Attachment A
(Commitment Letters)
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
February 26, 1996
Mr Charles Little
UTU President
14600 Detroit Ave
Cleveland, OH 44107
Dear Sir:
This refers to our earlier conversation concerning the issues of New York. Pods protection and the certification of adversely affected UTU employees.
As you know, Union Pacific, in its SP Merger Application, stipulated to the imposition of the New York. Dock conditions. The Labor Impact Study which UP filed with the Merger Application reported that 328 trainmen would transfer, that 1081 trainmen jobs (net) would be abolished, that 85 UTU represented yardmaster jobs and 17 hostler positions would be affected because of the implementation of the Operating Plan. The Labor Impact Study also indicates that a number of engineer positions will be affected but does not indicate how many, if any, of those are working on properties where engineers are represented by the UTU.
Within the New York Dock conditions, Section 11 addresses disputes and controversies regarding the interpretation, application or enforcement of the New York Dock conditions (except for Sections 4 and 12). Under Section 11, perhaps the two most serious areas for potential disputes involve whether an employee was adversely affected by a transaction and what will be such employee's protected rate of pay.
In an effort to eliminate as many of these disputes as possible, Union Pacific makes the following commitment regarding the issue of whether an employee was adversely affected by a transaction: UP will grant automatic certification as adversely affected by the merger to the 1409 train service employees, the 85 UTU-represented yardmasters and the 17 UTU represented hostlers projected to be adversely affected in the Labor Impact Study and to all other train service employees and UTU represented yardmasters and hostlers identified in any Merger Notice served after Board approval. UP will also grant automatic certification to any engineers advertnely affected by the merger who are working on properties where engineers are represented by the UTU. UP will supply UTU with the
names and TPA's of such employees as soon as possible upon implementation of approved merger.
Union Pacific commits to the foregoing on the basis of UTU's agreement, after merger approval, to voluntarily reach agreement for implementation of the Opera ling Plan accompanying the Merger Application. UP also commits that, in any Merger Notice served after Board approval, it will only seek those changes in existing collective bargaining agreements that are necessary to implement the approved transaction, meaning such changes that produce a public transportation benefit not based solely on savings achieved by agreement change(s).
Even with these commitments, differences of opinion are bound to occur. In order to ensure that any such differences are dealt with promptly and fairly, Union Pacific makes this final commitment If at any lime the International President of the UTU (or his designated representative) believes Union Pacific's application of the New York Dock conditions is inconsistent with our commitments, UTU and UP personnel will meet within five (5) days of notice from the UTU International President or his designated
representative and agree to expedited arbitration with a written agreement within ten (10) days after the initial meeting if the matter is not resolved, which will contain, among other things, the full description for renewal selection, timing of hearing, and time for issuance of Award(s).
In view of Union Pacific's position regarding the issues of New York Dock protection and the certification of employees, I understand that the UTU will now support the UP/SP merger.
Sincerely,
J J Marchant
Mr Charles Little
UTU President
14600 Detroit Ave
Cleveland, OH 44107
Dear Sir:
This refers to our earlier conversation concerning the issues of New York. Pods protection and the certification of adversely affected UTU employees.
As you know, Union Pacific, in its SP Merger Application, stipulated to the imposition of the New York. Dock conditions. The Labor Impact Study which UP filed with the Merger Application reported that 328 trainmen would transfer, that 1081 trainmen jobs (net) would be abolished, that 85 UTU represented yardmaster jobs and 17 hostler positions would be affected because of the implementation of the Operating Plan. The Labor Impact Study also indicates that a number of engineer positions will be affected but does not indicate how many, if any, of those are working on properties where engineers are represented by the UTU.
Within the New York Dock conditions, Section 11 addresses disputes and controversies regarding the interpretation, application or enforcement of the New York Dock conditions (except for Sections 4 and 12). Under Section 11, perhaps the two most serious areas for potential disputes involve whether an employee was adversely affected by a transaction and what will be such employee's protected rate of pay.
In an effort to eliminate as many of these disputes as possible, Union Pacific makes the following commitment regarding the issue of whether an employee was adversely affected by a transaction: UP will grant automatic certification as adversely affected by the merger to the 1409 train service employees, the 85 UTU-represented yardmasters and the 17 UTU represented hostlers projected to be adversely affected in the Labor Impact Study and to all other train service employees and UTU represented yardmasters and hostlers identified in any Merger Notice served after Board approval. UP will also grant automatic certification to any engineers advertnely affected by the merger who are working on properties where engineers are represented by the UTU. UP will supply UTU with the
names and TPA's of such employees as soon as possible upon implementation of approved merger.
Union Pacific commits to the foregoing on the basis of UTU's agreement, after merger approval, to voluntarily reach agreement for implementation of the Opera ling Plan accompanying the Merger Application. UP also commits that, in any Merger Notice served after Board approval, it will only seek those changes in existing collective bargaining agreements that are necessary to implement the approved transaction, meaning such changes that produce a public transportation benefit not based solely on savings achieved by agreement change(s).
Even with these commitments, differences of opinion are bound to occur. In order to ensure that any such differences are dealt with promptly and fairly, Union Pacific makes this final commitment If at any lime the International President of the UTU (or his designated representative) believes Union Pacific's application of the New York Dock conditions is inconsistent with our commitments, UTU and UP personnel will meet within five (5) days of notice from the UTU International President or his designated
representative and agree to expedited arbitration with a written agreement within ten (10) days after the initial meeting if the matter is not resolved, which will contain, among other things, the full description for renewal selection, timing of hearing, and time for issuance of Award(s).
In view of Union Pacific's position regarding the issues of New York Dock protection and the certification of employees, I understand that the UTU will now support the UP/SP merger.
Sincerely,
J J Marchant
February 26, 1996
Mr Charles Little
UTU President
14600 Detroit Ave
Cleveland, OH 44107
Dear Sir:
This refers to our earlier discussions concerning UTU's support of the UP/SP Merger.
During those discussions, you inquired whether as a part of the UP/SP Merger, some or all of the DRGW, SSW, SPCSL or SPT might be leased to the MP or UP. If so, you asked what UP's position would be with regard to the applicability of the New York Dock protective conditions to such a lease.
Currently, we do not intend to use a iease arrangement to complete the merger of the various SP properties into MP or UP. However; if our plans were to change and one or more of the SP properties was leased to MP or UP, the New York Dock conditions .would, nevertheless, be applicable. This would be consistent with the fact that UP has agreed to accept imposition of the New York Dock protective conditions in this proceeding. I trust this accurately reflects our discussions.
Sincerely,
J J Marchant
Mr Charles Little
UTU President
14600 Detroit Ave
Cleveland, OH 44107
Dear Sir:
This refers to our earlier discussions concerning UTU's support of the UP/SP Merger.
During those discussions, you inquired whether as a part of the UP/SP Merger, some or all of the DRGW, SSW, SPCSL or SPT might be leased to the MP or UP. If so, you asked what UP's position would be with regard to the applicability of the New York Dock protective conditions to such a lease.
Currently, we do not intend to use a iease arrangement to complete the merger of the various SP properties into MP or UP. However; if our plans were to change and one or more of the SP properties was leased to MP or UP, the New York Dock conditions .would, nevertheless, be applicable. This would be consistent with the fact that UP has agreed to accept imposition of the New York Dock protective conditions in this proceeding. I trust this accurately reflects our discussions.
Sincerely,
J J Marchant
March 26, 1996
Mr Byron Boyd
Asst -UTU President
14600 Detroit Ave
Cleveland, OH 44107
Dear Sir:
This refers to our earlier conversations concerning the most appropriate method of calculating a test period average for a union officer who· is leaving his or her union office and returning to full time employment with the Carrier and had no Union Pacific earnings (in the case of a full time .union officer) or reduced earnings (in the case of a part-time union officer) during the test period.
After discussing the matter with Mike Hartman, Director of Employee Relations, I advised that we usually calculated a TPA in such cases by using the earnings of the two· individuals immediately above and immediately below the union officer on the seniority roster to produce an "average earnings_" This average then becomes the union officer's TPA; Mike also assured me that, in calculating such an
average, we "de-select" any employee with unusually low earnings (i.e., medical problems, excessive layoffs, etc.)
I assume that you are in agreement with the method of calculation described above. However, if you have any concerns, please do 'not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
J J Marchant
Mr Byron Boyd
Asst -UTU President
14600 Detroit Ave
Cleveland, OH 44107
Dear Sir:
This refers to our earlier conversations concerning the most appropriate method of calculating a test period average for a union officer who· is leaving his or her union office and returning to full time employment with the Carrier and had no Union Pacific earnings (in the case of a full time .union officer) or reduced earnings (in the case of a part-time union officer) during the test period.
After discussing the matter with Mike Hartman, Director of Employee Relations, I advised that we usually calculated a TPA in such cases by using the earnings of the two· individuals immediately above and immediately below the union officer on the seniority roster to produce an "average earnings_" This average then becomes the union officer's TPA; Mike also assured me that, in calculating such an
average, we "de-select" any employee with unusually low earnings (i.e., medical problems, excessive layoffs, etc.)
I assume that you are in agreement with the method of calculation described above. However, if you have any concerns, please do 'not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
J J Marchant
