LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEER TRAINING
This
area will include all of the agreements and other information relating to the
LET program, the establishment of seniority, pay while in the program and any
other issues that you may find relevant.
Please give me your input and suggestions - Local Chairman Curran
(7/26/01)
– Interpretation: Fireman Seniority/Locomotive Engineer
Training. Since the effective date of the Conrail
acquisition by Norfolk Southern (6/1/99) the process for selecting trainmen for
Locomotive Engineer Training (LET) has been problematic. On both prior railroads, LET’s were selected
on the basis of their train service seniority.
The merger, however, placed all of the Conrail trainmen at the bottom of
the NS seniority rosters, following the last-hired pre-merger NS trainman. This would have effectively excluded
former-Conrail trainmen from LET training for many years to come. As an interim measure, the NS and the UTU
(the UTU has jurisdiction in most aspects of this process) agreed to use the
pre-merger seniority dates rather than roster standing. This, however, created an unfair situation
for the original-NS trainmen who didn’t establish seniority dates until they
were marked up and working as conductors while the former-Conrail trainmen
established a date when they took a pre-employment physical exam.
Because
comparing the establishment of train service seniority on the former-Conrail to
the original-NS is like comparing apples with oranges, is quickly became
apparent that a new system for selecting LET candidates would be required.
Interestingly
enough, CSX anticipated this problem in the territories they acquired and
addressed the issue in the pre-merger implementing agreements. It wasn’t until after merger, however, in
late 1999 that Norfolk Southern decided that some corrective action needed to
be taken. Because the UTU Agreements
control the entry into LET training and the initial establishment of engine
service seniority (at the bottom of the roster) they approached that
organization to modify the existing NS Agreements.
What
they agreed to, to address the disparity in seniority dates between CR and NS,
was that an order-of-selection list would be creating merging all trainmen who
had yet to attend LET into a single roster that would govern the establishment
of seniority. While trainmen might
still be selected out of turn dependent upon the needs at their particular
location, those passed over would eventually regain their proper spot once they
were qualified as engineers. To this
point, the BLE agreed.
Where
the three sides parted way, however, was whether the bidding system would be
replaced with an automatic assignment based upon seniority at the location
(favored by BLE and NS, opposed by UTU) and whether a pre-1985 trainman could
refuse LET training and continue to maintain his standing on the
order-of-selection list (favored by NS and UTU, opposed by BLE). Because the BLE Agreements provide for
engineers to be rostered based upon a “fireman’s
standing”, established at the time they enter LET, we were given standing in
this issue. The UTU proposal would have
allowed trainmen to continually reject LET for many years and then accept
training and runaround hundreds of engineers who had ‘toiled’ in the craft for
many years. Three issues, therefore,
were submitted to an arbitrator.
The
arbitrator finally issued his ruling on September 9, 2000, ruling that:
·
An
order-of-selection list would be created merging the CR and NS rosters (non-promoted
trainmen only) for the purpose of selecting LET’s,
·
The
bidding process would be eliminated and LET candidates at a location would be
selected based on their standing on the order-of-selection list at the location
and,
·
Pre-1985
trainmen who reject LET when called (post-1985’s do not have the right of
refusal) would be dropped from the order-of-selection list.
If
you think this put the entire issue to rest, think again! When NS issued the order-of-selection list early
in 2001 they made it retroactive until January 1, 2000, which had the
effect of altering the seniority of engineers who had commenced training after
that date. The BLE protested
asserting that the arbitration award should be effective only from the date it
was rendered; September 9, 2000. The
issue was sent back to the arbitrator who ruled that January 1, 2000, was,
indeed, the effective date.
Copies
of both awards and all associated correspondence are available if you would
like to study this issue in more depth. General Chairman Speagle has since advised that all seniority
protests lodged as a result of this last dispute will be withdrawn in light of
the arbitrator’s final ruling.
(7/19/72)
– Mediation Agreement, NMB Case A-9152. This is the National Training Agreement
that provided for the creation of the Engineer Training Programs (LET). Prior to that date, firemen took a
three-year series of examinations to become promoted as engineers. Though this agreement applied, in 1972, to
firemen only, today its’ application extends to trainmen who enter engine
service. Though several modifications
have been agreed to in subsequent years, it still sets forth the basic
framework of the training program.
(10/31/85) – Mediation
Agreement, NMB Case A-11471.
Article XIII, Section 4, of this National Wage/Rule settlement put in
place the final attrition of the fireman’s craft and designated the train
service crafts as the sole source of supply for engine service. Transfer to engine service for those hire
October 31, 1985, or earlier remained voluntary. For those hired on November 1, 1985, or later it could be
required though each railroad had different rules. Today, the assignment to engine service is governed by an
arbitration award rendered just last year.
(11/29/89) – This
side letter established the ‘first six-month’ and second six-month’ period
for pay purposes. LET’s in the first
six months of training, including the classroom phase at McDonogh, are paid a
flat weekly rate which contemplates 48 hours of duty. This rate is at 100%. The
rate progression, i.e. 75% through 95% does not apply.
In
the second six-month period (clock this from the date you first start at
McDonogh) you are paid at the fireman rate of pay for time and/or miles. There is a weekly guarantee but the rate
progression tables do apply.
(8/21/92)
– Two
carrier letters applying and clarifying the above 1989 Letter of Agreement.
Our
hats off to UTU General Chairman Jim Clark (NS-Southern) for his excellent work
in composing this payroll primer. We
couldn’t have improved on it ourselves so we simply copied it.
(2/14/05)
– Lake Region
Hub LET Agreement