Attached are copies of two recent letters from Neveda and California BLE representatives. These letters set forth incidents that are occurring throughout the Union Pacific service unit. UP managers are taking more liberties, provoking employees with agressive and harassing behavior. Now some BLE members are fighting back.
LETTER 1
March 4, 2004
Mr. Thomas Jacobi
Vice President Western Region
Union Pacific Railroad
10031 Foothills Blvd.
Roseville, California 95747
Dear Mr. Jacobi:
The purpose of this letter is to charge Superintendent Dan Shudak of the Roseville Service Unit with three violations of General Code of Operating Rules, Rule 1.6 those portions dealing with (1) Careless of the safety of themselves or others and (6) Quarrelsome or (7) Discourteous. Rule 1.6 Conduct is a level 5 rule and the penalty is dismissal.
I am requesting a fair and impartial investigation and hearing to determine Supt. Shudak’s responsibility in the incident that occurred at Carlin, Nevada and Elko, Nevada on December 24, and 25, 2003. I am enclosing a statement by engineer Scott Cairns from Portola, California concerning the incident. According to engineer Cairn’s statement Mr. Shudak drove from Roseville, California to Elko, Nevada in a raging snow storm to personally conduct a “swarm team” investigation at Elko and Carlin concerning a minor injury to engineer Cairn’s Conductor. In the end it turned out that the possible injury was not a lost time injury under the FRA guidelines. Mr. Shudak allegedly refused to dead head engineer Cairns home after the “swarm team” investigation because of the dangerous conditions on the freeway between Elko and Portola. If this statement is correct then Mr. Shudak placed himself in harms way and at the very least displayed a distain for his own safety. If i! t was as dangerous as Supt. Shudak contended he himself should not have made the trip to Elko. The second and third portions of this charge letter have to do with Quarrelsome and Discourteous behavior. It is my allegation that Supt. Shudak was in fact quarrelsome and discourteous as displayed in engineer Cairns’s statement.
I am requesting that all employees and managers involved in the above incident be request to testify. My witness list includes MTO Gauthier, MOP Korte, MYO Turville, Car Foreman Harris, MTM Woods and Conductor R. A. Brubaker.
The manner in which Supt. Shudak conducted his “swarm team” investigation was an alleged violation of Union Pacific Railroad policy Violence and Abusive Behavior in the Workplace attachment A. The portion that I’m referring to is the bullet point that says “ Threatening, intimidating, bullying, or abusing another person”. It is the belief of the Nevada State Legislative Board – BLE that the Union Pacific Railroad senior management condones this type of behavior. I base this statement on the fact that this is not the first complaint nor lawsuit on this issue that concerns Supt. Shudak. Further when you, Mr. Jacobi, were appointed to the VP of the Western Region employees were being instructed to sign a safety statement under threat of insubordination if they didn’t sign. Reportly those were your instructions to the managers asking the employees to sign the statement. That i! n itself is threatening and abusive behavior if in fact you did this. It is the belief of the Nevada State Legislative Board – BLE that threats and intimidation are part of the culture of the Union Pacific Railroad and are condoned and encouraged by the Union Pacific Railroad senior management staff. I have been with the UP since the merger of the SP and UP and I have not seen any evidence to dispute this belief.
Sincerely,
Joe Carter,
Chairman, Nevada State
Legislative Board – BLE
Enclosure: Engineer Cairns Statement
Cc:
Mr. Dick Davidson
Mr. Ike Evans
Mr. Jim Young
Ms. Barbara Schaefer, Senior VP Human Resources Union Pacific Railroad
Mr. Dennis Duffy, VP Operations Union Pacific Railroad
Mr. Phillip Anschutz
Mr. Don Hahs, President BLE
Mr. Raymond Holmes VP & NLR BLE
Mr. Lee Pruitt, VP BLE
Mr. Bill Hannah, General Chairman UP Western Lines, BLE
Mr. Tim Donnigan, General Chairman Western Region General Committee of Adjustment
Mr. Tim Smith CSLB Chairman, BLE
All BLE Members in the State of Nevada
LETTER 2
Ray Enriquez
Executive Committee
California State Legislative Board
Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
Subject: Hours of Srevice
Alvin L. Settje
Federal Railroad Administration
Regional Administrator
801 I Street - Suite 466
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mr. Settje,
I find it necessary to report that the UPRR is abusing its crews by not relieving them in a timely manner, and to report a specific incident in which a crew was on duty 22 hours and 5 minutes. Currently in the Los Angeles Service Unit, it is not uncommon for train crews to be on duty 14, 15, 16 hours or greater. This excessive on duty time occurs despite a Los Angeles General Superintendents Bulletin which states:
“The Crew Utilization Policy is designed to ensure crews are relieved from their tour of duty before they exceed the Federal Hours of Service (HOS). The goal of this policy is to have crews at their final tie-up point prior to the expiration of their HOS. The policy is not intended to compromise any laws or collective bargaining agreements. The crew to be relieved, relief crew, train dispatcher and corridor manager and CMS must work together in order to utilize crews in the most efficient manner and promote the success of this policy.”
As you can see the bulletin asks for the cooperation of the crew to be relieved, relief crew, train dispatcher and corridor manager and CMS. I feel crews are cooperating when they inform the dispatcher, and or corridor managers that they are short on time.
I am familiar with the interpretation of hours of service violation versus “Limbo Time”. However, there should be no reason why a crew should have to endure a 22 hours 5 minutes shift. On 03/03 the train crew of GSMIKI-21 expired on the hours of service at Canyon on the Mojave Subdivision. They went on duty on 03/02 at Yermo, CA at 12:05. Over seven hours after their expiration of service at 07:15 I received a telephone call from the engineer asking, “what it would take to get off the train?” I called the corridor manager who had just come on duty about an hour prior to my call, and told me of all the dead trains he had to deal with. A little over an hour later the crew was relieved but still had an hour and a half ride to their home terminal.
In the situation described a 12,320 train was stopped on a 2.15 grade and could not be left unattended as per UPRR timetable grade seceurement rules. The purpose for this rule is obvious, it is to protect against the train moving or worse, a runaway caused by a release of brakes. I realize I am not the first person to argue the point that the notion of monitoring gauges and possible train movement is not considered performing service is totally ridiculous. Additionally, this is not merely a matter of whether the crew has or has not exceeded the hours of service, rather a safety concern. This crew was exhausted affecting their ability to stay awake to monitor the train thus defeating the purpose of the grade seceurment rule.
I believe the Hours of Service Law is seriously flawed to allow this kind of treatment to employees, and that situations like this poses a safety hazard to railroad crews, railroad property, and the surrounding communities.
The Los Angeles Service Unit is going through a meltdown all of which is a primary result of poor crew utilization and the carriers’ failure to relieve train crews prior to expiring on the hours of service. It is the position of the BLET Division 660, that if the UPRR could indeed fulfill their crew utilization policy the effect would be positive for all parties. The employee’s benefit is obvious, and the UPRR could increase their manpower for two reasons. 1, crews would not require 10 hours rest for working 12 hours, and 2, crews would not be so fatigued as to call in sick.
At this point I see no compassion or improvement of working conditions for UPRR employees and hope the FRA takes whatever measures necessary to help the situation. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Ray Enriquez
BLET
California State Legislative Board
Executive Committee
Division 660 Legislative Representative
Cc.
George Elsmore
Alisa Dwiggins
Oliver Cromwell
Stan Lewis
Don Carroll
Tim Smith
Members of the Committe on Transportation & Infrastructure
