Here is GC Babler's response to the claims submitted for being forced to use a radio transmitting device weighing more than 3 lbs. A brother comments on Babler's argument:
________________________________________________________________
Dear Brothers:
Attached please find Brother Babler's letter to me accompanying his return of all of our penalty claims for excess weight. I intend to respond to the letter shortly. Text of letter is below in case you can't open attachment.
Fraternally,
Dave R
GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
United Transportation Union
Union Pacific Railroad Company (Former C&NW Railway Co.)
307 W. LAYTON AVE.
MILWAUKEE, WI 53207
January 8, 2004
(U-8-04)
Mr. Dave Riehle
Local Chairman, L-650
1063 Albemarle Street
St. Paul, MN 55117
Reference: RCO Transmitter Weight Restriction Claims
Dear Sir and Brother:
Please refer to your files UTU 401211, 401212, 401235, 401236, 401237, 401194, 401195, 401196, 401197, 401198, 401199, 401200, 401201, 401202, 401203, 401204, 401205, 401206, 401207 and 401209, pertaining to claims filed by various Central District trainmen citing a violation of the weight limit restriction for the remote control transmitter.
These types of claims are not valid as the August 20, 2002 National Remote Control Agreement did not place a restriction on the maximum weight of the remote control transmitter.
Your reliance on Side Letter No. 8 of the December 13, 1991 Crew Consist Agreement as support for these claims is misplaced as the Side Letter deals specifically with portable radios (walkie - talkies), we quote therefrom:
- "In connection with our agreement signed today, we agreed that radios will be available for use for all conductors/foremen. Portable radios purchased after the effective date of this Agreement for use and carried by ground service employees in road and yard service will not exceed three pounds in weight and will be equipped with a suitable holder which will firmly hold a radio close to the body." (Underlining ours.)
As you can readily determine Side Letter No. 8 is silent with respect to a remote control transmitter, nor did it envision or address same.
It is noteworthy the remote control transmitters have been used in the rail industry for over ten (10) years and as technology was improved, the size of the transmitter has grown smaller and the weight less. The trainman craft which you represent, voted by a 80% majority to accept the use of the remote control transmitter as a new condition of employment. It is also noteworthy the engineer positions that were eliminated by remote control operations, that Organization now demands exclusive use of the same transmitter, with no wight limit requirement. The BLE’s ongoing endeavor is an attempt to eliminate the trainman's craft and your Membership's jobs.
I believe it is also noteworthy, that RCO service was implemented in mid-March, 2003, and the first claims of this nature were not submitted until July 2003, four (4) months after implementation. We are unaware of any increase in the weight or size of the transmitter that was not in evidence when the National Remote Control Agreement was approved by our Leadership and Membership. Why the claims four (4) months after implementation?
The UTU did not want remote control operations in our Nations rail yards, it was the Carriers. It was not the UTU who installed RCO equipment on the locomotives, it was the Carriers. It was not the UTU who lobbied the FRA to authorize and sanction RCO, it was the Carriers. It was not the UTU who signed the first system-wide RCO Agreement, it was a Carrier and the BLE on Montana Rail Link. It was the UTU who recognized the new technology was now going to be a fact of life in all of the Nations rail yards, and consummated an Agreement to accept the new technology in its present form. The Agreement was approved by the crafts slated to use the new technology.
The claims are being returned to your Office because they lack merit and Agreement support. As Local Chairman it would be prudent on your part to educate your Membership on the fact that the claims lack merit and Agreement support, and will not be progressed.
In closing, this Office is not going to progress claims that clearly lack merit. Particularly, when any contrived position from this Office, all though I am at a loss what facts would support that position, could have the downstream effect of decimating the trainmen's jobs.
Fraternally yours,
John W. Babler
General Chairman, G.C.A.
JWB:jg
Attachment
________________________________________________________
Dear Dave:
Hope you didn't mind Brother Kennedy forwarding a copy of your RCO
letter. Please include me on your mailing list for any other important
communications of this nature, if it's not too much trouble.
As the Aug. 20, 2002 National Remote Control Agreement did not place a
maximum weight restriction on the remote control transmitter, existing
weight restrictions on radio transmitters should prevail. Mr. Babler
clarifies the language of Side Letter No. 8 of the Dec. 13, 1991 Crew
Consist Agreement to define portable radios as "walkie
talkies".....that's not what the agreement says. As far as I know the
RCO transmitters don't use laser or exotic new forms of energy
transmission, but are rather simple radio transmitters....exactly what
the existing agreement was intended to cover. Perhaps the agreement did
not forsee the advent of RCO transmitters, but the intent was clearly to
prevent ground service employees from carting around clumsy, obtrusive
and cumbersome equipment contrary to their health and safety. If the
carrier's didn't intend for the EXISTING weight limitations to apply,
they should have provided for specific relief of existing provisions for
radio equipment when they wrote the RCO rules. They did not, therefore
the existing language prevails.
Failure to submit claims at the moment claims are first in evidence is
no excuse for not protecting our contract at the present time. Whether
claims are first submitted 4 months, 6 months, or 12 months after they
first become evident, have no relevance as to the validity of the claims
so long as the claims which are filed are within proper time limits and
found to be in violation of our contract. Whenever local chairmen
submit claims the General Chairman should work to assist them, not act
as the carrier's agent.
Mr. Babler promised he would never allow a claims backlog to develop in
the General Chairman's office again. Little did his supporters imagine
that this wasn't because he would work harder or longer in processing
our members claims, but rather that he would be the carriers first line
of defense against such claims. Mr. Babler rejects our claims before
they are even discussed with carrier officers let alone before they are
tested through arbitration. But, hey.....no back log here, man.
Blaming the carriers and the BLE for RCO fails to tell the whole story.
At the same time the UTU was touting the glory of creating a single
operating union, on the eve of the election to determine the issue, at a
time when it appeared that a majority of the BLE membership favored the
union, Byron Boyd announces that the UTU owns the black box. I now see
this as a deliberate effort to sabotage the union and insure no merger
would take place. No issue has been more divisive or destructive than
RCO. The carriers and their union lackeys have succeeded in their
efforts. The BLE has jumped in bed with the proponents of triple bottom
trucks to save them from the wicked UTU and the VIA plaintiffs. All of
rail labor suffers the consequences of this conspiracy.
I don't want to see the loss of anyone's job, but in the end, all we
really have is our contract....and we need to insure it is defended !
I hope you intend to appeal Mr. Babler's refusal to progress these
claims, although the result of such submissions are almost certain. We
need to clean house in the UTU from the top to the bottom and return it
as a truly representative organization. Realization of who actually
favors a representative organization, and who does not is the beginning
of the process.
If we can be of any assistance in helping with your efforts, please
don't hesitate to ask.
Fraternally, Al T.
8:22:56 AM 
Google It!
|
|
