At the request of the arbitrator, the UTU and carriers have consented to extend the deadline until Jan. 17 for a decision resolving the dispute over entry-level rates of pay through collective bargaining or further binding arbitration.

Deliberations by veteran railroad arbitrator Robert Peterson began Dec. 4 in a dispute between the UTU and railroads represented by the National Carriers' Conference Committee.

It is the position of the UTU that once conductors and yardmasters are hired, trained and given full responsibilities, those conductors and yardmasters should be paid full service scale, meaning the same rates of pay as their peers with similar training and responsibilities.

The carriers, on the other hand, have declined to resolve the matter and seek to continue a two-tier wage system. Under that system, new hires, regardless of the training they receive and full responsibility they are given, must wait five years to reach parity with other conductors whose responsibilities are similar.

Although some railroads have scrapped entry-level rates for newly hired and fully-trained conductors and yardmasters that are given full responsibilities, it is the industry norm to pay them less for the first five years.

During the 2002 round of national handling, the carriers agreed to deal with this issue at the "earliest opportunity" during the 2004 round of negotiations -- to address the relationship between training and experience and rates of pay.

That did not occur, and the 2008 ratified agreement (which grew out of the 2004 round of bargaining) provided that the two sides would arbitrate over how and when the carriers would deal with the issue of entry-level rates tied to training and experience.

Entry-level rates of pay were first agreed to during the carriers' dark-days of the 1970s, when many railroads -- much like the automobile industry today -- were mired in financial losses and facing poorer prospects.

In 1978, the carriers demanded, and obtained, a rule that required new employees in the industry to work for the first year at 90 percent of service scale. In 1985, as the industry continued its struggle to regain profitability, entry rates were obtained as a result of the Van Wart Study Commission established by President Reagan.

During these dark days for the railroad industry, train crews were reduced from five members to just two, and yardmasters were given increased responsibilities.

Moreover, the progression from brakeman to conductor, which previously typically required five-years or more of on-the-job training and peer mentoring, was eliminated as carriers instituted formal training programs designed to place new hires immediately in conductor positions, or to accelerate the progression from brakeman to conductor.

Yardmasters today are required to be familiar with new technologies and are subject to ongoing formal technical training, and local management is not experienced enough to assist new yardmasters as was the case prior to 1985.

In fact, lengthy on-the-job training and peer mentoring has largely disappeared. Todays new hires typically receive concentrated, focused training to ensure they possess the technical training and skills to perform their assigned duties without supervision or assistance from more seasoned veterans.

These fundamental changes and sweeping work rules concessions served their intended purpose. Indeed, today's challenge is not how to fill the railroads unused, excess capacity, but rather how to increase capacity quickly enough to meet an exploding demand for rail service.

In response, during the 2002 round of contract bargaining, the UTU demanded elimination of entry rates, and they were completely eliminated for all employees as of June 30, 2004, immediately bringing those employees to full rates of pay for all crafts and grades of service.
However, for new employees hired after July 1, 2004, entry rates previously in effect on each property were permitted again to become effective. But, the parties mutually agreed that this important issue would definitely be addressed as early as possible in the next bargaining round.

The carriers did not comply with this agreement during the "next round," which was the 2004 round of contract bargaining. Ultimately, the parties agreed that third-party intervention would be necessary to resolve the outstanding dispute as to the meaning and intent of the agreement to deal with the entry-rates issue.

The question put to the arbitrator Dec. 4 was whether the carriers complied with their written promise to deal with the entry-rates issue; and, if not, what is the appropriate remedy for the carriers non-compliance?

The UTU told the arbitrator Dec. 4 that the remedy should be an award that requires a 60-day negotiating period with a mandate that the parties submit the dispute to interest arbitration if the dispute remains unadjusted after the 60-day negotiating period.

Also serving on the three-person arbitration panel with Peterson are UTU International President Mike Futhey and the carriers' now former chief negotiator, Robert Allen. Allen has been succeeded by Kenneth Gradia, but remains a consultant to the NCCC and a member of this arbitration panel.