BILLINGS, Mont. — On Thursday, August 6, in an important decision for railroad workers, an arbitrator ruled in favor of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), blocking BNSF Railway from eliminating contractually-negotiated rest periods under the guise of “Enhanced Customer Service (ECS).” The railroad had tried to sidestep a negotiated agreement providing locomotive engineers with rest options who work on the former Montana Rail Link (MRL) territory that is now operated by BNSF.
The arbitrator in Public Law Board No. 8083 ruled that BNSF’s June 15 proposal was “egregiously inconsistent” with the parties’ mutual intent under Article IX of the 1996 BLET National Agreement. The decision is the BLET’s first victory challenging an ECS notice under the Side Letter No. 9 safeguard.
BNSF sought to replace the negotiated 12/24/36 hours of undisturbed rest elections available to engineers in former MRL pool service with a different framework that provided engineers with a lesser amount of time at home. BLET General Chairman Kent Psota, who represents BNSF engineers on the integrated MRL properties, objected to the notice on June 17. The following week, on June 22, National President Mark Wallace invoked Side Letter No. 9 and formally declared the proposal egregiously inconsistent with Article IX. The BLET president reiterated that position on June 24. After the parties met in Billings, Montana, on July 7 without reaching agreement, they agreed on July 13 to submit the narrow issue to expedited arbitration. The dispute had also been the subject of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas before the parties agreed to arbitration.
The BLET’s central argument was that the negotiated structured-rest provision is a “rest-selection rule,” not a “calling rule.” Article IX limits the work rules that may be relaxed through the ECS process to starting times, yard limits, calling rules, on/off-duty points, seniority boundaries, and class-of-service restrictions.
The Board agreed. It found that the ordinary and accepted understanding of a calling rule concerns the mechanics and administration of calling available employees into service — how they are contacted, assigned, or called — and does not include the substantive contractual right that determines when an employee’s protected period of unavailability ends. The Board therefore concluded that Section 6(D)(iii) of the applicable Agreement is properly characterized as a rest-selection provision.
“When our members tell us that a negotiated right matters, our responsibility is to listen, to act, and to fight when necessary,” said BLET National President Mark Wallace. “The members affected by this proposal made their position clear. The BLET’s Local Divisions, General Committee, and National Division worked together from the membership up, and we stood our ground. When the language of our agreements is clear, we will not stand by while those rights are stripped away.”
Before the dispute moved forward, representatives of the union’s General Committee and National Division met with the affected BLET Local Chairmen Alex Hilde and Pete Dodge, who were instrumental in voicing their members concerns and objections. The position advanced by the BLET reflected their clear desire to preserve the negotiated structured-rest options and challenge BNSF’s attempt to remove them through the ECS process.
General Chairman Psota and Vice Chairman Jess Nelson remained steadfast in representing the affected engineers throughout the dispute. First Vice President Gary Best and Vice President Billy Lyons assisted and advised the General Chairman throughout the process, while President Wallace served as the BLET Organization Member on Public Law Board No. 8083.
The Award prevents BNSF from implementing the proposed ECS service period that would replace the engineers’ negotiated structured-rest elections.
“This victory demonstrates what can be accomplished when the Brotherhood works together as one organization,” said Wallace. “The members remain the guiding light of the BLET. When they speak about the rights they expect us to protect, every level of the Brotherhood has a responsibility to respond. In this case, the Local Divisions, General Committee, and National Division did exactly that, and prevailed.”