Download - Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
1/200
Floyd MasonInternational Vice President
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
2511 Smith Harbour
Denver, NC 28037
704-483-1655
Coalition Bargaining:A Successful Bargaining Strategy for Rail Labor
LERA 2010 Proceedings
Appendices 0 - 12
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
2/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
3/200
The Bargaining Issues
The NCCC, under cover dated November 1, 2004, from Robert F. Allen
Chairman, served Section 6 Notices upon all RLBC members including BRS. The
NCCC indicated that its bargaining authority included a list of carriers listed in
Attachment A, attached to the letter. The Attachment A interestingly expressed that its
authority to represent the EJ&Eiwas limited to certain issues. This Appendix A is typical
of the NCCCs expression of bargaining authority over its members that choose to
participate. This document and others like it acknowledge that each railroad carrier may
elect or not to participate in national handling and may choose which issues will be
addressed in that forum (Appendix 1 p. 4).
The substance of the Notice proposed elimination of any restriction to contract out
work, to establish a process to enable a railroad to exit specified types of work . . .
within the scope of the parties agreement, eliminate provisions related to seniority, and
eliminate restriction on work schedules or rest days. The Notice further asked that the
parties develop a joint legislative proposal to replace existing federal law governing
liability for injured or killed employeesii and further proposed absent a successful
legislative effort, the cost of any liability for at fault accidents would be transferred to the
bargaining unit employees. The Carriers sought an amendment to the RLA that would
create a requirement that no strike may take place without a ten day notice, and it also
proposed that the parties agree to a suspension of all CBA rules in the event of a strike.
The carriers proposal was for BRS and other rail union members to pay 1/3 of the cost of
benefits including Health and Welfare, and called for a joint effort to decrease all benefits
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
4/200
to reduce costs further. Finally, they proposed to substitute Martin Luther Kings
Birthday for Presidents Day (Appendix 1 p. 9).
The BRS after having concluded its agreement to join the RLBC worked with
RLBC members and our hired spokesman, Roland Wilder, to amend existing Section 6
notices into a coordinated RLBC Section 6. The RLBC proposals sought positive
increase in wages, skill/equity/shift differentials, COLA,iii
matching contributions to
401(k)s, long term disability, holiday and vacation improvements, changes to leave and
to the off-track vehicle agreements and provisions to protect workers in sales, leases and
abandonment. The proposal contained an extensive list of H&W changes, many intended
to reduce costs.
The RLBC met on 2 occasions with the NCCC on January 24 and March 10 to 12,
2005. On March 16, 2005, the NCCC took the unprecedented step to apply for
Mediation before even hearing the proposal advanced by RLBC member unions
including BRS. The January meeting consisted of questions about the RLBC and its
member unions decision to form a coalition. Faced with the NCCC setting the agenda,
dates and location for bargaining the RLBC on March 10, 2008, insisted that ground
rules be established to defuse process issues that had proven troublesome during the
past bargaining round (RLBC Response to NMB). These issues included the handling
of local issues locally, at a local table of involved parties, concurrent with handling of
national issues at the national table. The NCCC response was that it had no interest in
any proposal advanced by RLBC and within days of the shortened meeting filed for
mediation.
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
5/200
The parties met again on May 19, 2005, after the NCCC withdrew its request for
mediation. Craft specific issues were discussed with the BLE on May 18, 2005 and craft
specific issues were discussed with the BMWE May 20, 2005. On June 9, 2005, the
NCCC again filed for Mediation, again, an unprecedented move by Carriers. Meetings
were held under the direction of the NMB in June, July, September and November 2005.
Craft specific issues were addressed with BRS on November 15, 2005. The parties met
one more time in December 2005, before establishing a meeting February 7 an 8 in
Miami, Florida. Through this December 2005 meeting, there was no progress on any
issue. On February 8, 2007, the NCCC advanced a 4-page proposal outlining design
changes to reduce the benefits and cost of the Health and Welfare Plan. On February 7,
2006, President Pickett introduced BRS local issues, and the author coordinated and
assisted with the presentation by seven General Chairmeniv, representing their respective
General Committees. There were hours of testimony and 41 pages of specific local
bargaining proposalsv were presented the first day. On February 8, 2008, the
presentations continued, later turning presentation over to George Jones, BRS
International Vice President, who coordinated presentations by the Union Pacific General
Committee and the Burlington Northern General Committeevi.
A Local BMWE Issue
It is beyond the scope of this paper to address the myriad of local and craft
specific issues that were involved with the 2004 bargaining round for all seven rail unions
that were members of the RLBC, but there is one issue that is touched upon as an
example of a non-BRS local issue. The issue has to do with the BMWE proposal to
abolish camp carsvii
. The senior negotiator for BMWE was Steve Powers, who handles
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
6/200
arbitration and his work was coordinated with IBT Communication Director, David
Cameron. The BMWE presented the document titled Abolish Norfolk Southern Camp
Cars Now. The flyer and a video presentation made the graphic case that a typical
cell at a high security prison contained 84 square feet per person, while a typical Norfolk
Southern Camp Car contained 50 square feet per person. The flyer and the video
documented in graphic detail conditions that required 8 men to live in a single railroad
car with an outdoor toilet. The video displayed the waste and sludge that surrounded the
cars and made a point that not only supported the BMWE case, but also embarrassed the
representatives of all participating carriers, with the possible exception of Norfolk
Southern. The Author heard a railroad official say that he did not want to see that
material presented at a Presidential Emergency Board Hearing.
The professional presentation of the material by Steve Powers and Dave Cameron
made the case vividly. The structure of the coalition ensured that the Carriers viewed the
presentation. The 2004 round brought camp cars for BMWE members on Norfolk
Southern into focus. Both parties acknowledged this issue as a Local Issue for BMWE
and NSR to resolve.
iElgin Joliet and Eastern Railway Company contained the following footnote: Wages & Rules and Health
& Welfare Only. NCCC member railroad carriers had expressed the right to withhold certain bargaining
authority.ii
The Federal Employees Liability Act (FELA) is the federal law that covers on-the job injuries for railemployees.iii
Cost of Living Adjustmentsiv Presenting for Eastern Railroads with F. Mason were: Eldon Luttrell, Gus DeMott, Bill Wilson, Bill
Duncan, Mike Baldwin, Charley Greenv The 7 General Chairmen were Gus DeMott, Southeast General Committee, Eldon Luttrell, United General
Committee, Bill Duncan, Northeast General Committee, Bill Wilson, L&N General Committee and
presenting for Monon General Committee, Mike Baldwin, RF&P General Committee, Chuck Cleghorn,
B&OCT General Committee, Charley Green, B&O General Committee.vi
Presenting for Eastern Railroads with G. Jones were Grover Pankey UP GC and Mike Dake BNSF GC.
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
7/200
vii
Camp cars are railroad cars that are parked in a siding and used for temporary lodging for Maintenance
of Way Employees. The use of camp cars were discontinued for many crafts in the 1970s and at the
beginning of the 2004 round only BMWE represented employees on Norfolk Southern were subject to
away from home lodging in camp cars.
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
8/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
9/200
East ReportFEBRUARY 2006 FLOYD MASON, BRS VICE PRESIDENT
Rail analysts are
viewing 2005s record
breaking financial
results as a
beginning of a new
renaissance
NCCC must now bargain
with RLBC
BRS Presentations
featured in
mediation
BRS hammers
NCCC with
proposals to
benefit employees
NCCC withdrew its
request for
mediation 2-13-06
- Photos by David White IBT Communications RLBC Spokesman Roland Wilder, front row 3rd
from left, BRS President Dan Pickett, back row 2
nd
from right, BRS Vice President Floyd Mason back row 5
th
fromright, BRS IST Walt Barrows back row 5th from left, RLBC Chairman, George Francisco, back row 1st on left -- in
NCCC Caucus room 1-31-06.
BRS and RLBC Turn National Bargaining AroundAt the end of 2005 the NCCC that bargains for all US railroads in national handling, had planned
that bargaining would end in February 2006. The rail carriers had asked the NMB for a release
from mediation December 14, 2005. Speculation was that the NCCC had hoped to bring
bargaining to an end in time for a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) to make recommendations
before the mid-term elections this coming November. Any plans to end bargaining on such short
notice, in manner so favorable to the railroads, ended February 13, 2006, when NCCC withdrew
its request for mediation.
Left - Bob Allen NCCC
Chairman, center of photo; Mark MacMahon to his left; Carlton Everett in back; NCCC meeting
Room 1-31-06 -- Right - Allen and MacMahon during BRS presentation, Lisa Mancini in
background
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
10/200
Subscribe by sending an e-
mail message to
with the word
subscribe in the
subject line
Mason noted that
record profits
enjoyed by the
national rail carriers
were the result of
the professionalism
and expertise of the
rail employees.
The NCCC had acknowledged before National Mediation Board (NMB) mediator Terry Brown, on
February 8, 2006. that it would withdraw its request. The acknowledgement came after two
sessions of BRS and other Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (RLBC) members hammering the NCCC
with proposals that would benefit rail employees. Through December 2005 NCCC proposed
settlement only on terms that would require employees to pay 1/3 of the cost of health care
insurance and of all future increases, lump sum payments in lieu of wage increases that were
tied to internal railroad performance figures, and work rule changes that would erase much of the
gain made by rail labor in the last fifty years.
The two sessions were held in Washington, DC beginning on January 31, and in Miami, FL
beginning February 7, 2006. BRS presentations about local work rules were featured in both
sessions. Other topics discussed in the sessions included BMWET proposals/responses related to
work rules; RLBC engaged NCCC on issues related to H&W.
Left - BRS Vice President Floyd
Mason during presentation of NSR Local Issues in mediation 1-31-06; General Chairman Carlton
Everett to right. Right, NMB Mediator Terry Brown
Following comments by RLBC spokesman Roland Wilder Jr. and BRS President W. Dan Pickett,
BRS Vice President Floyd Mason led discussion of Norfolk Southern work rules on January 31,
2006. The panel representing Norfolk Southern members included Floyd Mason, Eldon Luttrell,
General Chairman ERN, Kurt Mullins, General Chairman N&W, Carlton Everett, General Chairman
SJGC.
Left - BRS General Chairman Eldon Luttrell presenting the ERN Proposal Right - NSGC General
Chairman Kurt Mullins preparing to address N&W issues.
The BRS presentation proposed that subcontracting not be a consideration when an adequate
workforce to perform reserved work is not available. BRS responses included a requirement to fill
vacant positions, to have vacation relief personnel and to fil l positions vacated by sickness and
discipline.
The NSR proposals were prefaced by a requirement to remove the subcontracting rule from the
Southern Agreement. Disagreement over this rule and the November 1, 2003 Agreement led to asystem wide strike on NSR June 16, 2005. The point was made that there are more than 18
collective bargaining agreements in national handling and not one other than the Southern has a
subcontracting clause, and nowhere else was there a BRS strike.
CSX and UP present Local Issues in M iami
Following the mediation session in Washington the BRS with the RLBC met again with the NCCC in
mediation in Miami, FL. This session again featured BRS presentations, the first of which was by
the CSX General Committees. Presenting for BRS members on CSX with Vice President Floyd
Mason were: Charlie Green, B&O General Chairman, Gus DeMott, SE General Committee
Chairman, Mike Baldwin, RF&P Committee Chairman, Bill Duncan NE General Committee
Chairman, Bill Wilson L&N General Committee Chairman and Eldon Luttrell United General
Committee Chairman.
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
11/200
DeMott presented
evidence to show
that the number of
maintenance
positions left vacant
was increasing at
an alarming rate
BRS Vice President Floyd Mason, who led the BRS response for CSX, made the point that issues
that involved subcontracting on CSX before this round of bargaining, were resolved locally by the
general committees. He also noted that the record profits enjoyed by the national rail carriers
were the result of the professionalism and expertise of the rail employees.
Presentations on behalf of the general committees began with Charlie Green from the B&O. He
reviewed a proposal that reduced the work day at the current daily rate of pay and a series of
proposals to enhance the financial and quality of work life for Signalmen covered by the B&O
Agreement.
Chairman Gus DeMott at mediation session February 7, 2006, in Miami,
FL. BRS Vice President Joe Mattingly in background Photo by F Mason
Gus DeMott presented a 22 page proposal that responded to each proposal made by NCCC and
proposed a series of improvements for the lives of signalmen including expense reimbursement
for maintenance employees that are required to relocate to perform railroad service. DeMott
noted that effort continued locally to merge two CBAs, the SCL and the A&WP, but expressed
concern that NCCC proposals threatened to undermine the work that BRS and CSXT had
accomplished locally. DeMott presented evidence to show that the number of maintenance
positions left vacant was increasing at an alarming rate.
Following the presentations made by each Committee Chairman, Bill Duncan presented proposals
that affected the Belt, the IHB and the EJ&E.
The following day, February 8, 2006, the UP General Committee and BRS Vice President George
Jones responded on behalf of the UP General Committee.
My office will continue to work with the Committees, the BRS and the RLBC to find new ways to
advocate for Signalmen. All of us have one thing in common, even if we tire from time to time --
we love to wage the fight because we know the interest of our craft and of our movement is right.
Together, Signalmen will continue to make a difference for the benefit of all rail employees.
Fraternally,
Floyd Mason, BRS Vice President East
A message from the IBT to the rail labor leaders in national
handling
Rail Leaders;
Attached is a Class I US Railroads: Financial and Operating Update for 2005, which was prepared thisweek by Michael Conyngham, Assoc. Director of the IBT Economics and Contracts Department.
This was used today to good effect in RLBC contact negotiations.
When Bob Allen, lead negotiator for the NCCC, told the RLBC that the carriers were looking for relieffrom "onerous" union work rules, Roland listed the spectacular profits of each of the carriers this pastyear and George Francisco followed with the observation that apparently those work rules didn't interferewith rail carriers ability to achieve record profits. As Dan Pickett's BRS negotiating team pointed out,management didn't do it; it was achieved through the professionalism and expertise of the unionworkforce.
David CameronSenior Strategic Campaign SpecialistAnalysis will be sent by separate message or by request [email protected]
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
12/200
The desire of Bob Allen
and the NCCC to say
one thing to UTU and
another to BLE about
the same issue, while
expecting UTU and
BLE not to talk to
each other is just
plain wrong.
Wilder wrote to NMB with
a subtle warning that the
TWU MTA strike in New
York illustrates that
transportation
disruptions are not
necessarily avoided by
prohibitions of the right
to strike.
Bob Allen and the NCCC
have done more to
unite rail labor in this
round of bargaining
than has been
accomplished in
years of meetings
involving rail labor
Note: The RLBC is a coalition of the Engineers {(BLET), the Maintenance of Way (BMWED)both affiliated with the Teamsters} the Signalmen {(BRS), Sheet Metel Workers (SMWIA),Boilermakers and Balcksmiths (IBB) Train Dispatchers (ATDA) all affiliated with the AFL-CIO} and the Firemen and Oilers (NCFO) affiliated with the SEIU. The RLBC is the largestgroup of members in national handling making up more than 50% of rail labor. Othergroups in national handling include the Trainmen (UTU), the Clerks and Carmen (TCU) andthe Electricians (IBEW).
Congress, Cooperation and other Issues affecting National Bargaining
The spokesman for the RLBC, R.P. Wilder wrote to the NMB December 28, 2005, takingexception to the national carriers request to be released from bargaining obligations(presumably clearing the way for a PEB appointed by George Bush during the term of this
current Congress). Wilder noted that there had been no real discussion of the RLBCs wageNotice, and that the carriers through, its coalition the NCCC, had refused to discuss anyalternative to the NCCC H&W proposals. The NCCC H&W Welfare proposals shift a largeportion (initially 1/3) of the cost of health care from the railroads to the employees.
The letter went on to note that NCCC had objected to ground rules that established thingssuch as participation by both sides in meeting location and further noted that the NCCC hadrequested to be released from its obligation to bargain even before meeting ground ruleswere established.
The RLBC noted that the BRS was in the process of developing comprehensive proposalsand responses on work rules. Those proposals are the subject of the previous article.
Wilder argued the NCCC was attempting to avoid its obligation to bargain favoring instead
to seek the help of a friendly administration and Congress to intervene inLabor/Management bargaining. And, this at a time when railroads are making more moneythan at any time in recent history.
The letter closed with the subtle warning that the TWU MTA strike in New York illustratesthat transportation disruptions are not necessarily avoided by prohibitions of the right tostrike.
Included in the letter was correspondence dated December 16, 2005, from House ofRepresentatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking DemocraticMember Jim Oberstar raising serious concerns about the nations carriers motives in thisround of bargaining, particularly with respect to reducing employees that are needed forsafe operation of railroads. Oberstar made it clear that neither party should expect theCongress to involve itself in the bargaining process or to takes steps that would adverselyaffect the safety of the nations railroads. The campaign by rail labor also influenced two
key Republican leaders in Congress, who issued stern warnings to the carriers not to seekthe assistance of Congress in imposing a forced contract on Rail Labor through aPresidential Emergency Board.
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
13/200
The strength gained from
the cooperation of rail
labor has forced the
carriers back to the
bargaining table
This combination of
factors in this
most profitable
time for railroads,
has effectively
halted the railroad
industry grab for
employees
money, at least for
now.
Representative Don Young (R-Alaska), Chairman of the House Transportation &Infrastructure Committee, issued his warning on January 23. Representative StevenLaTourette (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Railroads, issued his warningon February 6.
"Congressional intervention in any transportation labor dispute should always be a very lastresort," Rep. Young wrote. "My additional concern is that we may be headed for conflictamong the branches of government. I therefore recommend that the Board carefullyconsider whether it would be prudent to release the parties from mediation before thecourts have resolved the pending litigation."
Rep. LaTourette echoed Rep. Young's warning: "Congressional intervention is neitherassured nor guaranteed for either party if resolution is left to the Congress," Rep.LaTourette wrote. "Again, I encourage both parties to redouble their efforts to reach anagreement."
In another development the NCCC chastised BLET President Don Haus for violatingconfidentiality. Apparently The BLE President Haus and UTU President Paul Thompsonhave started working together in this round of bargaining. It seems that communicationthat was previously between Allen and Haus or Allen and Thompson are now known to Hausand Thompson, because the union leaders are talking. The desire of Bob Allen and theNCCC to say one thing to the UTU and another to BLE about the same issue, whileexpecting UTU and BLE not to talk to each other, is just plain wrong, said BRS VicePresident Floyd Mason. That BLE and UTU are working together is the best news Iveheard for a while. Im just surprised that we heard it from the Chairman of the NCCC.
This development bringing past rival unions together, working toward the same goals, is animportant change in the dynamics that affect the bargaining between rail labor andmanagement. As members of the BRS negotiating team have said to each other, BobAllen and the NCCC have done more to unite rail labor in this round of bargaining than hasbeen accomplished in years of meetings involving rail labor.
As a show of good faith during the current campaign, the UTU has withdrawn its request fora single-craft representation election at the Union Pacific Railroad while the BLET haspledged to refrain from conducting organizing drives at UTU-represented properties.
The strength gained from the cooperation of rail labor has forced the carriers back to thebargaining table. For now Congress has warned the carriers not to bring its problems tothem, as they have enough of their own. And BRS has responded to each of theconcessionary demands made by the railroads with proposals that would strengthen the
position of labor before addressing the desires of the railroads. This combination of factorsin this most profitable time for railroads has effectively halted the railroad industry grab foremployees money, at least for now.###
Tell Congress what you think. You can contact your representative through the following link: http://www.house.gov or contactthose cited in the articles:
Congressman Oberstar: http://www.oberstar.house.gov//
Congressman Young: http://donyoung.house.gov/ Congressman LaTourette: http://www.house.gov/latourette
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
14/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
15/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
16/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
17/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
18/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
19/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
20/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
21/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
22/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
23/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
24/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
25/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
26/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
27/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
28/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
29/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
30/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
31/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
32/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
33/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
34/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
35/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
36/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
37/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
38/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
39/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
40/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
41/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
42/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
43/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
44/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
45/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
46/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
47/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
48/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
49/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
50/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
51/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
52/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
53/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
54/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
55/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
56/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
57/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
58/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
59/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
60/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
61/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
62/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
63/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
64/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
65/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
66/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
67/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
68/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
69/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
70/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
71/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
72/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
73/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
74/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
75/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
76/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
77/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
78/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
79/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
80/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
81/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
82/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
83/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
84/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
85/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
86/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
87/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
88/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
89/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
90/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
91/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
92/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
93/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
94/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
95/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
96/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
97/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
98/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
99/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
100/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
101/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
102/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
103/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
104/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
105/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
106/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
107/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
108/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
109/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
110/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
111/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
112/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
113/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
114/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
115/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
116/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
117/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
118/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
119/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
120/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
121/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
122/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
123/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
124/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
125/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
126/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
127/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
128/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
129/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
130/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
131/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
132/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
133/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
134/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
135/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
136/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
137/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
138/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
139/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
140/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
141/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
142/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
143/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
144/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
145/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
146/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
147/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
148/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
149/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
150/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
151/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
152/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
153/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
154/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
155/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
156/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
157/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
158/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
159/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
160/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
161/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
162/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
163/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
164/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
165/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
166/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
167/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
168/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
169/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
170/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
171/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
172/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
173/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
174/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
175/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
176/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
177/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
178/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
179/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
180/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
181/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
182/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
183/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
184/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
185/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
186/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
187/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
188/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
189/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
190/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
191/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
192/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
193/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
194/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
195/200
Resolution of the Bargaining Issues
The principles of the resolution were documented in a summary dated February
28, 2007. A formal tentative agreement was reached February 28, 2007, following two
meetings, one in September 2006, and one in October 2006. The Agreement was taken
by each of the 7 RLBC unions back to its respective membership following RLBC
approval. The BRS tentative agreement went out on May 16, 2007, following several
some weeks of discussions and technical amendments (Appendix 9).
The terms reached were favorable to BRS and other RLBC unions. This is
especially so when it is considered that it was accomplished during what was considered
an unfavorable environment for rail labor with President George W. Bush in the White
House and a majority of the three member National Mediation Board Bush appointed.
The process started with the NCCC filing Section 6 Notices, arguing about the unions
choice to join a coalition, an abrupt end to discussions, two filings for mediation, one
withdrawal from mediation, one lawsuit against just the BRS, and an answer to our
counterclaim. The lawsuits appear in hindsight to have been frivolous, or at least without
merit; no declaration or injunction was forthcoming from the Court for BRS or RLBC
effort to bargain local issues on a less than cross-craft or single craft basis. Mediation
conducted by Mediator Terry Brown, despite a hostile NMB, pushed the parties to meet,
and the structure of the unions in coalition contributed to the avoidance of the usual
railroad dominated bargaining process.
The BRS terms contained general wage increases totaling 16.5% over the five
year term, with retroactive pay increases to July 1, 2005. The Health and Welfare -
Managed Care Program - considered superior to the Comprehensive Health Care Plan,
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
196/200
was expanded to any area where a current vendor has a network; co-payments for office
visits and prescription drugs were increased, as were terms related to health care cost
sharing. Importantly, health care cost sharing was renegotiated to equal 15% of the
Carriers monthly payment rate, as opposed to a previously used calculation that resulted
in a growing percentage when compared with the monthly payment rates. The prior
process established cost sharing through offsets from post-moratorium cost-of living
adjustments called the Harris COLAi. The straight 15% of the monthly payment rate
agreed to the 2004 round, and the ability to bargain for full retroactive pay increases for
periods between the expiration of the moratorium and the reaching of a new agreement
going forward provided an incentive for RLBC members to eliminate the Harris COLA
provision. Future wage increases both during the future term and over any retroactive
period that bargaining commenced will now be subject to the bargaining of the parties as
opposed to a cumbersome and less beneficial fixed COLA between Agreements.
Needed improvements were reached to improve the Off-Track Vehicle
Agreements that provides compensation for employees injured in a vehicle accident that
are otherwise not covered under railroad injury compensation law. Most importantly, the
concessionary work rule changes to subcontract work, change starting times, rest days,
and to undermine legislative benefits provided rail employees injured or killed on the job,
were avoided. Side Letter Number 9 agreed that the parties shall jointly move to dismiss
all claims and counterclaims pending before the Court with respect to the local verses
national handling lawsuit. The BRS did not gain on local work rules, but neither did it
lose, as was clearly intended by NCCC proposals to outsource and eliminate work. The
Agreement was signed July 1, 2007.
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
197/200
i The Harris COLA was named for PEB 219 Chairman Robert Harris who established a COLA that was in
concept of the cost of living with a cap. The Harris COLA would go into effect at the expiration of the
moratorium and was intended as an incentive to get rail carriers to the bargaining table, but not to
encourage labor unions to delay bargaining, and to avoid the long carrier initiated delays that had occurred
in past bargaining rounds. The Harris COLA was later offset by H&W contributions by up to of theCOLA amount. The BRS and a majority of RLBC member unions agreed to discontinue this Harris COLA
on the basis that H&W cost sharing was rising as a percentage of the carrier monthly payment rate. Under
the previous plan Harris COLA was typically used to offset or serve in lieu of wage increases in the
protracted delays typical in the bargaining process.
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
198/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
199/200
-
8/14/2019 Coalition Bargaining - Appendices 0-12
200/200
over seventeen years of national bargaining experience in the rail industry of the author
further contributed to the development of the material utilized in the analysis section of
this paper.
iA Section 6 Notice is the instrument that formally starts the bargaining process in the railroad industry
under the terms of the Railway Labor Act.