Inaccurate and misleading information regarding the Carrier’s formal Section 6 Notice to change crew consist continues. As long as management uses the Carrier’s internal communications tools to assimilate such misleading propaganda, we will continue to respond so that UTU members will hear the other side of the story.

In a May 9, 2005 posting on BNSF’s Labor Relations Web Site, the Carrier asserts that UTU has forgotten the purpose and meaning of the original 1980 Crew Consist moratorium language. That would be much like a bird forgetting the purpose of its wings, or a tiger the purpose of its claws. Absolutely no one who was involved in the negotiated Crew Consist Agreements of 1980 or 1985 or 1991 or 1993 could possibly be serious in suggesting that crew size was not under the protection of the moratorium provisions of those Agreements. The Carrier’s own actions in the national negotiations that led to PEB 219 plainly prove that they were well aware of the moratorium’s application to crew size.

Here is the pertinent part of the National Carriers Conference Committee’s 1988 Section Six Notice relative to Crew Consist:

“By mutual consent, revise crew consist rules to provide for a maximum crew of one conductor (foreman) and one brakeman (helper) on all crews, except on through freight, work train, transfer assignments and other appropriate operations which shall be operated with a conductor only.”

That’s it. No mention of changes to productivity funds, compensation for reduced crews, elimination of protected status, etc. The Carriers sought only one thing in 1991, and that one thing was a reduction in crew size. Knowing that crew size was under the protection of the “pure attrition” moratorium, the Carriers intentionally designed their Notice to stipulate that these requested changes in crew size should come by “mutual consent” because they knew full well that any attempt to force changes in crew size prior to the attrition of all protected employees was a direct violation of the original 1980 Crew Consist moratorium language.

Furthermore, when PEB 219 finally made its recommendation for resolution of the Carrier’s Notice regarding crew size, it plainly stated that the moratorium applied to that central element of crew consist. If, as the Carrier now asserts, crew size was never governed by any moratorium in the first place, then certainly PEB 219 would have simply said so. Instead, the Board’s recommendation reads as follows:

“A central issue to the railroads is the level of manning of trains, referred to as crew consist. Historically, a crew consisted of an engineer, fireman, conductor and two or three brakemen. Over the years the parties have entered into agreements to eliminate the job of fireman and many carriers have entered into agreements to eliminate the second brakeman’s position by attrition. However, from the Carriers’ point of view, attrition has been too slow a method of obtaining manning efficiencies.

The Board is of the view that the UTU position is the correct one and that crew consist, as such, is not appropriately before this Board. … The Board also agrees with the UTU that crew consist cannot be handled nationally. On the other hand, it does believe that the matter must be bargained to resolution in 1991. Accordingly, the Board makes the following recommendations which should be part of the national agreement:

a.       Notwithstanding any local moratorium, either party may serve a local notice requesting changes in crew consist. Such notice should be handled on a local basis.”

Clearly, crew size was (and still is) the central issue in crew consist, and crew size was (and still is) covered by the original 1980 Crew Consist moratorium. Because of the economic situation at the time, and the inability of railroads to compete with other modes of transportation, PEB 219 recommended that the parties nevertheless negotiate changes to crew size, even while confirming that the Carriers’ Notice was improper and premature. The parties subsequently negotiated changes in crew size, and then they knowingly and willingly reinstated the original 1980 moratorium provision by including Side Letter No. 3 to our current, November 1, 1993 Crew Consist Agreement.

No amount of rhetoric or spin can hide the shameful truth that BNSF management have again broken their pledge to BNSF employees by serving a Section Six Notice that they know full well is in violation of the Crew Consist moratorium. Even if management succeeds in once again bullying its way to forced crew consist negotiations, they will suffer the complete loss of any credibility they might have had with the employees who move the trains and make the profits possible; and that is a loss from which they may never recover.

I should also point out that the May 9 Labor Relations article doesn’t even address the question of jurisdiction over Crew Consist Agreements. PEB 219’s recommendations (above) clearly stated that Crew Consist is strictly a local issue, and even when that Board recommended a negotiated change in 1991, it clearly stipulated that such changes must occur in local negotiations – not at the national level.