March 27, 2006
C. W. Ables CERTIFIED MAIL 7005 1160 0001 7390 1748
Superintendent RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Canadian National Railroad CONTAINS PAGES 1-5
Dear Sir,
I write in regard to the joint allocation meeting conducted at 10AM at
the
|
|
|
| |
|
Seniority
District 5 |
Champaign,
Decatur, |
| |
|
|
Other
service locations included on this District are |
| |
|
Zone
No. |
Extra
Board Location(s)
& Source of Supply Point(s) |
Protects | |
|
|
|
| |
|
1 |
|
·
·
Assignments
originating up to but excluding Paxton and down to but excluding
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Page 2 | |
|
2 |
|
·
·
Including
·
·
Gilman
to Farmersville; Including Clinton to Heyworth, excluding Gilman.
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
3 |
Effingham |
Effingham ·
·
Assignments
originating at or between ·
·
Assignments originating at or
between Effingham and Bluford;
excluding Bluford. ·
·
Effingham
District, Effingham to Inrd Junction. | |
A contractual basis is already present for distribution of extra work Bluford north, which belongs to Seniority District 5, Zone 3. These same criteria are established for the provision of extra work Bluford south, which belongs to Seniority District 6, Zone 3. In summary and as stated at this meeting the carrier is establishing the Bluford GEB with no known assignments to protect, over the objections and concerns of both organizations and with the intent to willfully violate our existing agreement.
I also requested lodging at both terminals during this transitional period for our members on the regular assignments. It was my hope that the carrier would cooperate and likewise respond in good faith as we would too. Subsequently, everything was denied by Superintendent Ables.
I want to further state that this BLE&T local chairman does not agree with the home terminal facilities at Bluford presently available for our members. I supplied the carrier with an excerpt from our contract but I will include another list of our concerns for your review. It is as follows;
ARTICLE
14 - ON AND OFF DUTY POINT
E.
Except as otherwise agreed, changes will not be made in reporting and
relief points until suitable wash and locker room facilities have been
provided.
Page 3
NOTE***
Bluford does not have the following;
1.
No Shower or eye wash station
2.
No T & E lockers
3.
Hot water? Who is responsible for Heat & A/C maintenance?
4.
Storage area (Miscellaneous boxes of assorted MofW items in back
room)
5.
Insufficient supplies and nobody to maintain neither fax, printer nor re-supply
6. Who is responsible for removing snow, ice, spreading salt and sand?
7.
Are these individuals available on a 24 hour basis and who are
they?
8.
Who is responsible for the parking area?
9. Who is responsible for Bluford
lighting?
10. First Aid Kit?
11. Incomplete Bulletin Board
12. No hand sanitizer for multiple users of the lone computer
terminal
13. Wind Sock?
14. Emergency Plan?
The
carrier did defer responsibility for the Bluford yard office to various
individuals by name with incomplete contact data and defining their specific
duties. These individuals and their function need to be readily available at
Bluford for anyone using this presently deficient facility. Until these concerns
are rectified the carrier will be in violation of Article 14-E and we will not
be in agreement.
During this meeting Superintendent Ables pointed out the carrier had access to mileage computations for assorted assignments over the past 2 years. I furnished Mr. Ables with an excerpt from our BLE&T contract denoting preference of work Seniority District 5, Zone 3 to which you said you were aware of these stipulations. In as much as the carrier has admitted knowledge and their ability to access computer computations reflecting inequities between seniority districts, I request comparable computations for inequities born by the District 6 GEB regarding work performed in District 5 while in violation of the source of supply Seniority District 5 work as defined within our current contract.
It was a given fact that all management present at this meeting were aware of proper source of supply protocol and did not request additional clarification of our contract document excerpt. Therefore, having presented this information to Superintendent Ables with carrier Labor Relations officer Anderson present, SLE Grigsby present and Transportation Superintendent Peck listening via conference telephone there should be no reason to violate District 5 source of supply again without the carrier bearing the brunt of these contract violations.
On March 21, 2006 I E-mailed Superintendent Ables and received no response from this correspondence. In the event you should you have not received it reads as follows;
Page No. 4
March 21, 2006
Mr. Ables,
I write in regard to your
telephone conversation today at approximately 3:30PM where you informed me of
some of the contemplated assignment changes. First, I want to thank you for
asking how my recuperation was progressing. And I want to thank you for being
upfront about these changes prior to any bulletins being issued.
In regard to the job changes
for assignments running between
Your reference to the
assignments in question Q194, Q195, M342 & M343 contained no details of the
assignment bulletins. During our conversation I did suggest that equity issues
be resolved between District 4 &5 prior to inception. I would be remiss if I
did not state that you dismissed District 5 equity and insisted upon District 6
at each juncture of our conversation. In light of your insistence of
preference of work being given to District 6, please note the
following;
1. Penalty time claims will be
submitted for any District 5 engineer that is prohibited from making
a seniority move to these future assignments
2. Penalty time claims will be
submitted when a District 6 engineer is used in preference to a District 5
engineer on all these future assignments
3. Penalty time claims will be
submitted for engineers adversely affected account of these assignment
changes
In the interim I trust you
will provide me with the conditions of these assignments when you have the
details. Given due consideration that the carrier has been notified that these
assignments are being incorrectly applied at inception, I request that the
carrier provide our organization with a daily list of the District 5
engineers that are due payment as stated above in items 1-3. Your
cooperation should alleviate duplicate penalty claims and your
concurrence should aid in a more timely payment method for District 5
engineers. I will thank you in advance for cooperation and if I may be of
assistance do not hesitate to ask.
A. G. Rapp
Local Chairman, BLE&T Div.
602
Cc Koonce
Cc Anderson
Page
No. 5
Cc Bierman
Cc
Cc Whitchurch
Cc Sparrow
Cc VLC's, Div.
602
Cc File
It is my understanding that item (1) has been resolved but I will withhold being in agreement until I have read the final bulletins. The carrier conveyed their urgency to ready assignment bulletins for the CATS system by early afternoon on Friday the 24th. As of today March 27, 2006, the date of this letter and at the time of my writing, there are still no bulletins posted in the CATS system.
In light of the carrier’s insistence on establishing a District 6 GEB at Bluford and readily admitting their intentions to violate Source of Supply, District 5, Zone 3 and Source of Supply, District 6, Zone 3, penalties will be submitted for any violations. My unanswered E-mail of 3-21-06 stated within paragraph 3 that part which reads, “preference of work being given to District 6”reference to items number 2 & 3 are still applicable with penalties for these violations. In as much as the carrier admitted knowledge of ongoing source of supply violations with regard to seniority district 5, penalties will continue to be submitted until corrected. I will thank you in advance for cooperation and if I may be of assistance do not hesitate to ask.
Sincerely,
A. G. Rapp
Local Chairman
BLE&T Div. 602
61873
Cc Koonce
Cc Anderson
Cc Bierman
Cc Whitchurch
Cc Sparrow
Cc VLC's, Div. 602
Cc File