As reported earlier, the UTU national negotiating team has secured a commitment from the Nation’s five major Carriers, giving exclusive jurisdiction of remote control (RC) operations to UTU represented employees, and has agreed to commence pilot projects to test RC prior to final settlement of the issue at the national level. The parties did not issue any written guidelines or conditions for those pilot projects, and BNSF has decided to move forward with remote control pilot projects without an agreement with the involved General Committees. The Carrier has assured us that any issues raised during these pilot projects will be promptly addressed. UTU President Byron Boyd has published articles referencing an “ironclad guarantee” that these pilot projects will not result in the reduction of jobs or compensation for employees in train or engine service. Based on that advice, any employee in any craft who is adversely affected during a pilot project should document the facts and file the appropriate claims.

We have received numerous inquiries as to the rationale for the conclusion that operation of RC technology does not automatically fall to locomotive Engineers. The short answer is that the technology takes the place of the Engineer. Just as diesel locomotives made the Fireman’s job obsolete, and just as air brakes and radios and wayside detectors reduced the number of Brakemen needed on trains, so the computer chip now performs such functions as adjusting the throttle, applying and releasing the brakes, etc., that the Engineer has historically performed. The RC operator does not actually perform those functions. Rather, the individual operating the remote control device sends signals to the on-board computer as to direction and speed, and the computer operates the locomotive accordingly. In a conventional operation, those signals are sent by radio and the Engineer acts on them. In remote control operation, the signals are sent via the control device and the computer acts on them.

For a brief historical overview of this same jurisdictional dispute in Canada, follow these links PDF Version HTML Version. Additional information will be furnished as this matter progresses.