Recently the Carrier has advertised temporary transfer opportunities due to manpower shortages at the former BN (Frisco) terminals at Memphis and Enid. There has been much confusion about these transfers, and I hope this article will help answer some of the questions raised. Some of the confusion is due to the difference between the former ATSF and former BN Agreements with regard to temporary transfers. Other questions have arisen because these recent transfers to Memphis and Enid were actually initiated under Section 4.7 of the December 15, 1995 Midwest Seniority District Agreement (and were therefore advertised only within the original Midwest Seniority district), while some earlier temporary transfer opportunities to former Santa Fe locations were governed solely by Section 4 of the System Transfer Agreement of July 12, 1996. In a separate article entitled The Midwest Seniority District, I explained the history of the Midwest Seniority Agreement and this article will likewise provide a history of the System Transfer Agreement. Because each Agreement contains (somewhat different) provisions for temporary transfers, a careful review of both articles is recommended in order to gain a full understanding of this issue.
In the early 1990s, Burlington Northern Railroad implemented a self-imposed hiring freeze, probably in anticipation of a merger. As a result, severe manpower shortages began to occur at various locations, and in a panic the Carrier began offering lucrative incentives to some handpicked employees who would transfer to distant terminals to work. There was no consistency in the selection of employees for transfer and no standard compensation package for those transferred employees. In some locations junior employees were allowed to transfer and were paid for transportation, lodging, living expenses, bonus monies, etc., while senior employees were denied the same opportunities or were offered less attractive compensation packages. There was no agreement in place to govern these transfers, and the Carrier would not discuss such an agreement.
In July of 1996, three former BN General Committees entered into a new, System Transfer Agreement that would govern the transfer of employees between two separate seniority districts where employees did not hold common seniority. Other BN General Committees later negotiated and ratified similar transfer Agreements. By March of 1997, several other seniority rosters (both former BN and former ATSF) underwent various consolidations amongst themselves and were then added to the bottom of the Midwest Seniority District roster. The Midwest District roster was likewise added to the bottom of those other rosters. However, former NP and former GN seniority rosters still remained completely separate from any of these Midwest and affiliated rosters, and there are still some ATSF General Committees that do not have temporary transfer agreements like those in place on former BN territories.
Obviously, the situation that existed by mid-1998 was quite confusing. Some seniority districts were consolidated into a single district and others were not. Some seniority rosters had been combined and others had not. Some General Committees had temporary transfer agreements and some did not. The differences in the temporary transfer provisions in the Midwest Seniority Agreement and the System Transfer Agreement only added to this confusion. On September 15, 1998, this Committee reached an understanding with BNSF Labor Relations that was intended to standardize the handling of temporary transfers on territories represented by this Committee. That Letter of Understanding contained three major provisions. First, it clearly defined where the Carrier was required to advertise these temporary transfer opportunities, whether they were being advertised under the Midwest District Agreement or the System Transfer Agreement. Second, it substituted the higher compensation benefits of the System Transfer Agreement for the lower benefits under the Midwest Seniority District Agreement. Third, it clarified that the establishment and exercise of seniority during the period of temporary transfer would be governed by the collective bargaining agreement in place at the location the employee transferred to.
I am fully aware that employees transferring to former ATSF locations are handled differently than employees transferring to locations within the Midwest Seniority District, and that employees transferring to former NP or GN locations are handled still differently. The following apply when employees are awarded temporary transfers to locations on the former BN Frisco territories:
An employee awarded temporary transfer to a former BN Frisco location where he does not already have a seniority date will establish a seniority date on that new district based on the first date of compensated service at that location.
An employee awarded temporary transfer to a former BN Frisco territory who already holds seniority at that location will simply utilize that existing seniority date at the new location.
I understand the consternation of those junior employees who are displaced when senior employees from other locations transfer in. However, there is simply no rule or practice on any former Frisco property that would justify the restriction of those senior employees’ displacement rights simply because they are receiving incentives for working at other terminals. If such rules or practices exist on other properties, then transfers to those other properties certainly should be handled accordingly. An employee who is awarded a temporary transfer at a location under some other General Committee’s jurisdiction should contact the Local or General Chairman with jurisdiction for an explanation of those rules.