1986 NATIONAL AGREEMENT SIDE LETTERS
#l May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: In accordance with our understanding, this is to confirm
that the carriers will make their best efforts to provide the
lump sum payment provided for in Article III of this Agreement in
a single, separate check within sixty (60) days. If a carrier finds it impossible to make such payments
within sixty (60) days, it is understood that such carrier will
notify the General Chairmen, in writing, as to why such payments
have not been made and indicate when it will be possible to make
such payments. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
@#2 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: It is understood that the lump sum payment provided in
Article III of the Agreement of this date will not be used to
offset, construct or increase guarantees in protective agreements
or arrangements. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
@#3 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This confirms our understanding that the provisions of
Article IX - Entry Rates of the July 26, 1978 National Agreement
shall no longer apply on railroads parties to this Agreement
except, however, that such Article or local rules or practices
pertaining to this subject shall continue to apply to employees
previously covered by such rules. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#3A May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44144 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This refers to Article V of the Agreement of this date
concerning the final terminal delay rule, particularly our
understanding with respect to the use of the term "deliberately
delayed" in Section 1 of that Article. During the discussions that led to our Agreement, you
expressed concern with situations where a crew was instructed to
stop and was held outside the terminal between the last siding or
station and the point where final terminal delay begins and there
was no operational impediment to the crew bringing its train into
the terminal; i.e., the train was deliberately delayed by yard
supervision. Accordingly, we agreed that Section 1 would
comprehend such situations. On the other hand, the carriers were concerned that the term
"deliberately delayed" not be construed in such a manner as to
include time when crews were held between the last siding or
station and the point where final terminal delay begins because
of typical railroad operations, emergency conditions, or
appropriate managerial decisions. A number of examples were
cited including, among others, situations where a train is
stopped: to allow another train to run around it; for a crew to
check for hot boxes or defective equipment; for a crew to switch
a plant; at a red signal (except if stopped because of a
preceding train which has arrived at final terminal delay point
and is on final terminal time, the time of such delay by the crew
so stopped will be calculated as final terminal delay); because
of track or signal maintenance or construction work; to allow an
outbound train to come out of the yard; and because of a
derailment inside the yard which prevents the train held from
being yarded on the desired track, e.g., the receiving track. We
agreed that Section 1 did not comprehend such conditions. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#3B May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This refers to Article V of the Agreement of this date
concerning the payment of mileage operated in the final terminal
in the application of the final terminal delay rule. In accordance with Article V, final terminal delay i~ to be
computed from the time the engine reaches the switch used in
entering the final yard within a terminal where the train is to
be left or yarded until finally relieved from duty. In the application of such provision, on railroads where
road mileage ends at present FTD points, road mileage will be
adjusted by the distance between the present FTD point(s) and new
FTD point(s) established by this Article V. On railroads which presently compute trip mileage (1) from
center of the yard at the initial terminal to center of the yard
at the final terminal, (2) from roundhouse at the initial
terminal to the roundhouse at the final terminal, (3) on basis of
established mileage as agreed upon regardless of the location in
the final terminal where trains are actually yarded, or (4) under
similar situations, such trip mileage will continue to apply and
the 60-minute period referred to in Article V will be extended
pursuant to Section 2 thereof for trip mileage allowed after
passing new FTD point(s). Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below: Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#4 EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION OF DEADHEAD RULE, ARTICLE VI * The following examples illustrate application of the rule to
all employees regardless of when their seniority date in engine
service was established, except where specifically stated
otherwise: 1. What payment would be due an engineer who performed
road service from A, the home terminal, to B, the away-
from-home terminal, a distance of 170 miles, and
deadheaded from B to A, with the service and deadhead
combined between A-B-A? A. A minimum day and 70 over-miles for the service and
a minimum day and 70 over-miles for the deadhead. 2. What would be the payment under Question 1 if the
distance between A and B were 75 miles? A. A minimum day and 50 over-miles. 3. What payment would be due an engineer who performed
road service from A to B, a distance of 170 miles,
taking rest at B, and then being deadheaded separate
and apart from service from B to A, with the deadhead
consuming 8 hours? A. A minimum day and 70 over-miles for the service
trip from A to B, and a minimum day at the basic rate
applicable to the class of service in connection with
which the deadheading is performed. 4. What payment would be due an engineer who performed
road service from A to B, a distance of 170 miles,
taking rest at B, and then deadheading separately from
service B to A, with the deadhead being completed in 10
hours? A. He would be paid a minimum day and 70 over-miles
for the service trip from A to B, and 10 hours straight
time rate of pay at the basic rate applicable to the
class of service in connection with which the
deadheading is performed. 5. An engineer operates a train from his home terminal,
point A, to the away-from-home terminal, point B, a
distance of 170 miles. Upon arrival at the away-from-
home terminal, he is ordered to deadhead, separate and
apart from service, to the home terminal. The time
deadheading is 5 hours. What payment is due? A. A minimum day plus 70 over-miles for service. A
minimum day for deadhead if employees' seniority in
engine or train service antedates November 1, 1985;
otherwise, 5 hours. 6. Would at least a minimum day at the basic rate
applicable to the class of service in connection with
which the deadheading is performed be paid when a
deadhead i9 separate and apart from service and the
actual time consumed is the equivalent of a minimum day
or less? A. Yes, for employees whose seniority in engine or
train service antedates November 1, 1985. Actual time
will be paid to others. 7. An engineer is called to deadhead from point A to point
B, a distance of 50 miles, to operate a train back to
point A. He is instructed to combine deadhead and
service. Total elapsed time for the deadhead and
service is 7 hours, 30 minutes. What payment is due? A. A minimum day. 8. An engineer is called to deadhead from point A to point
B, a distance of 50 miles, to operate a train from
point B to point C, a distance of 75 miles. He is
instructed to combine deadhead and service. Total
elapsed time is 10 hours. What payment is due? A. A minimum day plus 25 over-miles. 9. An engineer operates a train from point A to point B, a
distance of 50 miles. He is ordered to deadhead back
to point A, service and deadhead combined. Total
elapsed time, 8 hours, 30 minutes. What payment is
due? A. A minimum day plus 30 minutes overtime. 10. An engineer operates a train from his home terminal,
point A, to the away-from-home terminal, point B, a
distance of 275 miles. After rest, he is ordered to
deadhead, separate and apart from service, to the home
terminal. Time deadheading is 9 hours, 10 minutes.
What payment is due? A. A minimum day plus 175 over-miles for service, 9
hours, 10 minutes straight time for the deadhead. 11. How is an engineer to know whether or not deadheading
is combined with service? A. When deadheading for which called is combined with
subsequent service, the engineer should be notified
when called. When deadheading is to be combined with
prior service, the engineer should be notified before
being relieved from service. If not so notified,
deadheading and service cannot be combined.
The following examples illustrate the application of the
rule to employees whose earliest seniority date in engine or
train service is established on or after November 1, 1985: 1. An engineer is called to deadhead from his home
terminal to an away-from-home point. He last performed
service 30 hours prior to commencing the deadhead trip.
The deadhead trip consumed 5 hours and was not combined
with the service trip. The service trip out of the
away-from-home terminal began within 6 hours from the
time the deadhead trip was completed. What payment is
due? A. 5 hours at the straight time rate. 2. What payment would have been made to the engineer in
example 1 if the service trip out of the away-from-home
terminal had begun 17 hours after the time the deadhead
trip ended, and the held-away rule was not applicable? A. A minimum day for the deadhead. 3. What payment would have been made to the engineer in
example 1 if the service trip out of the away-from-home
terminal had begun 18 hours after the time the deadhead
trip ended, and the engineer received 2 hours pay under
the held-away rule? A. 6 hours at the straight time rate. 4. An engineer is deadheaded to the home terminal after
having performed service into the away-from-home
terminal. The deadhead trip, which consumed 5 hours and
was not combined with the service trip, commenced 8
hours after the service trip ended. What payment is
due? A. 5 hours at the straight time rate. 5. What payment would have been made to the engineer in
example 4 if the deadhead trip had begun 18 hours after
the service trip ended and the held-away rule was not
applicable. A. A minimum day for the deadhead. 6. What payment would have been made to the engineer in
example 4 if the deadhead trip had begun 18 hours after
the time the service trip ended and the engineer
received 2 hours pay under the held-away rule? A. 6 hours at the straight time rate. 7. An engineer is deadheaded from the home terminal to an
away-from-home location. Ten (10) hours after
completion of the trip, he is deadheaded to the home
terminal without having performed service. The deadhead
trips each consumed two hours. What payment is due? A. A minimum day for the combined deadhead trips. * NOTE: The amount of over-miles shown in the examples are
on the basis of a 100 mile day. The number of over-
miles will be reduced in accordance with the
application of Article IV, Section 2, of this
Agreement.
#5 May
19, 1986Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This refers to Article VII, Road Switchers of the Agreement
of this date. In the application of Section 1(c) of the Article, it was
understood that if a carrier without a pre-existing right to
reduce a seven day assignment described in Section 1(a) to a
lesser number of days reduces such an assignment to six days per
week, the 48-minute allowance will be payable to employees on the
assignment whose seniority date in engine or train service
precedes November 1, 1985. If the carrier reduces the same
assignment from seven days to five, an allowance of 96 minutes
would be payable. Conversely, if the carrier had the pre-existing right to
reduce a seven day assignment described in Section 1(a) to six
days per week, but not to five days, and reduced the seven day
assignment to six days per week, no allowance would be payable.
If it reduced the assignment from seven days to five days, an
allowance of 48 minutes would be payable. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C.I. Hopkins
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#6 May
19, 1986Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This refers to Article VIII, Section 1(b), of the Agreement
of this date which provides that only two straight pickups or
setouts will be made. This does not allow cars to be cut in
behind other cars already in the tracks or cars to be picked up
from behind other cars already in the tracks. It does permit the
cutting of crossings, crosswalks, etc., the spotting of cars set-
out, and the re-spotting of cars that may be moved off spot in
the making of the two straight setouts or pickups. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
6A May
19, 1986Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This refers to Section 1(b) of Article VIII of the Agreement
of this date which provides that two straight pickups or setouts
may be made without additional compensation. It is understood that Section 1(b) of Article VIII does not
modify the provisions in Article V of the May 13, 1971 National
Agreement pertaining to road crews handling solid trains in
interchange to or from a foreign carrier. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#7 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This refers to Article VIII - Road, Yard and Incidental Work
- of the Agreement of this date. This confirms the understanding that the provisions in
Section 3 thereof, concerning incidental work, are intended to
remove any existing restrictions upon the use of employees
represented by the BLE to perform the described categories of
work and to remove any existing requirements that such employees,
if used to perform the work, be paid an arbitrary or penalty
amount over and above the normal compensation for their
assignment. Such provisions are not intended to infringe upon the
work rights of another craft as established on any railroad. It is further understood that paragraphs (a) and (c) of
Section 3 do not contemplate that the engineer will perform such
incidental work when other members of the crew are present and
available. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#8 May 19,
1986Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This refers to Section 3, Incidental Work, of Article VIII. It was understood that the reference to moving, turning,
spotting and fueling locomotives contained in Section 3(b)
includes the assembling of locomotive power, such as rearranging,
increasing or decreasing the locomotive consist. It is not
contemplated that an engineer will be required to place fuel oil
or other supplies on a locomotive if another qualified employee
is available for that purpose. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#9 January 31, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This confirms our understanding with respect to Article IX
Interdivisional Service of the Agreement of this date. On railroads that elect to preserve existing rules or
practices with respect to interdivisional runs, the rates paid
for miles in excess of the number encompassed in a basic day will
not exceed those paid for under Article IX, Section 2(b) of the
Agreement of this date. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#9A May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This refers to Article IX, Interdivisional Service, of the
Agreement of this date. It was understood that except as provided herein, other
articles contained in this Agreement, such as (but not limited
to) the final terminal delay and deadhead articles, apply to
employees working in interdivisional service regardless of when
or how such service was or is established. However, overtime
rules in interdivisional service that are more favorable to the
employee than Article IV, Section 2, of this Agreement will
continue to apply to employees who established seniority in
engine service prior to November 1, 1985 while such employees are
working interdivisional runs established prior to June 1, 1986. Illustrations of maintaining present overtime rule for
existing interdivisional runs without standard overtime rules are
shown below: [Based on 104 mile basic day which becomes
effective July 1, 1986] Overtime calculated on basis of 25 m.p.h., 250 mile run
On duty 11 hours (1 Hour overtime)
Basic day of 104 miles
Daily rate $111.43
Mileage rate S1.0819 Pay:
Basic day $111.43
Overmiles (250-104) x $1.0819 157.96
Overtime 11-(250/25) x (111.43/8) x 1.5 20.89 Total
$290.28 Overtime calculated after 9.5 Hours on duty 200 mile run
On duty 10 hours
Basic day of 104 miles
Dally rate $111.43
Mileage rate $1. 0819 Pay:
Basic day $111.43
Overmiles (200-104) x $1.0819 103.86
Overtime 10-9.5 x ($111.43/8) x 1.5
10.45 Total
$225.74 The overtime provisions of Article IV, Section 2, of this
Agreement will apply to employees who established seniority in
engine service prior to November 1, 1985 while such employees are
working interdivisional runs established subsequent to June 1,
1986. They will also apply to employees who established seniority
in engine service on or after November 1, 1985 regardless of when
the interdivisional runs on which they are working were
established. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours,
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#10 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This refers to Article X of the National Agreement of this
date permitting certain locomotives which meet the basic minimum
standards of the home railroad or section of the home railroad to
operate on other railroads or sections of the home railroad. In reviewing the current standards that exist on the major
railroads with respect to such locomotives, we recognized that
while the standards varied from one property to another with
respect to various details, the standards on all such railroads
complied with the minimum essential requirements necessary to
permit their use in the manner provided in Article X. For
example, such minimum standards for locomotives would include a
requirement that there are a sufficient number of seats for all
crew members riding in the locomotive consist. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#11 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This will confirm our understanding during the negotiations
of the Agreement of this date that where hostler positions are
filled by employees not having firemen's seniority, that before a
carrier discontinues a hostler or hostler helper position
pursuant to Article XII, Part A, Section 1(10) or Part B, Section
7(b) of this Agreement, it will be offered to furloughed hostlers
who have seniority prior to November 1, 1985, to work as hostler
or hostler helper at that location. If such hostlers only have
point seniority and there are no furloughed hostlers at such
point, but there are such hostlers on furlough with seniority
prior to November 1, 1985 at another point in the same
geographical area, a vacancy will be offered to such hostlers
before a carrier discontinues a hostler or hostler helper
position pursuant to Article XII, Part A, Section 1(10) or Part
B, Section 7(b) of this Agreement. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#12 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This will confirm our understanding during the negotiations
of the Agreement of this date that before a carrier discontinues
a hostler or hostler helper position pursuant to Article XII,
Part A, Section 1(10) or Part B, Section 7(b) of this Agreement,
it will be offered to furloughed firemen who have seniority prior
to November 1, 1985, to work as hostler or hostler helper at
location where hostler or hostler helper job is to be
discontinued. Such employees will retain recall rights to engine
service in accordance with existing agreements. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#12A May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This will confirm our understanding that the reference to
"another organization" in Article XII, Part A, Section 1 (10)(b),
and Part B, Section (7)(b) refers to a labor organization which
does not hold representation rights for engine or train service
employees on the particular railroad involved. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#13 May 1 9, 1 986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This will confirm our understanding during the negotiations
of the Agreement of this date that the term "active firemen,
working as such", appearing in Part A, Section 1, Paragraph (11)
or Part B, Section 8 of Article XII, includes hostlers who have
the right to work as locomotive engineers. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#14 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This confirms our understanding that in implementation of
Article XII, Part B, of the Agreement reached this date, each
carrier on which Part B will become effective will meet with the
appropriate BLE General Chairman within 10 days for the purpose
of reaching an understanding with respect to existing rules
covering locomotive firemen and hostlers which will remain in
effect, it being the intention of the parties that railroads
which are subject to Part B receive ,he same benefits therefrom
as railroads which are subject to Part A. Existing pay rates will
remain in effect provided such railroads continue to receive the
benefits obtained when such pay rates were negotiated. In the event a carrier and the appropriate General Chairman
do not reach a satisfactory resolution within thirty days from
the date of this Agreement, the matter will be referred to the
Informal Disputes Committee established pursuant to Article XVI
for expedited handling and final and binding arbitration if
required. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#15 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This refers to our discussions leading to the Agreement of
this date, particularly those provisions that relate to firemen.
The carriers explained that subject to legal requirements the
source of supply for firemen positions would be train service
personnel as provided in the recent UTU Agreement. We also
explained that companion thereto in order to expand the
employment potential for present engineers and firemen, whether
represented by the BLE or UTU, all of these engine service
personnel will be placed in seniority order at the bottom of the
appropriate train and/or ground service seniority roster. The BLE stated that in its capacity as the authorized
representative of employees who have seniority as engineers or
who have seniority as firemen, apprentice engineers or other
comparable positions it had a legitimate bargaining interest in
negotiating the issue of providing ground service seniority to
such employees not now having such seniority even where the
ground service crafts are represented by another organization,
and insofar as engineers and firemen who now hold or at one time
did hold seniority in ground service i8 concerned, BLE proposed
that such employees should be granted seniority as of their
original date of hire as brakemen or groundmen. The BLE also stated that in its capacity as the authorized
representative of employees who have seniority as engineers
and/or firemen, apprentice engineers or other comparable
positions, it has a legitimate bargaining interest in negotiating
the issue of providing engine service seniority to train and
ground service employees not now having engine service seniority
where the ground service crafts are represented by another
organization. The carriers responded that in their view the matter of
providing brakemen seniority to such BLE represented employees is
a matter between ;he carriers and the organization representing
brakemen and groundmen, not between the carriers and the BLE that
does not represent those classifications. However, the BLE, UTU
and carriers, agree on the desirability of engineers and firemen
who do not have seniority in train or ground service being given
such seniority if they so desire. Therefore this will be done
without prejudice to the position of the BLE or the carriers to
the extent those positions differ as stated above. However, where
this occurs the carriers were not agreeable that such seniority
should be retroactive to date of hire as brakemen or groundmen. Insofar as providing engine service seniority to ground
service employees, the carriers position was that this was a
matter between the carriers and the organization representing
firemen, which in many cases is not the BLE; however, it was
unnecessary to address any differences among the parties because
here, also, all parties agree that the source of supply for
engine service should be ground service employees, and will
provide preferential promotional opportunities on that basis. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#16 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This confirms our understanding with respect to
incorporating a Hospital Pre-Admission and Utilization Review
Program as part of the benefits provided under the Railroad
employees National Health and Welfare Plan in accordance with
Article XV, Section 2(a) of the Agreement of this date. By agreeing ,o this benefit program, our principal
objectives are to reduce in-patient hospital utilization thereby
minimizing exposure to risks of hospitalization or unduly
prolonged hospitalization and the risks of unnecessary surgery by
encouraging both employee and physician to make the most patient-
sensitive and at .he same time cost-effective decisions about
treatment alternatives. The program accomplishes these objectives by providing .o
employees and other beneficiaries ready access to knowledgeable
professional personnel when making decisions about their health
care. A number of patient-centered services are provided and
designed in a manner so as not to impose significant added
burdens on individual employees. The comprehensive guidance and
support structure begins prior to planned hospitalization and
continues through any recovery period. Specifically, the program shall include review of the
propriety of hospital admission (including consideration of
health care alternatives such as the use of ambulatory centers or
out-patient treatment) benefit counseling, the plan of treatment
including the length of confinement, the appropriateness of a
second surgical opinion, discharge planning and the use of
effective alternative facilities during convalescence. We have attached to this letter descriptions of programs
currently offered by three leaders in this field that describe in
greater detail the operations of these programs and what
specifically is involved. These attachments are intended as
informational only, describing the kind of program we will
establish, and do not suggest that the program we ultimately
adopt is limited to what is described or is to be administered by
these particular parties. In order ,hat the program achieves its intended objectives,
we have agreed to institute appropriate incentives. For those
employees who use the program, plan benefits will be paid as
provided and the employee and family will receive the full
protection and security of professionals managing their hospital
confinement and recovery. For employees who do not use the
program, plan benefits will be paid only under the Major Medical
Expense Benefit portion of the Plan with the Plan paying 65%,
rather than 80%, of covered expenses. However, a maximum total
employee expense limitation - "stop-loss" will be maintained. We recognize that the program described cannot be
implemented overnight but will require careful review and
examination on the part of us all and will include, as well, time
to inform the employees and other beneficiaries covered under the
Plan. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the program will
include use of alternative facilities, such as home health care
options, hospices, office surgery, ambulatory surgi-centers and
birthing centers, some of which are either not covered under the
Plan now or are not available in the manner envisioned under this
new program. Thus, for these reasons we have agreed that
implementation of the program will not occur until practicable
and that the intervening time will be used to assure .hat its
adoption shall be a constructive and useful addition to the
benefits currently provided under the Plan. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name n the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
Attachments (Descriptive material furnished BLE)
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#17 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear ~r. Sytsma: This confirms our understanding with respect to the
appointment of a neutral person to serve as chairman of the
Special Committee established pursuant to Article XV, Section 3,
of .he Agreement of this date. In the event we are unable to agree on such a person, .he
parties will seek the assistance of an appropriate third party
for the purpose of providing assistance in identifying
individuals qualified to serve in this capacity. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#18 May 19, 1986 Mr. Charles I. Hopkins, Jr.
Chairman
National Railway Labor Conference
1901 L Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036 Dear Mr. Hopkins: This is to advise you that I am agreeable to the provisions
of Article XV Health and Welfare Plan except .hat in Section 2
(a), "Hospital Pre-Admission and Utilization Review Program", I
will agree to the concept of the "Pre-Admission and Utilization
Review Program" and will agree to its implementation after the
Policyholders have met jointly with representatives of Travelers
and have agreed on the changes and understandings that will be
necessary to implement the program. There must be ample lead
time to insure that all covered employees can be notified of the
implementation date and will have adequate information about the
plan so that they can comply with their responsibilities in the
event they qualify for benefits under the plan. I take no exceptions to the use of surplus funds, the
Reinsurance proposal, the Special Committee and/or the moratorium
proposals. Very truly yours, John F. Sytsma
#19 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This confirms our understanding with respect to
incorporating a Hospital Pre-Admission and Utilization Review
Program as part of the benefits provided under the Railroad
Employees National Health and Welfare Plan in accordance with
Article XV, Section 2(a) of the Agreement of this date. We recognize that a similar program would be equally
appropriate to include as part of the Early Retirement Major
Medical Benefit Plan. Therefore, this confirms our understanding that the program
developed for the Health and Welfare Plan shall also be
incorporated, with appropriate revisions, if necessary, as part
of the Early Retirement Major Medical Benefit Plan as well. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#20 May 19, 1986
Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This will confirm our understanding with respect to the pay
differential for an engineer working without a fireman and other
related matters: (1) Pay Differential (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1,
Section 8(g) and (i) (ii) and Article IV, Section 1(a) of
the Agreement of this date, the differential of $4.00 per
basic day in freight and yard service and 4 cents per mile
for miles in excess of the number of miles encompassed in
the basic day in freight service, currently payable to an
engineer working without a fireman on locomotives on which
under the former National Diesel Agreement of 1950 firemen
would have been required, shall be increased to $6.00 in
three installments, $1.00 effective July 1, 1986, $.50
effective January 1, 1987; and $.50 effective January 1,
1988, and to 6 cents per mile in three installments of 1
cent, one-half cent, and one-half cent, respectively, on the
same effective dates. (b) An engineer working with a reduced train crew
(established pursuant to a crew consist agreement made
subsequent to January 1, 1978) and without a fireman will be
allowed the standard reduced train crew allowance for that
trip unless the engineer allowance for working without a
fireman is greater. In no event will there be any
duplication or pyramiding of payments. The term "standard
reduced crew allowance" referred to herein, is the $4.00
paid originally to the members of reduced train crews as
that amount has been modified by subsequent general and cost-
of-living wage increases. (c) Existing notices with respect to adjusting the pay
differential for an engineer working without a fireman are
disposed of by this Agreement and notices concerning this
subject are governed by the moratorium provisions of Article
XVIII, Section 2 of this Agreement. Existing notices
designed to change the compensation relationships between
the engineer and other members of the crew where such
relationships have been changed because of a crew consist
agreement are disposed of by this Agreement and notices
concerning this subject shall not be served. However, if the
special allowance currently payable to a conductor working
with one brakeman is subsequently increased for a conductor
working without any brakemen, the organization may serve and
pursue to a conclusion as hereafter provided proposals
pursuant to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act seeking
to adjust compensation relationships for engineers on
conductor only assignments. (d) Any additional allowance shall be limited in amount
so that when combined with the differential payable to an
engineer working without a fireman, the total amount for
that trip or tour of duty shall be no greater than the
allowance paid to the conductor of that crew unless the
present engineer allowance for working without a fireman is
greater. Where the present engineer allowance is greater it
shall be converted to the allowance payable to the conductor
when the latter allowance exceeds the former. (e) Where the organization serves such a proposal as
above provided, the carrier may serve proposals pursuant to
the provisions of the Railway Labor Act for concurrent
handling therewith that would achieve offsetting
productivity improvements and/or cost savings. (f) In the event the parties on any carrier are unable
to resolve the respective proposals by agreement, the entire
dispute will be submitted to final and binding arbitration a
L .he request of either party.
(2) Guaranteed Extra Boards (a) Carriers that do not have the right to establish
additional extra boards or discontinue an extra board shall
have that right. (b) Upon thirty days' advance notice to the appropriate
general chairman, a carrier may establish additional extra
boards. Upon request of the general chairman, a meeting will
be held to discuss the proposed action. However, this shall
not serve to delay the establishment of any extra board. (c) When an extra board is established under this rule
it will, unless the general chairman is notified otherwise,
protect all jobs on that seniority district whose laying off
and reporting points are closer to the location of the extra
board than to the locations of other extra boards on that
seniority district. (d) The carrier will regulate the number of employees,
if any, assigned to such extra boards and will have the
right to discontinue such boards. (e) While on an extra board established under this
rule, each employee will be guaranteed the equivalent of
3000 miles at the basic through freight rate for each
calendar month unless the employee is assigned to an
exclusive yard service extra board in which event the
guarantee will be the equivalent of 22 days' pay at the
minimum 5-day yard rate for each calendar month. All
earnings during the month will apply against the guarantee.
The guarantees of employees who are on the extra board for
part of a calendar month will be pro rated. (f) Except as hereinafter provided, if an employee is
suspended as a result of disciplinary action, lays off at
his own request with permission, is not available for
personal reasons, or misses a call, earnings lost as a
result thereof will be deducted from the monthly guarantee.
Unless the needs of the service dictate otherwise, employees
assigned to an extra board which protects yard service
exclusively may lay off for a maximum of two days per month
without the earnings lost as a result thereof being deducted
from the monthly guarantee. (g) The maximum number of guaranteed extra boards .hat
can be in operation on a carrier at any one time under this
provision is three in the territory of each regular source
of supply point on that carrier. (h) ~o existing guaranteed extra board will be
supplanted by a guaranteed extra board under this rule if
the sole reason for the change is to reduce the guarantee
applicable to employees on the extra board. (i) This rule will not be construed as restricting any
existing rights of a carrier to establish or discontinue
extra boards. The rights conferred by this rule are in
addition to preexisting rights. This letter of understanding shall not apply on carriers
that have agreements with the organization adjusting the
compensation of engineers in response to the change in
compensation relationships between engineers and other members of
the crew brought about by crew consist agreements unless the
appropriate BLE General Chairman elects to adopt this letter
agreement in lieu of the compensation adjustments provided in
such agreement. Such election must be exercised on or before 45
days following the date of this Agreement. If such election is
made, the provisions of such local agreements concerning matters
other than compensation shall be retained. Where the General Chairman does not elect to substitute this
letter of understanding as provided for in the paragraph above
and, therefore, the local agreement remains in effect in its
entirety and such local agreement contains a moratorium
provision, it is agreed that any special allowance provided for
therein that is subject to being increased by general wage
increases shall be excluded from the provisions of Article I,
Section 8(a), Article II, Section 1(b) and (d), and Article IV,
Section 5(a) and (b). Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#20A May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: This refers to Letter of Understanding No. 20 and the
application of paragraph (b) of (1) Pay Differential with respect
to railroads where the BLE has outstanding Section 6 notices to
change the compensation relationships between the engineer and
other members of the crew where such relationships have been
changed because of a crew consist agreement subsequent to January
1, 1978. This confirms our understanding .hat on such properties the
provisions of paragraph (b) apply automatically without further
need to confer. Furthermore, when, in the future, any carrier makes a crew
consist agreement as described in the first paragraph, the
provision of paragraph (b) under Pay Differential will
automatically apply. Please indicate your agreement by signing your name in the
space provided below. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
I agree: John F. Sytsma
#21 APPLICATION OF LETTER AGREEMENT WITH
RESPECT TO INTERCRAFT PAY RELATIONSHIPS The following examples illustrate the maximum allowances
that can be obtained under the letter agreement of this date with
respect to intercraft pay relationships: Example 1 - An engineer i8 on a reduced crew operating a
distance of 127 miles in a class of service which has a basic day
encompassing 104 miles (July 1, 1986). There is no fireman on the
crew, The time consumed on the trip is 9 hours. No duplicate
time payments expressed in hours or miles are paid. The conductor
is receiving a reduced crew allowance of $7.31. What would the
engineer be paid? A. The differential provided in letter agreement #20 for
operating without a fireman would pay him: 104 miles $5.00
23 miles 1.15 TOTAL $6.15 Since this is less than the amount the conductor is
receiving, the engineer would be paid the $7.31 reduced
crew allowance. Example 2 - What would the engineer in example 1 be paid if
the allowance paid to the conductor was subsequently increased to
$8.00? A. The engineer would be paid $8.00 Example 3 - What would the allowance be if the engineer in
example 1 were on an assignment operating a distance of 204
miles? A. The differential provided in letter agreement ~20 for
operating without a fireman would pay the engineer
$10.00. Since this is more than the amount the
conductor is receiving, the engineer would receive
nothing additional. Example 4 - What would the allowance be if the engineer in
example 1 had earned two hours overtime on the trip? A. The standard rule for operating without a fireman would
pay the engineer as
follows: Basic Day $5.00
Overmiles (23) 1.15
Overtime (2 hours) 1.88 TOTAL $8.03 This is more than what the conductor received, so the
engineer would receive nothing additional. Example 5 - An engineer i9 on a reduced crew operating a
distance of 127 miles in a class of service which has a basic day
encompassing 106 miles (January 1, 1988). There is no fireman on
the crew. The time consumed on the trip is 9 hours. No duplicate
time payments expressed in hours or miles are paid. The conductor
on that railroad is receiving a reduced crew allowance of $7.87.
What would the engineer be paid? A. The differential provided in letter agreement #20 for
operating without a fireman would pay him: 106 miles $6.00
21 miles 1.26 TOTAL $7.26 Since this is less than the amount the conductor is
receiving, the engineer would be paid the reduced crew
allowance of $7.87.
#22 May 19, 1986 Mr. John F. Sytsma
President
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
1112 Engineers Building
1365 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44114 Dear Mr. Sytsma: During the negotiations that led to the Agreement of this
date, the representatives of the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers expressed concern as to the possible erosion of the
traditional authority and responsibility vested in the engineer
while operating a locomotive in those situations where the
conductor and any other train crew members are located on the
locomotive because of the elimination of the caboose. The carriers responded that the responsibility and authority
of the engineer is not a collective bargaining subject; rather i.
is a matter of operational policy subject to operating rules
and/or other management instructions. The BLE did no. agree on
this point but the matter was resolved on the basis of the
carriers' statement .hat the removal of cabooses and the
consequent relocation of train crew personnel to the locomotive
cab did not diminish nor otherwise alter the authority and
responsibility of the engineer. Because of the significance the BLE attaches to this matter,
I am sending a copy of this letter to the Member Lines to advise
them that while nothing has been said or done in our negotiations
to change any railroad's rules, policies or management practices,
we have assured the BLE that the elimination of cabooses and
relocation of train service personnel does not alter .hose rules,
policies or management practices. Very truly yours, C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
#23 JOINT STATEMENT CONCERNING EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THE
COMPETITIVE ABILITIES OF THE INDUSTRY This refers to our discussions during the recent
negotiations with respect to improving our industry's ability to
compete effectively with other modes of transportation and to
attract new business to the railroads. We recognize that opportunities will present themselves on
railroads to promote new business and preserve existing business
by providing more efficient and more expedient service. It is our
mutual objective to provide this improved service by making
changes, as may be necessary, in operations and with agreement
rule exceptions and accommodations in specific situations and
circumstances. It is difficult to list specific rules or operations .hat
might need modifications or exceptions in order to provide the
services that may be necessary to obtain and operate new business
that can be obtained from other modes of transportation. We are
in agreement, however, that necessary operational changes and
rules modifications or exceptions should be encouraged to obtain
new business, preserve specifically endangered business currently
being hauled, or to significantly improve the transit time of
existing freight movements. We recognize .hat attracting new business and retaining
present business depends not only on reducing service costs, but
also on improving service to customers. During our discussions, the Lake Erie Plan was advanced by
BLE, in part, as a collective bargaining proposal and as a
representation of the BLE's search for a possible approach to
enhanced competitive strength for the industry. Although the
significance of the plan may not necessarily be in the specifics,
the underlying goal of realizing the industry's full potential in
the transportation marketplace is such that further consideration
of such concepts may be warranted as a means of achieving this
goal by cooperative, aggressive undertakings by the BLE, the UTU
and the railroads. The Informal Disputes Committee will encourage expedited
resolutions on individual railroads consistent with these goals
and will provide counsel, guidelines and other assistance in
making necessary operational and or agreement rule changes to
provide the type service necessary to meet these goals. We sincerely believe that cooperation between the management
and the employees will result in more business and job
opportunities and better service which will insure our industry's
future strength and growth.
John F. Sytsma C. I. Hopkins, Jr.
President Chairman
Brotherhood of Locomotive National Carriers'
Conference
Engineers Committee |