Following is the text of the May 9, 2005 posting on BNSF's Labor Relations Web Site.

Crew Consist Moratoria - Spin or Substance?

May 9, 2005

In recent Web postings, the UTU International and one UTU General Chairman on BNSF have said that BNSF and the other railroads are breaking "solemn promises" with our Section 6 proposals on crew consist. Here are the facts.

We would not serve a Section 6 notice that we knew was in violation of a moratorium provision. A closer look at the actual language of the moratorium provisions supports our confidence that our notice and the moratorium do not conflict.

The basic moratorium UTU relies on so heavily is found in old crew consist agreements reached across the industry in the very early 1980s. However, UTU seems to forget that the moratorium - the contractual provision that the parties actually signed - isn't a blanket pledge that there will never be any changes to the existing crew consist agreement. Instead, the moratorium covers only certain specific parts of the early 1980s crew consist agreements.

For instance, the entire 1980 moratorium on BN said:

“The parties to this Agreement shall not serve or progress, prior to the attrition of all protected employes, any notice or proposal for changing the specific provisions of this Agreement governing pure attrition, protected employes, car limits and train lengths, special allowance payment to reduced crew members, employe productivity fund deposits and the administration thereof." (Emphasis added)

Prominently excluded from the moratorium's reach is the definition of what the "standard crew" size is. In other words, crew consist itself is a very fair topic for a Section 6 notice.

Now, let's consider the Section 6 notice that BNSF and the other railroads served at the beginning of this bargaining round, in November 2004, in the context of what the moratorium does cover:

Does our notice propose taking protected status away from protected employees? No.

Does it propose reducing the special allowance payment? No.

Does it propose eliminating the productivity fund, or altering its administration? No.

Does our Section 6 notice even propose changing pure attrition or car limits and train lengths? No - because both parties, management and the UTU, agreed to eliminate those provisions in the crew consist agreements that were reached in 1993. In other words the "specific provisions of this [the 1980] Agreement governing pure attrition, ...car limits and train lengths" don't even exist any more. Obviously, we are not now proposing in our Section 6 notice to change old agreement provisions which are already gone.

In fact, here's what the 1993 agreement on the former BN actually says about the moratorium:

"...the terms of the [1980] moratorium remain in effect, except to the extent certain elements covered by the moratorium are modified by the terms of the Agreement signed this date." (Emphasis added)

So, here we plainly have a further scaling back even of the old 1980 moratorium.

What the UTU Web postings seem to overlook is that, while the reach of the moratorium has diminished over time, our Section 6 notice does not propose changing any of the specific labor agreement provisions which were covered by the moratorium and which remain in effect. This is the critically important fact.

In short, BNSF, and the other railroads in national bargaining, are on very, very solid ground concluding that our Section 6 notice does not violate the moratorium in any way. In fact, to move this process along, the railroad representatives have proposed expedited arbitration of this moratorium issue-and UTU has refused.

We believe it is important for you to have the facts, and not just the spin. You can draw your own conclusions about "solemn promises" from there.

Thanks for your interest.