As most of you are aware, the BNSF recently posted a notice stating that alternative handling would no longer be available for incidents involving the eight deadly decisions. Several LC's contacted our office after learning of these notices, asking for our position on the matter. We held off from issuing a response until after our meeting with VP Greg Fox to discuss the Carrier's intentions. The meeting occurred on January 21, 2009. Mr. Fox reiterated the content of the notices and acknowledged that this was a departure from past handling.
There was an argument between the Carrier and the Organizations as to whether this constituted a unilateral change to the Safety Summit Agreement. The Carrier contends that it is within the Carrier's right to deny alternative handling in situations where it can be shown through documentation that an employee should have had a clear understanding of the rule, but the employee violated the rule, nonetheless.
The Carrier gave the example of an employee who was provided alternative handling as a result of an incident, who then again violates the same rule afterwards. It is the position of the Carrier that employees under such circumstances are not accepting responsibility for their actions and are therefore ineligible for alternative handling, because accepting responsibility must precede a grant of alternative handling. In support of its position, the Carrier has provided an arbitration award (attached), the subject matter of which is similar in nature to the example cited above, wherein the arbitrator not only ruled that the Carrier had the right to deny alternative handling for failure to accept responsibility, but the arbitrator also stated that the Carrier was within its right to also gone back and disallow the previous alternative handling and handle it under the regular disciplinary process.
We have prepared a letter (attached) which is going out today to the BNSF putting the company on notice that we disagree with its position. While the railroad may have an award on the matter, we believe that it is palpably erroneous. More importantly, we have a practice on the property dating back to the beginning of alternative handling which regularly and routinely allowed alternative handling for the eight deadly decisions. We will expect each of you to invoke the dispute resolution process whenever the company denies alternative handling under the auspices that the employee has "failed to accept responsibility" for a violation of an eight deadly decision.
On a more general note, we do not want anyone to use this as a reason for pulling out of safety. We know that there is a temptation to do this, but we believe that such an action could cause the company to cancel the Safety Summit Agreement and not only would we still be out of safety, but we would also be without alternative handling. Everything would then find its way to your personal record. If there has ever been a time when alternative handling is important, it is now. The railroads are under more and more governmental pressure to increase field testing of employees and there is no relief in sight.
This is in large part why the company is taking a hard line on the eight deadly decisions and in particular repeat offenses. In light of the situation, we cannot overstress how important it is to comply with the rules. We do not see this as a damned if you do and dammed if you don't situation. Some locations may be under pressure to put production over rules compliance, but if that is the case, we need to know. We will exert every available means of pressure on the company to root out the Carrier officers involved in such activity.
What does this all mean? It does not mean that alternative handling for every incident involving one of the eight deadly decisions will be denied. Each case will be looked at on its own merits. If the Carrier can show that the employee should have known the rule, (i.e. previous alternative handling), but failed to comply, then alternative handling will be denied. However, if it is evident that the employee was making a good faith effort to comply with the rule and only a portion of the rule was technically violated, then alternative handling will most likely be granted. If any event where alternative handling is denied, please contact our office so that we can discuss the incident and invoke the disputes resolution process before the investigation occurs, if necessary. We are also attaching a form to be completed for that purpose.
