UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY"

Kerry Ramsey
5 years ago
Views:

1 PUBLIC LAW BOARD 6003 Award No. 47 Case No. 43 Productivity Fund Award UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION Parties to Dispute: and BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILWAY Statement of Claims: Claims of Conductor J. M. Lockwood and Brakeman D. G. Cawley, Kansas City, Missouri, claiming reduced crew special allowance and Productivity Fund share count each date, February 25, March 29, and March 31, 1996, account required to commence a new service trip. Claim of Conductor K. L. Fritter, Brakeman B. R. Bowen and Engineer R. L. Decker, Springfield, Missouri, claiming reduced crew special allowance and Productivity Fund credits for service performed August 28, 1996, account improperly deleted from original time slip. Claim of Conductor 1. R. Heitzer, St. Louis, Missouri, claiming Productivity Fund share count and trip count, August 6, 1996, account run outside of his assignment. Claims in favor of Conductor D. L. Simpher, Brakeman T. L. Ballman and Engineer R. L. Graviett, and Conductor D. L. Simpher, Brakeman R. L. Graviett and Engineer R. L. Graviett,Chaffee, Missouri, claiming one day at local freight rate of pay, February 3 and 19, 1997, respectively, account original working time slips improperly combined. Claim of conductor D. L. Simpher and crew, and claims of Conductor D. L. Simpher, Brakeman R. L. Graviett and Engineer D. K. Loucks, Chaffee, Missouri, each claiming one day at road switcher rate of pay, December 16, 1996, and February 26 and 27, 1997, respectively, account run off assignment. Claim of Conductor R. E. Uchtman and Engineer S. R. Cordova, Springfield, Missouri, claiming one day at freight rate of pay, including the appropriate Crew Consist and Productivity Fund allowances, May 11, 1997, account required to begin a new day. -1-

2 INTRODUCTION This Board is duly constituted by agreement of the parties dated April 1, 1997 (the PLB Agreement ), and as further provided in Section 3, Second of the Railway Labor Act ( Act ), 45 U.S.C. Section 153, Second. The Board, after hearing and upon review of the entire record, finds that the parties involved in this dispute are a Carrier and employee representative ( Organization ) within the meaning of the Act, as amended. FINDINGS This case represents six claims in which the Carrier declined to make payments into and credit the claimants with additional shares in the Productivity Fund, and/or declined special allowance payments. In the first claim, claimants Lockwood and Cawley filed a penalty claim because they operated off their assigned territory. In the second claim, claimants Fritter, Bowen and Decker performed a non-emergency lap-back and filed a trip time slip and a non-trip time slip for a day*s pay due to the lap-back. k the third claim, claimant Heitzer deadheaded in combined service from St. Louis to Valley Park, and then handled a train back to St. Louis: Subsequently, claimant Heitzer deadheaded in combined service from St. Louis to St. Clair, and then handled a train back to St. Louis. As a result, Heitzer claimed two separate trips, two short crew allowances and two productivity fund shares. In the fourth and fifth claims, claimant Simpher and his crew performed service outside of their assignment and were paid a basic day by the Carrier on each date at issue. The claimants also requested a short crew allowance and a productivity fund share. In the sixth claim, claimants Uchtman and Cordova were called for short turn around service and deadheaded in combined service from Springfield to Ash Grove, and then handled a train back to Springfield. Subsequently, the claimants deadheaded in combined service from Springfield to Pilgrim, and then handled a train back into Springfield. The claimants requested payment of two days pay, two short crew allowances and two productivity fund shares. -2-

3 The Carrier compensated each of the claimants a basic day, and in some cases a short crew allowance for the services which the claimants performed. However, the Carrier declined to make any additional payments into the Productivity Fund, and the claimants have not been credited with additional shares in this fund. The Organization contends that in the event that a new day is payable under the circumstances described in these claims, the Carrier must make an additional payment into the Productivity Fund, and an additional share of this fund must be credited to the employee. The Carrier submits, however, that it need not make additional payments into the Productivity Fund under the circumstances described in these claims. The Board finds that additional special allowance payments and/or additional payments into the Productivity Fund by the Carrier are not required for the following reasons, and the claims are denied. (1.) Organization. Footnote 1. Those claims made on behalf of engineers were withdrawn without prejudice by the The following provisions are applicable to the Board*s decision. Article 19 of the August 1, 1980 Crew Consist Agreement provides, in relevant part, as follows: For each yard tour of duty or road freight service trip that a crew is operated with one conductor or Foreman and one Brakeman or yard Helper, the Carrier will pay into the Employees Productivity Fund the sum of $ This payment will be made on a pay period cash basis for the sole and exclusive benefit of the eligible protected road freight train and yard service employees represented by the United Transportation Union and is to be considered as an account of trust of and for the protected employees as a sharing in productivity savings. The $48.25 payment will not be subject to future wage increases or cost-of-living adjustments. Question and Answer #1 to Article 19 of the 1980 Crew Consist Agreement provides, as follows: Q #1 Under the provisions of Paragraph (a) of this Article, will the Carrier make a payment ($48.25) to the Employees Productivity Fund for such items as held time, runarounds, deadhead, call and release (no work performed), guarantees, holiday pay when service not performed on holiday, personal leave pay, vacation pay, payments made due to violation of agreement rules, etc.? -3-

4 A. #1 No. These payments cover road service trips and yard tours of duty actually performed (worked) where the additional responsibility in working with a reduced crew is involved. Article 19 of the 1980 Crew Consist Agreement provides that the Carrier will pay the sum of $48.25 into the Employees Productivity Fund for each yard tour of duty or road freight service trip that a crew operates with one conductor or foreman and one brakeman or yard helper. However, Question and Answer #1 to Article 19 of the 1980 Crew Consist Agreement provides that the Carrier is not required to make a payment to the Employees Productivity Fund for payments made to employees due to various violations of agreement rules. In the claims before the Board, one or more provisions set forth in the Conductors and Brakemens Schedule or the special crew allowance provisions were violated. The Board finds that payment of a new day for service performed during a continuous road service trip or tour of duty is not the equivalent of a new road freight service trip or tour of duty. This same issue was addressed by Referee David Twomey in PLB 5680, Award No. 1. The question at issue in that dispute was whether trainmen were entitled to receive an additional productivity fund payment when they were required to make a succeeding trip out their terminal after being on duty for eight hours in violation of a short turn around rule. Referee Twomey stated as follows regarding his conclusion that a basic day paid by the Carrier does not constitute a new road freight service trip as applicable under the UP Crew Consist Agreements: Each basic day paid is not a new road freight service trip for the road crew under Article IX of the 1984 Crew Consist Agreement, triggering a separate productivity fund payment. Nor does the payment of a new day*s pay to a trainman assigned to the Lexington Local required to make a succeeding trip out of the terminal after eight hours under Rule 5 8(a) trigger a second payment to the productivity fund during the crew*s same or continuing tour of duty. The language of Article IX and the practice of the parties does not support such a conclusion. The Board takes notice that the BN Crew Consist Agreement and the UP Crew Consist Agreement contain virtually identical language concerning the Employees Productivity Fund. -4-

5 Additionally, the Board notes that past practice between the parties in both cases does not support the conclusion that an additional payment into the Employees Productivity Fund must be made by the Carrier. Based upon these facts and circumstances, the Board finds that the Carrier need not make additional special allowance payments or additional payments into the Employees Productivity Fund. The claims presented are denied. AWARD The claims are denied. Roger Boldra, Carrier Member R. L. Marceau, Employee Member Jonathan I. Klein, Neutral Member This Award issued the 14 day of Scanned by GKV on January 25, 2000 All text is there headers were removed -5-

6 This letter was sent to all General Chairman on former BN, including the BLE. This letter is to advise you that BNSF is discontinuing the payment of UTU Reduced Crew Special Allowance payments under the 1993 Crew Consist Agreements and BLE Special Differential payments under the BLE 1996 Agreement when the crew qualifies for an additional day*s pay during a continuous trip or tour of duty account various rule violations. Those rule violations include but are not limited to violations for the Short Turn Around Service (exceeding mileage limitations or hours on duty), assigned crews operating off their assigned territory (including roadswitchers), and lap backs, etc. We are currently declining the payments of UTU Productivity Fund Payments for these same rule violations and will continue to do so. Please be advised that PLB 6003 Award No. 47 effective January 14, 2000 will apply to all claims for the above payments already declined including those listed to arbitration and claims flied henceforth. Please contact General Directors Randy Luther or Gene Shire if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Milton H. Siegele, Jr. Milton H. Siegele, Jr

~ ~ t,{,,, 'r- ~p,. ~ '2-.- '~

~ ~ t,{,,, 'r- ~p,. ~ '2-.- '~ MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Between BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY (Former SL-SF Ry.) And The UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION IT IS AGREED: 1. Special Allowance The Special