Old Y2K 2000 "Q & A"
Boards
Year 2000 "Q &
A":
Q
& A Discussion FAQ Ricardo 8/30/00
Late Meal Period JM Icardo 8/30/00
Time Limit JM Icardo 8/30/00
Brakeman's wages on dog catch AJ Gonzales 8/30/00
Re: Brakeman's
wages on dog catch JM Icardo 8/30/00
PLB #6003, Award #53 JM Icardo 8/30/00
Station Switching ? JT Gdod G 8/30/00
Re: Station
Switching ? JM Icardo 8/30/00
Re: Station
Switching ? Chuck Lawrence 8/31/00
Re: Station
Switching ? JM Icardo 8/31/00
Re: Station
Switching ? JM Icardo 8/31/00
Re: Station Switching? JT Conner - 8/31/00 -
15:28PM
Re: Station Switching? JM Icardo - 9/01/00
-12:56PM
"BL" and "45" for post '85 ? JT
Gdod G 8/30/00
Re: "BL"
and "45" for post '85 ? Chuck Lawrence
8/30/00
Apologies Ricardo 8/30/00
Handling cars not in our train JT Conner 8/31/00
Re: Handling
cars not in our train JM Icardo 8/31/00
Re: Handling
cars not in our train JM Icardo 8/31/00
Short turnaround service combined with straightaway trips JM
Icardo 8/31/00
Auto Mark Up JT
Conner 8/31/00 - 15:51PM
Re: Auto Mark Up
Chuck Lawrence 9/1/00 - 00:01AM
Re: Auto Mark Up
J.M. Icardo 9/1/00 - 11:41AM
The Truth - JM Icardo - 9/15/00 - 13:59pm
Re: The Truth - Brian
Bresnick - 9/16/00 - 20:51pm
Re: The Truth - JM
Icardo - 9/16/00 - 22:17pm
Re: The Truth - Brian
Bresnick - 9/17/00 at 17:41hrs
Re:
The Truth - JM Icardo - 9/17/00 at 21:03hrs
Re: The
Truth - JM Icardo - 9/17/00 at 21:22hrs
Re: The Truth - JM Icardo - 9/17/00 at
21:57hrs
Down in Flames - Brian Bresnick - 9/18/00 at
09:18hrs
Re: Down
in Flames - JM Icardo - 9/18/00 at 10:08
My Apologies JM Icardo 9/18/00
Auto Mark up-regular assignment KennY
B. 10/10/00
Re: Auto Mark up-regular assignment
Chuck Lawrence 10/19/00
Re: Auto Mark up-regular assignment
Dues Paying Member 11/2/00
Flow Back Agreement Brian Bresnick
11/20/00
Re: Flow Back Agreement
Jack Holden 11/20/00
Hiring Conductor Trainees Applicant
12/26/00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q & A Discussion
FAQ
The "Q & A Discussion" board is where you post specific questions
about the
"Contractual Agreement", Regular and Special claims or other
questions about
our working conditions, Etc. you would like to discuss. If you
have a question
or comment to make, click on "Post" to put in your
question or comment. When
finished just click on the button at the bottom that
says "Post Article". Please take
note that your posting will probably
not show up on the web page until after you
back out from your browser (i.e.:
close or exit your browser, not the modem
connection to your ISP, just close or
exit your browser). Once you have closed
or exited from your browser, then you
can open or start it up again and the new
question or comments you made should
show on the web page. DON"T FORGET
TO PRESS THE "REFRESH"
OR "RELOAD" ICON ON THE TOOL BAR!!!
Ricardo Posted:
7/16/00
Late Meal Period
In the
awards section of the UTU international web site
you can find
PLB #6003, award
#53. This award concerns late meal periods for
yardmen. I was told by the past general chairman that not receiving
a meal period by the beginning of the 7th hour only constituted an
additional 20 minutes at time and one-half. It seems that possibly
these claims are actually due 4 hours pay at straight time rate.
This award will be posted in the yardman's shanty and I will ask the
present general chairman for his
interpretation on this.
Joe Icardo
Posted July 30, 2000
In
accordance with the award on this subject, the 4 hour penalty applies when
no
meal period is given for the shift, i.e. 7hours and 41 minutes without beans.
It
is important to note that agreeing to "do this and go home" can
implies that one
agrees to give up the right to his/her meal period. Is also
recommended that the
yardman remind the ATM at least one time after the 4th hour
of the shift that the
crew has not yet received the meal period. It is the
responsibility of the ATM
inform the crew to go to lunch. Please don't abuse
this award with things like
"he told the foreman/helper we were in beans,
not me" and such. Joe Icardo
Time Limit
Time
limits for presenting a claim can be found in article 19(c) of the yardman's
agreement or article 9 (c) of the conductor's and trainman's agreement. the Time
limit for presenting a claim is 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF OCCURRENCE. The
carrier
then has 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE CLAIM IS SUBMITTED in which
to notify the
employee or his representative that the claim is declined. THE
ORGANIZATION THEN
HAS 90 DAYS IN WHICH TO APPEAL THE DECLINE. It i
advisable to send the decline
to your local representative as quickly as possible
after receiving it as 90
days may seem like a long time but can actually pass very
quickly. It also gives
them a chance to work on resolving the claim locally prior to
sending it on to
the general chairman for processing. Joe
Icardo
Brakeman's wages on
dog catch
Are we
due brakeman's wages if there is no crew on train. We were claiming this
in the past,
just want to know if it is a valid claim. Thanks AJ Gonzales
Re:
Brakeman's wages on dog catches
I spoke
to Mr. Bessom today about these claims. The basis for these claims is that
conductor only service does not cover short turn around, it only covers terminal
to
terminal. It is imperative to show in the remarks that you departed from one
terminal
to a distant station, and then returned to that same terminal, i.e.
departed Fresno
at 12:40; received stored train at Figarden at 13:10; arrived
Fresno at 14:00. Yardmen
who are used within the 25 mile limits are also due a
basic day claim if their is no
crew aboard the train, as the union believes this
is no longer considered a dog catch,
but is now considered retrieving cars
stored for future use. DO NOT use the word
DOGCATCH on your claim. The proper
term that should be shown in your remarks is
SHORT TURNAROUND SERVICE. This does
not apply when you are used to dog
catch a train without a crew aboard and then
take it on to the distant terminal,
i.e. depart Fresno, receive the train at an
intermediate station, and then take it thru to
either Richmond or Bakersfield.
This is a true dog catch and is perfectly correct t
use only a conductor. I
hope this answers your question. please contact me if you
need more explanation.
Follow-up:
Posted 08 Aug. 2000
I seem to have erred again in the terminology of the last part of my prior post.
If you
are called to leave the initial terminal and pickup a train at an
intermediate station, then
proceed on to the distant terminal (which is
different from your initial terminal) and the
train had no crew on board when
you arrived, this is called thru freight service. If you
departed your initial
terminal with a train it counts as one work event (a pickup), if by
van it is
simply receiving your train. A dog catch is when you relieve an existing crew
of
their train. Sorry about the mix up. Joe
Icardo
PLB #6003, Award #53
I would
like to thank Alan Grosswieller from Bakersfield for bringing this award to my
attention.
For those that don't know Alan, he is the yard local chairman from Bakersfield
an is perhaps the
most knowledgeable member we have in the valley when it comes to the yardman's
agreements.
I would also like to apologize to any yardmen that didn't get receive a meal
period in the past and
whom I told to claim two bean laws.
Please
remember that I was told by the past general chairman that this was the proper
handling
of the situation and that this award was handed down in April of this year. If
you can go back
and
get your declines it may be possible to have them amended. Please try to get a
copy to me
so that I can try. Joe
Icardo
Station Switching ?
Recently
upon arriving at Calwa on the 991 I was instructed to set out two cars in two
different places because they were not in compliance to go over the hill. They
were in
compliance on my territory and that's the way they were blocked in
Richmond. I already
had two work events in conductor only service. Does this
count as two more work events?...
station switching?...and is there another claim
for blocking my train for a destination beyond
my final terminal? JT Gdog G Posted: 8/30/00
Re:
Station switching
My
opinion would be that these moves would entitle you to brakeman's wages as work
events 3 and 4. Setting out in two different places in your train would count as
two
separate work events. As for blocking your train beyond your final terminal (code 45)
I will get back to you on this when I have discussed it with the
general chairman. I do think
that if you tried to claim both here it would be
considered duplicate time claims. I hope this
helps you some. Posted: 8/30/00
J. Icardo
Re:
Station switching
If you
are instructed to switch cars in your train at Calwa to bring it into compliance
with
blocking requirements for the hill (beyond Bakersfield) you have to choose from:
1)You have a claim for a yard day at Calwa for station switching and so
does the yard
crew on duty because your doing their work. This is different from
a code 45 because it
does not involve a pickup or a setout. 2)You can also
choose to claim the Brakeman's
miles if it produces more income, and in this
case it would. You have to choose because
triggering event can only be used to
claim one penalty. Another thing you should keep in
ind is that in Through Frt.
Service you are due a basic day if you are instructed to switch
cars in an
industry en route that does not involve a pickup or setout. This happens
frequently,
for example at North Bay. Remember to give details! Chuck Lawrence
Posted: 8/30/00
Re:
Station Switching ?
Just
want to note that when a train crew performs yard duties at points where yard
engines are on duty the claim does not go to the yard crew that is on duty, it
goes to
the first two first out yardmen on the yard extra board at that time
that would make up
the crew for an extra engine. It is very important that the
train crew try to look up the
yard extra board at that time and note who the
claim would go to and contact these
people or the respective local chairman for
that yard so that these claims can be presented.
Thanks.....Joe
Posted:8/30/00 JM Icardo
Re:
Station Switching ?
Jeff, Please excuse me if I
didn't interpret what you did correctly. I thought that you
merely set out two
cars at Calwa (final terminal) from two places in your train.
The 1992 conductor
only agreement allows you to do this in article IV. Setting out cars
in two
separate places is still considered two straight set outs, not switching.
If you
instructed to switch your train to comply with blocking instructions, this would
be yard duties and due the greater of brakeman's wages or a basic day at yard
rate.
Hope this clears it up a little for you....Joe Posted: 8/30/00
JM Icardo
Thanks
Joe, Yes we did set out two cars from two places and the out bound crew
picked
them up...so I'll claim it as the 3rd and 4th work events. BUT...if you go to
Riverbank on a barpas and set out in two different places in your train and pick
up
in one spot, is this just three work events (two set outs and 1 pickup) or
station switching?
And what about "two straight set outs or two straight
pickups or one of each where
yard jobs are on duty". Are Riverbank road
switchers "yard jobs"? Thanks
Re:
Station Switching? JM Icardo - 9/01/00 -12:56PM
Jeff, I
checked with General Chairman Holden to be sure, but unfortunately Richmond
and
Fresno are the only stations that can be considered the initial and final
terminals
on the Stockton subdivision. Therefore, the situation you describe
would be considered
3 work events. Road switchers are not considered "Yard
engines". We had a yard engine
at riverbank years back, but it was traded
for the road switchers in favor of protecting a
minimum number of yard engines
at Mormon. Look me up sometime and I will tell you the
story of how that rotten
situation came to be. I'm still pretty angry about how that happened.
As far as
station switching vs. setting out it is important to realize that the 1985
national
agreement permits holding on to blocks of cars to make setouts and/or pickups.
Hope this helps you.........Joe
"BL" and
"45" for post '85 ?
What
exactly are codes "BL" and "45" for and are post '85
employees entitled to them? Thanks
JT Gdog G
Re:
"BL" and "45" for post '85 ?
Code 45
in not due post 85s, it is making pickups at intermediate terminals in block for
stations beyond the limits of your ID were the handle does not include hazardous
or
heavy cars that have to be blocked for safety. Codes 45,13,17,14,34 are not
due post
85s and post 95s get code 34. There is a 5 page pamphlet that I
assembled a few years
ago that clearly explains what arbitraries are due pre and
post 85 and 95. I will make
more copies of this handout and put them in the
lobby at Calwa.
Posted: 8/29/00 Chuck Lawrence
Apologies
I would
like to extend my apologies acct I was having some tech problems with the web
site, it seems that if you were using Netscape or Netscape Communicator
browsers,
you were unable to log onto the UTU 1252 Web Site. I got that problem
solved, and also
I think I solved the Q & A Discussion Board problems of
lost articles and articles that
posted to strange places. Well, I just hope its
all working OK now. Thanks for your patience
Ricardo Pugh UTU 1252 Webmaster
Posted:8/29/00 Ricardo
Handling cars not in our
train
When
instructed to spot cars from the siding at North Bay into the plant when we had
no pickup or set out there and no brakeman this is "station switching with
no brakeman;
therefore brakeman's wages"?...and/or "handling cars not
in our train"? Is handling cars
not in train a basic day and do post 85 get
it? Thanks for the quick responses. I guess
my Guard Dog software wouldn't let
my last name go out last time.
thanks again. JT Conner Posted: 8/30/00
Re: Handling cars not in
our train
Jeff,
The situation you are describing is indeed station switching. Picking up and
setting
out of cars are work events, but switching cars from one track to
another at the same
station is station switching. If you are in conductor only
service you are entitled to
brakeman's wages for this. If you have a brakeman it
automatically converts you to
local rate of pay for the trip. you need to
include car numbers, track numbers, station name,
and times in your remarks with
an explanation of work performed.
hope that this helps you....Joe
Posted:8/30/00 JM Icardo
Re:
Handling cars not in our train
Article
2(k)(3), page 21 of the trainman's agreement blue book) Local Freight Conversion
allows that: "crews doing station switching shall be paid not less than
local freight rates.
" hope this makes it a little clearer.....Joe
Posted: 8/30/00 JM Icardo
Short turnaround service
combined with straightaway trips
Just recently I have been asked
about crews that were either called to make a short
turnaround trip and then
deadhead to the away from home terminal or deadhead to
the away from home
terminal, not tie-up, and immediately make a short turn around trip.
Article
2(i) of the trainmen's agreement states that "short turnaround trips may
not be
connected with straightaway trips and be paid on a continuous trip basis".
They must
be made on a separate basis. If you are used in the above mentioned
way, turn in a
claim for a basic day for violating this article and also note
who you ran around when
you started your second trip, i.e. the short turnaround
or the deadhead, as these people
also have a claim for being runaround. If the
deadhead was before the short turnaround
you ran around the away terminal board,
if it was after the short turnaround you ran
around the home board....lots and
lots of claims for this kind of thing. If you are still confused
please contact
me for a better explanation.........Joe Posted:
8/30/00 JM Icardo
Auto
Mark Up - JT Conner 8/31/00 - 15:51PM
The crew desk says that "our
local" says no auto mark up...but the "general chairman"
says it's OK. Is there any
provision for being automatically marked up?...or is Rob full of ....?
Re:
Auto Mark Up - Chuck Lawrence 9/1/00 - 00:01AM
Jeff: Trainmen can only be
marked up automatically in ONE instance. When a
Conductor
on a regular
assignment does not lay off prior to going on vacation he/she can be
marked up automatically.
As you know, I have spoken to the General Chairman on the
matter to verify this
and written to crew supports director, Cathy Johnson several
times to stop the practice with
no reply! Crew support still wants to argue about it but all
they can do about it is report
it to local management. Local managements position is
that no discipline will be
issued! (see article 20)
Re:
Auto Mark Up - J.M. Icardo 9/1/00 - 11:41AM
Jeff, I would like to point out
General chairman Holden has never authorized auto
mark-up for us. He has in fact
written more than one letter to labor relations stating his
position against auto mark-up.
In the carrier's section 6 notices for the 1996 national
agreement they requested auto
mark-up when an employee returns from vacation. The
resulting contract had one
clause in it that does require auto mark-up. Article V section
2(f) states: "An employee
may take up to one week of his annual vacation in single day
increments, provided, however,
that such employee shall be automatically marked up
for service upon the expiration
of any single day vacation". That and the situation that
Chuck stated are the only two
clauses in our contracts that I know of that require auto
mark-up. That being said, it is
important to note that when laying off for other than illness
or injury an employee must
state the number of days which he requests to be off and
must mark up within that time
period. If you mark up more than 1/2 hour later than you
state you can be subject to
being AWOL. If laying off sick you must be careful not to
agree to laying off for a
stated period of time or you can be held to that agreement.
Please remember that if you
don't disagree when the caller says he will lay you off for
24hrs.(or any stated period of
time), you have just implied your consent. It is important
to get your disagreement on
tape during this call. Hope this helps......Joe
The
Truth - Joe Icardo - 9/15/00 at 13:59hrs
At today's regular meeting the
question was raised as to whether or not the true facts
should be placed on this
board for all (including those people in timekeeping) to view.
hile it is true
that only a very small minority of our members actually were present to
decide
this question, I am still ashamed to say that it was answered like this: If it
suits
our needs and wishes, then yes, by all means post it; but if it doesn't go
our way try to
keep it a secret. Well folks, I don't work that way. Before I
ever had an inkling of hiring
out to this job I was taught a lesson much more
valuable than a few hundred undese
ved time claims are worth, that being that
honesty is the most important policy. Without it,
where is your integrity and
just how does one think he can ever earn anyone's respect?
It was decided by a
few of your local union officials and the majority of the members
present today
that answers to questions on this board that may not be in favor of clai
submitted by our membership should not be posted here (who cares about the
truth).
Therefore, I will no longer be answering any questions here as I will not
tolerate being
censored when I am stating facts. If you disagree with what has
taken place and feel
as I do, that EVERYONE is entitled to the truth, then take
time to come to the September
meeting and voice your opinion, otherwise you'll
have to catch me when you can if you
have a question. Sorry, but this is how
it's got to be for now. I also want to say that I neither
voted for nor against
this motion as I feel that it should never have been a question at all,
but I
guess around here ethics must be questioned.....Joe
Re:
The Truth - Brian Bresnick - 9/16/00 at 20:51hrs
Joe, I'm sorry if you feel you were censored, but that is hardly the
case. You speak of
ethics, integrity, and honesty, yet none of that was ever
questioned. The small minority
of members at the meeting were concerned about
whether or not contractually sensitive
information should be discussed in a
public forum? It was felt that the proper forum for
this exchange should be at
our local union meetings or in a private meeting. It wasn't
your ethics that
were being questioned, it was your methods! Brian Bresnick
Re:
The Truth - Joe Icardo - 9/16/00 at 22:17hrs
Brian, I just have a real hard time with what your saying here, probably
because of you
comment to me about "it's a road question, why are you
responding to it?" I guess the
definition of censorship has changed. Or
perhaps that didn't imply that even though I
ave the correct and factual answer
to the question, I still don't have the authority to
speak on it (even though
that is exactly what I was asked to do). I may not have quoted
you word for word
here, but that's a fairly accurate account of what you said. As to my
comments
about integrity and honesty and so forth, I believe I was on the mark. What
gives
us the right to moan when the company turns down our good claims if we are
presenting
claims which we know are not deserved at the same time? I believe the
whole thing
revolved around not giving out information in public which might
lead timekeeping to learn
that these fraudulent claims are really no good and
thus get them turned down. I'm sure
you see no problem with that, But I sure do.
If you can't see that perhaps timekeeping turns
down a lot of our claims because
it's a well known fact that we are turning in many claims
that are undeserving,
just call a senior manager in timekeeping and perhaps that person
can bring you
up to speed on it. I just happen to believe that it's much better to have an
educated membership that is only turning in claims that are valid, not trying to
sneak one
past the company all the time. I think that has a little to do with
ethics, but I sure could be
wrong here, perhaps the definition has changed since
I last saw it. Personally, I'd be more
worried about giving out the wrong
information on this board, but nobody else seems to
care so I didn't make a big
issue of it. If you really feel that your right about this, I'd be more
than
happy to discuss it with you at anytime, but I just can't understand how you see
it as
anything other than being dishonest.
(Re:
The Truth - Joe Icardo - 9/16/00 at 22:17hrs) Continued from page 6
Maybe there are certain
boundaries of dishonesty that are acceptable and you could
clue me in on them.
You see, I never felt that my ethics were in question, it is I tha
question the
ethics that were being used by the minority of the members that decided
to
censor this forum. As for my methods, well, I was merely doing what had been
asked of me, to give truthful and factual answers to questions our members
posted here.
Once again, I sure could be wrong, but I think that the majority of
the members want the
truth, not just some line of junk that makes them feel good
and then can't produce when
it comes down to the nitty gritty. I know that's
what I want when I ask a question. Hope
this gives you a little better insight
on how I feel about it.........Joe
Re:
The Truth - Brian Bresnick - 9/17/00 at 17:41hrs
Joe. My comment to you concerning your answering of "road questions"
was in no
way an attempt to censor you as you seem to think. My comment to you
came from
my experiences as the Vice Local handling declined time slips for
Local 811. I found
by reading hundreds of time slips that any given article may
have 10 different
interpretations by the membership. Most times each
interpretation is wrong. Because
of this I strongly feel that the task of
educating the membership should fall to those
individuals who have a direct
input. On a previous question posted on this web sight,
you answered with an
incorrect answer, and although you did follow up with the right
answer, had you
not, erroneous claims would have been submitted. You know as well
as I do there
are individuals who claim to know our agreement better than any one else,
ike our discussions at lodge
meetings are to an extent privileged, so to should the
aspects of the contract
that we disagree with timekeeping about.
Re: The Truth - JM
Icardo - 9/17/00 at 21:03hrs
well Brian, Like I wrote to you, I had hoped that this wasn't going to turn into
a pissin
match but I guess it is. First off let's get the censorship out of the
way: censorship is
1. the
suppression of all or part of a publication, play, or film considered offensive
or a
threat to security
2. the
suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable
Seems to
me that's about what we did here, so I'll rest my case on that. Now then, as
to
who it is that interprets the agreement, I believe that I can answer that
question too
(at the risk of letting labor relations find out this information
and possibly bursting some
people's egos), your answer is the general chairman.
Now, let's move on to the really
good part, erroneous information. Yeah man, I
love this one. Seems to me that my track
record here is pretty good, by my count
better than Chuck's. Sorry Chuck, I guess by
Brian's theory you shouldn't be
answering questions either since you've erred before
also. Whoa baby...wait just
a minute. It's coming back to me now, this is what it's all
about here,
erroneous information and how it's ok to put it on a time slip but not on a
web
site. How could I have been so stupid! No, that's not it. It's ok to put the
erroneous
information on the time slip, but we have a problem with the truth
being put on a web site;
yeah, yeah, that's it! Ok, I got it through my thick
head now. Sorry Brian, but you asked for it.
You can color it anyway you want,
but it don't cover up the stink.....Joe
Re:
The Truth - JM Icardo - 9/17/00 at 21:22hrs
Last thought for tonight Brian, "WE" don't have a disagreement
with time keeping on the
question I answered. If you or another member do
perhaps you should contact the
general chairman, that would be Jack and not Dave,
since it was his interpretation that I
posted. If anyone is confused as to what
the question was please contact me because
it wasn't censored...it is just
privileged information. Better yet, you might want to ask
those that voted in
favor of not censoring it if you're authorized to know before contacting
me
because I sure don't know what I can tell you and what I can't anymore. God I
love this
democracy thing and while we're at it let's here it for the 1st
amendment too!!!!! Joe
Re:
The Truth - JM Icardo - 9/17/00 at 21:57hrs
Rut Ro, I erred again. should be "hear" and not "here"
it for the 1st amendment.
Down
in Flames - Brian Bresnick - 9/18/00 at 09:18hrs
Joe. You win Joe. Your better then me.
But one last comment before I end this
"pissing contest". One your
high standards of "honesty and integrity". All those
times working
road switchers of yard jobs, ever take a quit and claim the full mileage?
Isnt
that being dishonest? That's all folks.
Re:
Down in Flames - JM Icardo - 9/18/00 at 10:08
Sure did Brian, Many times on yard jobs I have went home early on the
authorization
of local company officers. Claimed my 8hrs too. Schedule supports
it. 1min or 8hrs
I'm entitled to a basic day as long as I don't mark off during
the shift. The company
agreed to it, so I see no reason why I'm not entitled to
claim it. What I haven't done is
claim overtime on road switchers that I wasn't
present for. Hope this helps ya see
where I'm coming from..........Joe
My Apologies
JM Icardo 9/18/00
To those people that have been offended by my last few posts here I sincerely
apologize. My intention with the first post entitled "the truth" was
simply to inform
the members that were not present at the meeting of something
that I considered
an outrageous infringement on their right to information. I
believe that this web site
is our greatest tool to date to spread information to
all our members. It is without a
doubt the easiest and fastest way for me to be
able to answer questions that members
ask me. I am not only more available
through this forum, but also have the access to
the information I may need to
give the correct answer. I believe now as I always have,
we have nothing to hide
as long as we are truthful. I realize that this board was not put
here to argue
and bicker among ourselves and for my part in that I am truely sorry. The
last
thing I want to do is turn anyone away from this board. It is my hope that if
there ar
others that feel as I do that they will come to the next meeting and
speak out so that no
one has to try to figure out whether questions or answers
to agreements should o
shouldn't be posted here......Joe
Auto
Mark up-regular assignment
KennY B. 10/10/00
I called to tie up a job
that I am regularly assigned to at 0637. I tied up the job at 0559
for 1159 hrs
on duty. I then laid off sick at that time. I told him I wish only to be laid
off
for 1 day. When I checked the computer from home at 0900 the next day, I saw
that
they did not release the extraboard employee and that I was auto- matically
marked
up at 0637. I understand that I was not marked up by the time the extra
board employee
tied up the job at 0559. But I feel that I was mishandled by the
crew caller. When I called
in the tie up for 0559 why would he lay me off at
0637? then not allow me to work the
next shift? I lost at least $270.62 because
of this. Do I have a ligitimate claim?
If so, how should I claim this?
Re:
Auto Mark up-regular assignment
Flow Back Agreement
Brian Bresnick 11/20/00
Letter to Jack Holden dated October 19, 2000 Dear Mr. Holden: This letter is in
protest
to the Internationals directive of instructing local Chairman to poll
their membership for
ratification of the Flow-Back agreement. Please see full
letter in the CLAIMS section of
the UTU1252 Web site. Brian Bresnick
Re: Flow Back Agreement
Jack Holden 11/20/00
Letter of reply from Jack Holden to Brian Bresnick dated November 10, 2000:
Mr. Brain Bresnick,
I am acknowledging your letter of concern dated October 19, 2000, regarding the
proposed
FLOW-Back Agreement that was out for Local Chairman Ratification........Jack
Holden
Please see the full content of the letter in the
CLAIMS section of the UTU1252 Web Site.
Hiring
Conductor Trainees
Applicant 12/26/00
BNSF is hiring 84 conductor trainees for Northern California with classes
starting Jan. 22
with 12 people in each class. Is there enough work for these
people or will they be
furloughed when they complete their training?