paul corridor ID Pools, SAM Notice 73
Dear Ms. Frankenberg,
This office is receipt of St. Paul SAM Notice No. 73, effective May 6, 2010, wherein instmctions are issued to the ill pool crews working the St. Paul, MN - Portage, WI corridor which may impact payment for the deadhead service performed. The instructions require crews to file a code "Zl miscellaneous claim" for deadhead service performed in the St. Paul- Portage corridor. Since when is CMC authorized and mandated deadhead service for ID crews in this corridor considered a "miscellaneous claim"?
As I am sure that you are aware, the deadhead trips are supported by the longstanding, unambiguous deadhead rules and the compensation for the deadhead trips was agreed upon by the parties in the negotiated trip rates for this territory.
The "Zl" code is designed to reduce the Canier instructed deadhead service to some sort of "penalty or miscellaneous claim". The code is also designed to fmstrate and delay, if not out right-out deny trip rate payments for the deadhead service perfonued in this corridor.
Please be advised, delayed or denied deadhead payments to ID crews when call by CMC to perform deadhead service will result in actions from UTU that are fully supported by the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
Consequently, we must insist that the deadhead trips be paid in the same manner as the working trips. That is to say the deadhead trips must be paid in the pay period for which the deadhead service wasrendered. Furthenuore, we must insist that the "status quo" be restored and all deadhead service be paid on a working deadhead time slips in the same manner as the working trips. Furthermore, CP's unilateral actions may impact the calculation of the total monthly hours on duty and days worked for the RSIA mandated rest periods. CP's actions may also impact the working trip rate payments when the working trips and deadhead service are "combined" in the same tour of duty. This may also impact the. calculation ofthe total monthly hours on duty and rest.
In light of the seriousness of the aforementioned, we request a meeting on this issue in the immediate future. Please contact this office so that we can mutually agree on a meeting location, time and date.
Sincerely,
James H. Nelson
eneral Chairperson - UTU
cc: Malcolm Futhey, President - UTU
Local Chairpersons, GO-261 - UTU
Posted in News on 05.19.2010 9:06am