We are receiving an increased number of inquiries from ground service members who have been inproperly displaced by an Engineer who could otherwise hold a position in engine service, asking what UTU is doing about such improper displacements. My answer is, UTU is doing all it can. We are handling all the claims generated by BNSF's continuing violation of Article XIII of the 1985 National Agreement. Although UTU's position on this is simple and consise, the issue itself is somewhat complex and is being further complicated by the misinformation, and I suspect, some disinformation, being circulated out on the property.

The History

Prior to 1978, ground service employees who entered engine service were required to relinquish their ground service seniority. As part of the 1978 National Agreement, UTU allowed ground service employees who went into engine service the right to retain (and accrue) ground service seniority. Even before UTU was created in 1969, its predecessor Unions had pioneered dual-craft seniority in the railroad operating crafts when Brakemen and Yardmen merged seniority. Allowing engine service employees to retain ground service seniority created the first multi-craft employee (Brakeman/Engineer/Yardman). This left only pre-1978 Engineers without ground service seniority. In 1985 UTU gave/granted/bestowed just plain handed ground service seniority to any Engineer who did not already possess a ground service date. But Article XIII of the 1985 National Agreement placed the following restriction on the utilization of such retained or acquired ground service seniority;

As relief from this clear and absolute restriction on the utilization of ground service seniority, UTU's 1996 Arbitrated National Agreement put guidelines in place for each property to individually negotiate Agreements allowing Engineers to "flowback" to the ground. In 2001, a Tripartite (BLET/BNSF/UTU) Flowback Agreement was implemented on the former ATSF portion of BNSF. But absent a Flowback Agreement on the former BN portion of BNSF, Article XIII still governs the use of retained or acquired ground service seniority by multi-craft Engineers.

Until 2005, the utilization of ground service seniority by multi-craft Engineers on the former BN portion of BNSF was not an issue because, in most instances, BLET’s force-assignment rule did not allow an Engineer to avoid protecting his or her Engineer’s seniority. If you could hold an Engineer’s position, you worked as an Engineer, period. With their Primary Recall Agreement, BLET effectively turned their force-assignment rule on its head (forcing the most junior instead of the most senior). Now, more-senior demoted Engineers could choose not to “promote” to engine service by simply not bidding on an Engineer’s bulletined assignment, which obviously results in either a junior Engineer bidding in the job, or the bulletin going no-bid and the most junior Engineer is forced. The conflict with Article XIII begins when BNSF allows these more-senior Engineers to continue to work on the ground at a time when they could be holding an Engineer’s position.

In 2005, UTU struck the former BN portion of BNSF because it viewed the BLET/BNSF Primary Recall Agreement as a de facto “Flowback” agreement, done without UTU’s concurrence or participation. The courts have since ruled that the issue is a “minor dispute” under the Railway Labor Act.

INCREASING ADVERSE AFFECTS

In order to understand what’s going on, set aside for the time being UTU’s position that Article XIII bars an Engineer from working in ground service when they could hold a position in engine service. The only difference between a true Flowback scheme and the BLET’s Primary Recall scheme is, Flowback allows an Engineer to self-demote (simply making a seniority move to a ground service position) while the Primary Recall scheme contains no built-in mechanism to get from the cab to the ground. So under Primary Recall, the goal of any Engineer wanting out of the cab is to find a way, by hook or by crook, to get to the ground. Between 2005 and 2007, those Engineers unwilling to wait to be “naturally” demoted have become adept at inventing creative ways to get themselves demoted. BLET’s 2007 System Bidding and Bumping Agreement seems to have opened up many new avenues for Engineers seeking to escape the engine cab. That’s why you’re seeing all the seniority-move gyrations by Engineers. They’re simply detours around any obstacle BLET’s rules put in their path to the ground.

WHERE WE ARE

It could be said that UTU is a victim of their own generosity. None of this would be going on if UTU had never allowed Engineers to retain or acquire ground service seniority. Of course, not a single Engineer would be working on the ground at a time when they could hold a job in engine service without BNSF’s blessing. As they say, we are where we are. Even as more and more reports of improper displacements come into this office, we are progressing claims toward arbitration.

UTU’S POSITION

In various on-property discussions on the issue, UTU has been accused by both BLET and BNSF of attempting to dictate how the BLET’s rule functions. Nothing could be further from the truth. UTU absolutely, positively does not care whether or not BLET requires Engineers to protect their Engineer seniority. If an Engineer can hold a position in engine service, but chooses not to, he or she can stay home, or go sell used cars, but should not be occupying a ground service position. Our position is not complicated. It is entirely contained in a single sentence from Article XIII of the 1985 National Agreement.