regular convention - Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

Transcription

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
REGULAR CONVENTION
OFFICERS’ REPORT
July 26 – July 30, 2010 • ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
1
INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT EMERITUS
INTERNATIONAL SECRETARY-TREASURER
SECRETARY-TREASURER EMERITUS
INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENTS
TRUSTEES
DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH
PUBLICATIONS EDITOR
GRAND LODGE REPRESENTATIVES
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
RETIRED OFFICERS
RETIRED REPRESENTATIVE
W. Dan Pickett
C.J. Chamberlain
Walt A. Barrows
W.D. Best
Jerry C. Boles
Dennis M. Boston
George E. Jones
Floyd E. Mason
Joe L. Mattingly
Charlie A. McGraw
Mike K. Owens
Kim T. Poole
R. Gus Demott
Kelly A. Haley
Jerry C. Boles
Mark J. Ciurej
John D. Bragg
Leonard Parker, Jr.
J.T. Bass
W.A. Class, Jr.
M.B. Frye
W.B. Harwell, Jr.
W.W. Lauer
W.A. Radziewicz
W.R. Saar, Jr.
V. Van Artsdalen
B.M. Wilson
W.H. Little
W. DAN PICKETT
Welcome to the 50th Regular Convention of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. We welcome your
participation in one of our Brotherhood’s oldest and
most cherished traditions.
As we convene this Convention, the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen enters our 109th year of service to
our membership. This is the second Regular Convention
that we have held in Orlando, Florida, with the first convening here for the 44th Regular Convention in 1988.
In the last four years our organization has faced many
challenges, such as, the ever changing technology of signaling, the FRA mandated installation of Positive Train
Control, and the possibility of Signalmen certification,
just to name a few. However, our members have always
been good at adapting to the technological changes that
face our craft. While, presently, we no longer face a continuous assault on our jobs and benefits from the current
Administration, we must constantly remain ever-vigilant
to ensure that our members are well represented when
regulatory and safety matters are discussed and decided
in Washington, DC.
I am confident that BRS members will continue to make
our railroad systems the safest mode of transportation in
this country through their never-ending perseverance as
they install, maintain, and repair train signal systems and
highway-rail grade crossing signal systems.
International President
WALT A. BARROWS
As our members strive to achieve that goal, it is important to remember that the purpose of the BRS is to
promote the interests and general welfare of its members;
to provide methods for relief of sickness and distress; to
instill the principles of trade unionism and unity; that
members may secure the recognition of rights to which
they are justly entitled; to advance and elevate the profession of railroad signaling; to educate its members that
their happiness, prosperity, and general well-being may
be enhanced; and to perpetuate itself on the basis of
truth, justice, and brotherly love.
Each officer and delegate to this Convention is charged
with the serious responsibility of determining the direction of the Brotherhood. We are confident that this
Convention, through the democratic practice of open
discussion and careful deliberation, will make decisions in
the best interests of your Brother and Sister Signalmen.
This Convention also provides an important opportunity
for Signalmen to renew old acquaintances and forge new
friendships. These ties reflect the common tradesmanship
and spirit that has always bound Signalmen together in
the endeavor to achieve collectively the things which we
are unable to achieve as individuals.
We are certain that the spirit of brotherhood, unity, and
harmony will prevail during this important week as we
continue to advance the proud heritage of the BRS. International Secretary-Treasurer
3
CHARLIE A. MCGRAW
International Vice President
FLOYD E. MASON
JOE L. MATTINGLY
DENNIS M. BOSTON
JERRY C. BOLES
GEORGE E. JONES
LEONARD PARKER, JR.
National Legislative
Director
4
KELLY A. HALEY
Director of Research
MARK J. CIUREJ
Grand Lodge
Representative
JOHN D. BRAGG
Grand Lodge
Representative
TABLE OF CONTENTS
President’s Report ...................................................... 6
Transportation Trades Department ............................11
Report of the Grand Executive Council.....................12
Report of the Grand Board of Trustees ......................14
Financial Report ........................................................17
Vice Presidents’ Activities ..........................................24
OSHA .......................................................................42
In Memoriam ............................................................43
BRS Conventions 1908–2010 ...................................44
Grand Lodge Headquarters .......................................45
Official Publications ..................................................................................................46
BRS Membership 2006–2010 ...................................................................................47
Railroad Retirement Board ........................................................................................50
Agreement Status ......................................................................................................54
National Railroad Adjustment Board ........................................................................56
Special Boards of Adjustment ....................................................................................58
Minor Disputes .........................................................................................................66
FELA Directory ........................................................................................................68
Resolutions — 2006 Convention ..............................................................................69
General Counsel’s Report ..........................................................................................70
National Legislation ..................................................................................................72
Legal Aid Program.....................................................................................................81
Federal Railroad Administration ................................................................................82
Signalmen’s Political League ......................................................................................95
MIKE K. OWENS
Trustee
KIM POOLE
Trustee
R. GUS DEMOTT
Trustee
5
REGULAR CONVENTION
President’s Report
The following reports of the activities of BRS Grand Lodge
Officers are submitted in accordance with Article I, Section
86, of the Brotherhood’s Constitution: “Under the guidance
and direction of the International President and International
Secretary-Treasurer a full and complete printed report of the
official acts of the Grand Lodge Officers shall be made at each
regular Convention.”
This report covers the period from April 1, 2006, through
March 31, 2010, and will be supplemented by reports from
the Grand Executive Council and Grand Board of Trustees.
Grand Lodge Offices
There have been two changes in offices on the Grand Board
of Trustees and one change in the position of Grand Lodge
Representative since the last convention report.
International President — The 2006 Convention reelected
W. Dan Pickett to his fourth full term as International
President. Brother Pickett has been a BRS union officer for
37 years and began full-time service for the BRS when he
was appointed as a Grand Lodge Representative in October
1980. Following a brief assignment at headquarters, he
was assigned to Washington, DC, as National Legislative
Representative. Brother Pickett held that position until he
was elected Vice President of the Southeast Region in 1985.
Pickett began his railroad career as a lineman’s helper for the
Norfolk and Western Railway in July 1965.
International Secretary-Treasurer — The 2006 Convention
reelected Walt Barrows to his second full term as
International Secretary-Treasurer. Brother Barrows has been
a union officer for the past 32 years and held the office
of General Chairman for the Norfolk Southern General
Committee from 1990 to 1999. He was appointed to the
Grand Board of Trustees on August 8, 1996, a position
to which he was elected at the 1998 Convention. Brother
Barrows also served as Secretary of the Grand Board of
Trustees.
International Vice President National Railroad Adjustment
Board (NRAB) — The 2006 Convention reelected Charlie
McGraw to a sixth term in this office. Brother McGraw
served as a Grand Lodge Representative prior to being elected Vice President in 1988. Brother McGraw presently works
out of the Bartlett, Illinois, office.
International Vice President East — The 2006 Convention
reelected Floyd Mason to his fourth full term as Vice
6
President East. Brother
Mason had previously served as Vice
President at Grand
Lodge and presently
maintains an office
in Denver, North
Carolina.
W. DAN PICKETT
International Vice
International
President
President Midwest —
The 2006 Convention
reelected Joe Mattingly
to his third full term as Vice President Midwest. Brother
Mattingly served as Vice President of the Northeast prior to
his election as International Vice President Midwest. The
International Vice President Midwest is presently headquartered in Trenton, Kentucky.
International Vice President Commuter, Passenger,
Transit/Political Director — The 2006 Convention reelected Dennis Boston to his third full term as Vice President
Commuter, Passenger, Transit/Political Director. Prior to his
election as Vice President Commuter, Passenger, Transit/
Political Director, Brother Boston served as the National
Legislative Representative for the BRS in Washington, DC.
Brother Boston presently maintains an office in Centreville,
Virginia.
International Vice President West — The 2006
Convention reelected George Jones to his second full term
as International Vice President West. Following the retirement of Brother Van Artsdalen, Brother Jones was elected
International Vice President West on June 29, 2001.
Brother Jones was holding the position of International Vice
President Grand Lodge prior to his successful election. He
currently maintains an office in Spanish Fork, Utah.
International Vice President Headquarters — The 2006
Convention reelected Jerry Boles to his second full term as
International Vice President Headquarters. Brother Boles
was assigned to Grand Lodge in August of 1997 as a Grand
Lodge Representative. In August of 1999, he was assigned to
the position of Publications Editor.
Trustees — The 2006 Convention reelected Bill Wilson,
Mike Owens, and James (Jim) York, as Trustees. Brother
Wilson served as Chairman of the Grand Board of Trustees,
Brother Owens served as Secretary of the Board of Trustees,
and Jim York was the third Trustee. As a result of the death
of Jim York on November 22, 2006, Kim T. Poole was
elected to fill the unexpired term on January 4, 2007. Gus
Demott was elected to the Grand Board of Trustees on June
12, 2009, as a result of the retirement of Trustee Chairman
Bill Wilson. Currently, Brother Owens is serving as the
Chairman; Brother Poole is serving as the Secretary; and
Brother Demott is serving as the third member.
Representatives
Leonard Parker, Jr., serves as National Legislative Director.
Brother Parker was appointed in April of 1999 by
International President W. Dan Pickett, and he currently
works in the office in Washington, DC.
Kelly Haley currently serves as Director of Research. Brother
Haley was appointed to that position when Tim DePaepe
resigned in January 2008. Haley has served full time at
Grand Lodge since July of 2001, and is currently assigned to
Grand Lodge Headquarters in Front Royal, Virginia.
Mark Ciurej was appointed to the position of Grand Lodge
Representative on January 1, 2005, and is currently assigned
to Grand Lodge Headquarters in Front Royal, Virginia.
John Bragg was appointed to the position of Grand Lodge
Representative on May 1, 2008, and is currently assigned to
Grand Lodge Headquarters in Front Royal, Virginia.
Officers Emeritus
The Grand Executive Council acted in July 1992 to honor
former President C.J. “Chuck” Chamberlain with the title
of President Emeritus. Brother Chamberlain served as
President from 1967 to 1977, at which time he resigned
to become the Labor Member on the Railroad Retirement
Board. Brother Chamberlain served on the Railroad
Retirement Board for 15 years, retiring on May 31, 1992.
Brother W.D. Best continues to serve as Secretary-Treasurer
Emeritus.
Retired Officers and Representatives
During this reporting period, Grand Lodge Trustee Bill
Wilson joined the ranks of retired Grand Lodge officers
which include Brothers C.J. Chamberlain; W.D. Best; J.T.
Bass; W.A. Class, Jr.; M.B. Frye; W.B. Harwell, Jr.; W.W.
Lauer; W.A. Radziewicz; V. Van Artsdalen; W.R. Saar, Jr.;
and Grand Lodge Representative W.H. Little.
National Negotiations 2004
This round of bargaining was less than civil. In fact, insulting best describes the carriers’ proposals and bargaining
tactics for Signalmen and all rail labor. Matt Rose, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the BNSF, was quoted as
stating that the economic and political climate provides the
“perfect storm” for this round of bargaining. That was before
the control of Congress changed hands from Republican to
Democrat.
In the round that began in 2004, the carriers’ strategy was
to demand outrageous concessions from labor so bargaining
would go nowhere and ultimately force negotiations into a
Presidential Emergency Board (PEB). The next part of their
plan involved a Republican-controlled Congress imposing a
contract on our members that would never be agreed to at
the bargaining table.
When the control of the Senate and the House shifted to
the Democrats in November of 2006, we had weathered
Matt Rose’s so called “perfect storm.” The carriers could no
longer count on a congressional rubberstamp to a PEB recommendation that sided against workers. The Democraticcontrolled Congress brought balance back to the legislative
branch that, for far too long, was dominated by Republican
extremists and pro big-business policies.
To help ensure that we were treated fairly, and to avoid some
of the same pitfalls of past negotiations, most of rail labor
united in the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (RLBC). The
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division
(BMWED); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and
Trainmen (BLET); National Conference of Firemen and
Oilers (NCFO); Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS);
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA);
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (IBB); and
American Train Dispatchers of America (ATDA) were all
members of the RLBC, and collectively, the RLBC represented almost 85,000 rail workers.
BRS Lawsuit — Concurrently with national negotiations, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Conrail,
CSX Transportation, Kansas City Southern, Norfolk
Southern, and Union Pacific sued the BRS. The above
named carriers asked the courts to rule that local issues
such as subcontracting and scope rules must be bargained nationally. Grand Lodge only has authority to
negotiate over issues that have been delegated to it by
the General Committees; that is the basic distinction
between local and national issues. A ruling against the
BRS would have forced the General Committees to give
up their bargaining jurisdiction on these issues.
On February 28, 2007, the Rail Labor Bargaining
Coalition (RLBC) reached an Agreement with the
National Carriers’ Conference Committee (NCCC) on the
national Agreement. Members working under the national
Agreement approved it on June 15, 2007, by mail ballot.
7
Wages — Signalmen received retroactive pay of
more than $2,600 per employee (calculation based
on Signalman working no overtime) after Health &
Welfare offsets. The actual amount each employee
received was based on the rate of pay and number
of hours worked during the period July 1, 2005,
the date of first wage increase, to the effective date
of the Agreement.
General Wage Increases —
• July 1, 2005 — 2.5% • July 1, 2006 — 3.0%
• July 1, 2007 — 3.0%
• July 1, 2008 — 4.0%
• July 1, 2009 — 4.5%
Health & Welfare —
• In-network availability expanded to cover more
than 90% of members.
• Changes to in-network co-pays to pay for network expansion were as follows:
Visit to family doctor changed from $15
to $20.
Visit to specialist changed from $15 to $35.
ER visit changed from $30 to $50.
• Prescription drugs:
Retail — $10 generic; $20 brand name;
$30 non-formulary.
Mail order — $20 generic; $30 brand name;
$60 non-formulary.
• Employee cost-sharing payments changed from the current $100 to 15% of monthly premium.
• Cost-sharing adjustments were made on January 1,
2008; January 1, 2009; and January 1, 2010.
• Employee cost-sharing was capped at $200 on
January 1, 2010.
Supplemental Sickness Benefits — Expanded the 20-day
notification requirement to 60 days.
Work Rules — There were no work rule changes contained in this Agreement, and the carriers dismissed the
lawsuit against the BRS following ratification.
National Negotiations 2009
On November 1, 2009, the BRS entered into the current
round of National Negotiations. The NCCC served its
Section 6 Notice on November 2, 2009, and the Rail Labor
Bargaining Coalition (RLBC) reciprocated with a Section
6 Notice on December 9, 2009. The carriers have united
behind the NCCC, and the BRS has united with five other
rail unions in the RLBC. Just as we found in the last round,
8
joining a coalition and pooling our resources has a proven
record and provides the BRS and all the other coalition
members with a stronger negotiating position.
The RLBC consists of the BLET, BMWED, BRS, IBB,
NCFO, SMWIA. These are the same members as in the
last round with the exception of the Train Dispatchers.
The first three meetings between the RLBC and the NCCC
has resulted in limited progress. The meetings thus far have
focused mostly on the health and welfare costs and only
touched on other issues.
Amtrak Negotiations
When we adjourned our 49th Regular Convention in
July 2006, our National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) members had been seeking a fair contract for
more than six years. The National Mediation Board finally
released the BRS from mediation in November of 2007,
and President Bush moved quickly to appoint a Presidential
Emergency Board (PEB) to hear the dispute. The BRS and
seven other rail unions were named to testify before the
PEB.
While we did not get everything that we asked for, the result
was mostly fair and better than most had anticipated. In
general, the final terms of the contract mirrored the PEB
recommendations, which was patterned after the national
Agreement with the significant exception that the Amtrak
Agreement did not provide retroactive wages for retirees. To
qualify for a retroactive payment, an employee must have
been on Amtrak’s payroll as of December 1, 2007.
Safety Training — Hazmat
The BRS and eight other rail labor unions, in conjunction
with the George Meany Center for Labor Studies, continue
to conduct training programs that teach BRS members and
other railroad employees how to recognize and respond to
dangers associated with hazardous materials and chemicals.
The federal government’s National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences is responsible for safety and
health training for workers involved in hazardous waste
operations, clean-up, emergency response, and remedial
action. The objective of the training is to provide rail workers with the skills and knowledge necessary to protect their
health, as well as that of the community and environment.
The Board is comprised of seven Trustees, three selected by
railroad labor unions and three by railroad companies. The
seventh Trustee is an independent Trustee selected by the
other six members.
The RRB, which is headed by a three-member board
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate,
is an independent agency in the executive branch of the
Federal Government. The current members of the Board
are Chairman Michael S. Schwartz, Management Member
Jerome F. Kever, and Labor Member V. M. “Butch”
Speakman, Jr.
Since 1990, hazardous materials training has been provided
to over 25,000 rail workers from the following nine rail
unions cooperating in the training program:
Brother Speakman served the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen as President from 1987 to 1992, when he was
appointed to serve on the RRB. Speakman was reappointed
to his fourth consecutive term as the Labor Member of
the Railroad Retirement Board in 2007. He also holds
the record for the RRB’s longest-serving Labor Member.
Speakman is the third BRS President to assume that important post, following in the footsteps of C.J. Chamberlain
and A.E. Lyon. The position of Labor Member has been
held by a Signalman for 34 of the last 42 years.
•
•
•
BRS International President W. Dan Pickett serves as the
Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board Committee for
all of Rail Labor.
Funded by federal grants, these programs offer both fourday and five-day Hazardous Materials Training programs.
The courses are presented in Silver Spring, Maryland, and
various other locations throughout the United States.
•
•
•
•
•
•
American Train Dispatchers Association
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
Division
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
National Conference of Firemen & Oilers, SEIU
Transport Workers Union
Transportation-Communication International Union,
Brotherhood of Railway Carmen
United Transportation Union
Railroad Retirement Board
This year, 2010, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)
will observe the 75th anniversary of the enactment of the
Railroad Retirement Act of 1935. In addition to paying
retirement and survivor benefits to railroad employees and
their families, subsequent legislation also authorized the payment of unemployment and sickness benefits to rail workers.
The RRB, which is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois,
maintains a network of 53 field offices across the country to
serve the needs of railroad employees.
Occupational Disability Benefits
The occupational disability annuity available to railroad
employees is a unique benefit in that it serves workers in a
single industry. Unlike the Social Security Act, the Railroad
Retirement Act provides benefits to individuals who are
disabled from the work they perform in the railroad industry, but who might otherwise find employment in another
capacity or another industry.
The National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust (Trust)
was established by the Railroad Retirement and Survivors’
Improvement Act of 2001. The sole purpose of the Trust
is to manage and invest Railroad Retirement assets. As of
September 30, 2009, trust-managed assets and RRB assets
held in reserve totaled almost $25 billion.
The RRB administers the disability benefit programs for
approximately 64,000 eligible railroad workers and their
families. A railroad worker is eligible to apply for an occupational disability at age 60 if he or she has 10 years of service,
or at any age with at least 20 years of service. To be occupationally disabled, a worker must have a permanent physical
or mental condition that prevents him or her from performing his or her railroad job. For example, a railroad signalman
who cannot climb, bend, and reach, as required by the job,
may be found occupationally disabled.
On February 1, 2004, BRS International Secretary-Treasurer
Walt Barrows began his first term as one of the three Labor
Trustees overseeing the National Railroad Retirement
Investment Trust. Currently serving his third term, Brother
Barrows continues to serve as a Trustee overseeing the Trust.
The national spotlight was turned on the RRB’s occupational disability program in September 2008 when the New
York Times reported that a disproportionally large number
of career Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) employees apply
for and receive disability benefits soon after retirement. In
9
September 2009, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reported that in FY2007, “LIRR workers applied
for occupational disability benefits at a rate 12 times higher
than workers from other commuter railroads” and that
“the RRB approved the claims of all workers at the same
rate — near 100%.”
In response, the RRB adopted a five-point plan for greater
oversight of the occupational disability claims of LIRR
employees. As part of its five-point plan, the RRB is currently utilizing secondary medical screening on all occupational disability applications received from LIRR applicants. In addition, the RRB initiated efforts to create a new
position responsible for collecting, developing, and analyzing relevant data to assist in the management and oversight
of the occupational disability program nationwide.
Affiliations
The BRS continues to be an active participant in the
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO). The AFL-CIO is a voluntary
federation of 56 national and international labor unions.
The AFL-CIO represents 11.5 million members, including 3 million members in its community affiliate, Working
America. The AFL-CIO was created in 1955 by the merger of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress
of Industrial Organizations.
On September 16, 2009, Richard L. Trumka was elected
to his first term as President of the AFL-CIO at the
Federation’s 26th Convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
His election followed 15 years of service as the AFL-CIO’s
Secretary-Treasurer. Trumka’s election to the AFL-CIO’s
senior post followed the retirement of John J. Sweeney,
who served as AFL-CIO President from 1995 to 2009.
On the same day, Elizabeth “Liz” Shuler became the first
woman ever elected Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO
when she was voted into office, and Arlene Holt Baker was
elected to the post of Executive Vice President.
Since its founding, the AFL-CIO and its affiliate unions
have been the single most effective force in America for
enabling working people to build better lives and futures
for our families.
Within the AFL-CIO is the Transportation Trades
Department (TTD), which was founded in April 1990,
and is an umbrella organization of the AFL-CIO. TTD
represents the interests of several million aviation, rail,
transit, trucking, highway, and longshore workers before
Congress, the Executive Branch, and independent government agencies. Through TTD, the working men and
women who are represented by the Department’s 32 affili10
ated unions have a strong, united voice in Washington,
DC. Within the TTD is a sub-group called the Rail
Labor Division (RLD). The RLD, of which BRS is a
very active member, focuses TTD resources on issues that
are of specific interest to railroad employees. The Rail
Labor Division of the TTD consists of nine other railroad
unions.
The Cooperating Railway Labor Organizations (CRLO)
was created in 1991 to ensure that railroad employees have
a strong voice in establishing and maintaining their health
and welfare benefits. The National Health and Welfare
Plan, a collectively bargained plan, is administered by the
Joint Plan Committee, which consists of the National
Carriers’ Conference Committee representing railroad
management and the CRLO representing 13 major labor
organizations.
Merger
On June 8, 2007, the General Chairmen and the Grand
Executive Council voted unanimously to cease looking at
merger partners. This decision effectively dissolved the BRS
Merger Committee, which had been meeting periodically
with various potential merger partners in an attempt to
find a good fit for a BRS merger. The Merger Committee
was comprised of thirteen officers, six Grand Lodge officers, and seven General Chairmen.
The Merger Committee met in eight face-to-face meetings
and held five conference calls during the two-year process.
The Committee considered the following merger partners:
•International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers (IAM)
•International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)
•International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
•United Transportation Union (UTU)
•Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association (SMWIA)
While there was no perfect partner, the SMWIA ultimately
turned out to be the most seriously considered candidate.
Additional activities and developments during this reporting period are outlined in greater detail in other sections
of this report. This report reflects the Brotherhood’s continued active involvement and participation in the wide
variety of activities and issues involving Signalmen. The
report also reflects the continued commitment to providing BRS members with effective, progressive representation
in keeping with our 109-year tradition of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen. REGULAR CONVENTION
Transportation Trades Department
During this reporting period, the AFL-CIO
Transportation Trades Department Rail Labor Division
remained a vital tool for BRS members. The Rail
Labor Division consists of nine labor organizations
with membership in the freight and passenger rail sector.
The Rail Labor Division was created to promote collective action and cooperation among rail unions in
the policy arena. Today it is the main coordinating
body for rail policy and legislation within the labor
movement.
The Transportation Trades Department of the AFLCIO represents the interests of several million workers
in the aviation, rail, transit, trucking, highway, and
related industries. The TTD is the transportation policy and legislative arm of its parent organization, the
National AFL-CIO, which represents more than nine
million workers in the United States. Ed Wytkind is the President of the Transportation
Trades Department and Larry Willis is the SecretaryTreasurer of the Transportation Trades Department.
Organizations currently affiliated with the
Transportation Trades Department:
(Rail Labor Division members are denoted by bold type)
•
International Organization of Masters,
Mates & Pilots
•
International Union of Operating Engineers
•
Air Line Pilots Association
•
Laborers’ International Union of North America
•
Amalgamated Transit Union
•
Marine Engineers Beneficial Association
•
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees
•
National Air Traffic Controllers Association
•
National Association of Letter Carriers
•
American Federation of Teachers
•
National Conference of Firemen and Oilers, (NFCO)
•
•
•
Association of Flight Attendants — CWA
National Federation of Public
and Private Employees
•
•
•
Communication Workers of America
Office and Professional Employees
International Union
•
International Association of Fire Fighters
•
Professional Aviation Safety Specialists
•
International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers
•
Sailors’ Union of the Pacific
•
Sheet Metal Workers International Union
•
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers
•
Transportation-Communications
International Union
•
International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers
•
Transport Workers Union of America
•
United Mine Workers of America
•
International Federation of Professional
and Technical Engineers
•
•
International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union
•
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
•
11
REGULAR CONVENTION
Report of the Grand Executive Council
In accordance with Article I,
Section 66 of the Brotherhood’s
Constitution, this segment of the
Officers’ Report will outline the
official activities of the Grand
Executive Council for the period
of January 1, 2006, to December
31, 2009.
The Grand Executive
Council, which consists of the
International President, the
International Secretary-Treasurer,
and the six International Vice
Presidents, held eight regular
meetings and two special meetings during this reporting period.
The Council took action in 1996
to change the schedule of regular meetings from three
meetings per year to two meetings per year. The schedule of meetings from this reporting period is outlined
in another section of the Officers’ Report.
Each regular meeting of the Grand Executive Council
follows an agenda of 25 to 30 items that are reviewed,
discussed, and acted on as needed. Some agenda items,
such as Grand Lodge finances, claims handling, legislative issues, and negotiations, are included on the
agenda for each meeting. Other items, including legal
matters, training, railroad mergers, and safety issues,
are added to the agenda in accordance with ongoing
activities.
At the beginning of this reporting period, much of the
Executive Council’s attention was focused on preparations for the 2006 Convention. The Convention
was held on July 10 to July 14, 2006, in Las Vegas,
Nevada. Throughout this reporting period, the
Council worked on safety initiatives involving federal
regulatory protection for employees who work on
or about railroad tracks and provisions on the use of
signal technology and testing procedures for new technology. Monitoring of the employee on-track safety
issue continued through the past four years, and while
the results due to the implementation of the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) roadway worker protection regulations continue to remain better than
pre-roadway worker protections, fatalities during this
12
period have increased at an alarming rate.
A major development in 1996 was the FRA’s establishment of a Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC),
comprised of representatives from rail labor, management, and the railroad equipment supply industry,
to make recommendations regarding railroad safety
issues. The BRS has been an active member of the
RSAC from the outset and continues to have a leading
role in its activities.
During the reporting period, the Council continued
to work not only on unfinished RSAC tasks that were
initiated prior to 2006 but also on several new tasks.
Some of the more notable RSAC tasks initiated after
the 2006 reporting period that have a big impact
on signalmen are: Medical Standards for SafetyCritical Personnel, Implementation of Positive Train
Control Systems, Hours of Service Recordkeeping and
Reporting, Passenger Hours of Service, and Critical
Incident Programs.
National negotiations that began in November 2004
were a priority issue for the Council in 2006. The
BRS joined with six other unions to form a coalition
called the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (RLBC).
The RLBC was comprised of the following railroad unions: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employes Division (BMWED-IBT); Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET-IBT);
National Conference of Firemen and Oilers (SEIU);
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS); Sheet
Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA);
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (IBB);
and American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA).
Those efforts culminated with an agreement reached
on February 28, 2007, and ratified by a membership
vote on June 15, 2007.
During the 2004 round of bargaining, the five major
Class 1 railroads as well as Conrail sued the BRS over
the right to bargain nationally for contracting. The
carriers asked the courts to rule that local issues, such
as contracting and scope rules, must be bargained
nationally. The BRS’s position was that Grand Lodge
only had authority to negotiate issues that had been
delegated to it by the General Committees; that is the
basic distinction between local and national issues. A
ruling against the BRS would have forced the General
Committees to give up their jurisdiction. The lawsuit was dropped with the
ratification of the National
Agreement in 2007.
During this reporting period
our National Railroad
Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) members had been
seeking a fair contract for
more than six years. The
National Mediation Board
finally released the BRS from
mediation in November of
2007, and President Bush
appointed a Presidential
Emergency Board (PEB) to
hear the dispute. The BRS
and seven other rail unions
testified before the PEB. The
final terms of the contract
mirrored the PEB recommendations, which were, for the
most part, patterned after the
National Agreement.
On June 8, 2007, the General Chairmen and the
Grand Executive Council voted unanimously to cease
looking at merger partners. This decision effectively
dissolved the BRS Merger Committee, which had
been meeting periodically with the committee and
various potential merger partners in attempt to find
a good fit for a BRS merger. The Merger Committee
was comprised of thirteen BRS officers; six Grand
Lodge officers and seven General Chairmen.
On November 1, 2009, the BRS entered into the
current round of National Negotiations. The NCCC
served its Section 6 Notice on November 2, 2009, and
the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (RLBC) reciprocated with a Section 6 Notice on December 9, 2009.
The carriers have united behind the National Carriers’
Conference Committee (NCCC), and the BRS has
united with five other rail unions in the RLBC. Just
as we found in the last round, joining a coalition and
pooling our resources has a proven record and provides
the BRS and all the other coalition members with a
stronger negotiating position. The RLBC consists of
the ATDA, BLET, BMWED, BRS, IBB, NCFO,
SMWIA. These are the same members as in the last
round with the exception of the Train Dispatchers.
There was additional organizing activity during this
period; ten members on the newly organized New
York and Susquehanna
Railroad (NYS&W) had
to establish their first collective bargaining agreement. The bargaining was
ultimately successful. Local
No. 240 was formed and the
NYS&W is now part of the
United General Committee.
Additionally, Soo Line Local
No. 226 has incorporated
the members of the Dakota,
Minnesota & Eastern and
the Iowa, Chicago and
Eastern into its Local Lodge.
They are represented by Soo
Line General Committee.
The two parties’ first
Agreement negotiations were
held at BRS Headquarters
in Front Royal, Virginia,
on September 16, 2009.
Subsequent negotiations have been held on November
4 and 5, 2009, and January 14 and 15, 2010, in Sioux
Falls, South Dakota. An Agreement has not been
reached at the time of this report. While other organizing campaigns are currently underway these are the
only successful drives during this period.
continued on page 23
13
REGULAR CONVENTION
Report of the Grand Board of Trustees
In accordance with
the provisions of the
Constitution, The Grand
Board of Trustees submits
the following report covering its activities from the
2006 Convention through
April 2010.
Grand Board Trustee
Mike Owens
Following the election
of the Grand Board of
Trustees at the 2006
Convention in Las Vegas,
Nevada, the Board convened and elected its
officers: B.M. Wilson,
Chairman; M.K. Owens,
Secretary; and J.K. York,
Board Member.
Due to the unfortunate
death of Board Member
J.K. York, the International
President, in accordance
with Article 1, Section
Grand Board Trustee
35, convened the Grand
Kim Poole
Executive Council and the
General Chairmen to hold
an interim election for
the vacant Grand Board
of Trustees position. By
a majority vote of those
assembled, on January
4, 2007, Brother K.T.
Poole was elected to fill
the vacant position on the
Grand Board of Trustees.
The Board met following
Grand Board Trustee
the election, as required by
Gus Demott
the BRS Constitution, and
elected its officers: B.M.
Wilson, Chairman; M.K.
Owens, Secretary; and K.T. Poole, Board Member.
Due to the retirement of Brother Wilson in June of
2009, the International President invoked Article 1,
Section 35 of the Constitution and convened the
14
Grand Executive Council and the General Chairmen
to hold an interim election for the vacant Grand Board
of Trustees position. By acclamation of those assembled on June 12, 2009, Brother R.G. Demott was
elected to fill the vacant position on the Grand Board
of Trustees. The Board met following the election, as
required by the BRS Constitution, and elected its officers: M.K. Owens, Chairman; K.T. Poole, Secretary;
and R.G. Demott, Board Member.
Contingent Fund
The Contingent fund, between conventions, has
grown from $3,324,541.56 to $3,469,792.49.
The Grand Board of Trustees approved the firm of
Geissler & Associates to audit the records of Grand
Lodge for the past four years. Reports of the audits
are on file. Copies of the annual audit and quarterly
financial reports have been issued in accordance with
the Constitution.
The General Fund and Contingent Fund have grown
enough that the Locals will receive the rebate for delegates attending this Convention.
In the year 2003, as plans were being developed for
a new Grand Lodge headquarters in Front Royal,
Virginia, the Grand Board of Trustees suggested that,
as a part of the overall funding plan, the Brotherhood
self-finance as much of the project as possible. Funds
from the sale of the building at Mount Prospect,
Illinois, in addition to monies taken on loan from the
Contingent Fund, were used to finance the building.
In May of 2003, a letter addressed to the Grand Board
of Trustees from the International Secretary-Treasurer
(IST) described the method of financing to be used for
the building of a new headquarters, which included
borrowing from the Contingent Fund with a repayment plan of 15 years. In April of 2008, the Grand
Board of Trustees reported that the monies borrowed
from the Contingent Fund to finance the new BRS
headquarters had been repaid well ahead of schedule.
The Board and the IST invested the Brotherhood’s
funds with a conservative, union outlook and those
investments, over the last ten years, have outperformed
those of some public investment vehicles. The most
recent National Agreement provided per capita tax
revenues that have been vital in the success. Also, there
is the likely prospect that the railroads will be hiring
more signalmen, at least in the short term.
The Brotherhood recently joined with other Labor
Organizations to establish a National Workers
Memorial at the George Meany Center.
The Trustees are available to discuss any issue perAt times, our future as an Organization has been
taining to financial matters of the Brotherhood and
threatened. There are legal, contractual, and political
welcome earnest suggestions from any member
fights ahead that will test our resolve and our finances.
that may make for a more efficient operation of the
Although the future holds some promise, despite a bad
Brotherhood.
economy, the management of our finances must be
both effective and conThe Board wishes to recogservative if we are to sur- Following the 2006 convention, the meetings of the
nize the invaluable service of
vive as an organization.
Grand Board of Trustees were as follows:
Brothers B.M. Wilson and
In between conventions
J.K. York. Their efforts and
October 23–25 2006
December 02–03 2008
there have been several
dedication on this Board
May
14–16, 2007
June
08–10 2009
significant events; the
and to the Brotherhood
October 22–24, 2007
December 02–04 2009
National Wage and
are greatly appreciated and
remembered.
Benefit Agreement was
April
07–09 2008
April
09 2010
signed in 2007, and
The Grand Board of Trustees
the Amtrak Wage and
considers it a true distinction
Benefit Agreement was
to serve the members of this Brotherhood and express
signed in 2008. However, negotiations have become
our sincere thanks to the Grand Lodge Officers and
more contentious and costly. The Central Florida
office staff for their cooperation. It has been an honor
Commuter Rail/SunRail issue and the lawsuit filed by
to serve in these positions of such responsibility. We
the NCCC were events that required funds and manhope our efforts have contributed to making this a betpower to protect the interests of our members.
ter Union. GENERAL FUND
2006
2007
2008
2009
INCOME
3,846,382.45
3,882,641.38
4,239,702.48
4,587,743.65
Jim York and Mike Owens
EXPENSES
3,535,723.52
3,865,159.53
3,907,032.96
4,149,812.12
NET INCOME
310,658.93
17,481.85
332,669.52
437,931.53
TOTAL CAPITAL
2,859,635.77
2,877,117.62
3,209,787.14
3,647,718.67
Bill Wilson, Kim Poole, and Mike Owens
15
Grand Executive Council Meetings
DATE
LOCATION
DATE
19–20
2006
Front Royal, VA
April
6
2006
Las Vegas, NV
October
25–26
2006
February
8
May
October
April
July
LOCATION
9–10
2008
Front Royal, VA
September
12
2008
Front Royal, VA
Front Royal, VA
December
4–5
2008
Front Royal, VA
2007
Conference Call
June
10–11
2009
Front Royal, VA
15–16
2007
Front Royal, VA
December 9–10
2009
Front Royal, VA
22–24
2007
Front Royal, VA
March
2010
Orlando, FL
4–5
General Chairmen’s Meetings
16
Article I, Section 65 of the Constitution provides that
national notices to be served under Section 6 of the Railway
Labor Act must be approved by a majority of the General
Chairmen representing affected members. Similar approval
is required for national agreements.
DATE
Under Article I, Section 83 of the Constitution, the
International President convenes the General Chairmen
at least once each year. Pursuant to the foregoing, the following General Chairmen’s meetings were held during this
reporting period:
January
June
LOCATION
4
2007 Front Royal, VA (Trustee Election)
7–8
2007 Linden Hall, PA
September 11–12
2008 Front Royal, VA
June
2009 Front Royal, VA (Trustee Election)
October
12
22–23
2009 Front Royal, VA
REGULAR CONVENTION
Financial Report
This report covers a period of four years, beginning
April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2010.
Financial Audit
Article I, Section 68 of the Constitution directs the
Chairman of the Grand Board of Trustees to cause the
records of the International Secretary-Treasurer to be
audited annually by a firm of certified public accountants. The Constitution also requires that a copy of the
audit be forwarded to the Recording Secretary of each
Local Lodge.
The records of the International Secretary-Treasurer
have been audited in each of the last four fiscal years by
certified public accountants from the firm Geissler and
Associates. The fiscal year for Grand Lodge is from July
1 of one year to June 30 of the following year. Copies
of the audit reports have been furnished to each Local
Lodge and General Committee. Summaries of those
reports have also been published in “The Signalman’s
Journal” to provide all members with information regarding the financial condition of Grand Lodge.
Financial Report Statements
with the Contingent Fund, resulted in a net gain of
$1,499,985.91 for the four-year reporting period in the
total funds of Grand Lodge. By contrast, the General
Fund as of March 31, 2006, had incurred a net gain
of $38,930.92, and combined funds had a gain of
$27,215.22.
The General Fund has two major sources of income. The
investment income is explained under the Investment
Income heading. The primary source of regular income
(93.5%) for the General Fund is the per capita tax paid
by members. Obviously, this income is directly related to
the number of Signalmen working for employers at any
given time. Your attention is directed to the membership section of this Officers’ Report. The chart found
in that section shows our membership increased by 729
active full-dues members. Every increase of 100 members
raises our income $48,192.00 annually. The gain of 729
members translates into an annual income increase of
$351,319 in per capita tax.
Financial Statements numbered 1 through 7 on the
following pages reflect all financial transactions for the
four-year period beginning April 1, 2006. The reporting
period closed March 31, 2010, in accordance with customary practice to allow time for preparation and printing of this report.
Contingent Fund
Statement Number 1 lists total income to and disbursements from the General Fund and Contingent Fund for
the four-year reporting period. This statement provides a
ready reference for tracking changes in the funds since the
last Convention report.
Income for the four-year period included allocation from
the General Fund in the amount of $200,726.00. During
the fiscal year 2006-2007, the financial condition of the
Brotherhood warranted reallocation of the $2.00 set
aside.
All General Fund transactions for the reporting period
are reflected in Statement Number 2. Statement Number
6 categorizes the travel expenses incurred by individual
Grand Lodge officers and representatives during the fouryear period.
There were no major disbursements from the Contingent
Fund and no disbursements were made during the fouryear reporting period as a result of strike activity.
All Contingent Fund transactions for the reporting
period are reflected in Statement Number 5. Statement
Number 7 is the schedule of wages currently paid to
Grand Lodge officers and representatives.
General Fund
The information in Statement Number 2 indicates that
the General Fund incurred a net gain of $1,299,851.77
for the four-year reporting period, and when combined
Statement No. 5 indicates the Contingent Fund incurred
a net income of $200,134.14 for the four-year reporting
period. By contrast, the Contingent Fund as of March
31, 2006, had incurred a net loss of $11,715.70 for the
preceding four-year period.
Investment Income
While return on investment has always been an issue, it
became more of a concern when the Constitution was
first amended to allow income generated by Contingent
Fund to be transferred to the General Fund. A one
percent change in our return on investment is currently
about $40,000.00 annually.
In October 1999, the International Secretary-Treasurer
and the Grand Board of Trustees began to explore altercontinued on page 21
17
STATEMENT NO. 1
GENERAL FUND — April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010
Income
Disbursements
Net Income (Loss)
959,477.72
1,098,456.07
(138,978.35)
2006–2007
July–June
3,882,641.38
3,865,159.53
17,481.85
2007–2008
July–June
4,239,702.48
3,907,032.96
332,669.52
2008–2009
July–June
4,587,743.65
4,149,812.12
437,931.53
2009–2010
July–March
3,610,457.35
2,959,710.13
650,747.22
17,280,022.58
15,980,170.81
1,299,851.77
2006
April–June
2006–2010 Totals
CONTINGENT FUND — April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010
Income
Disbursements
Net Income (Loss)
2006
April–June
—
—
—
2006–2007
July–June
—
—
—
2007–2008
July–June
72,440.00
23.26
72,416.74
2008–2009
July–June
73,264.00
429.81
72,834.19
2009–2010
July–March
55,022.00
138.79
54,883.21
200,726.00
591.86
200,134.14
General Fund
Net Income (Loss)
Contingent Fund
Net Income (Loss)
Combined Funds
Net Income (Loss)
(138,978.35)
—
(138,978.35)
2006–2007
July–June
17,481.85
—
17,481.85
2007–2008
July–June
332,669.52
72,416.74
405,086.26
2008–2009
July–June
437,931.53
72,834.19
510,765.72
2009–2010
July–March
650,747.22
54,883.21
705,630.43
1,299,851.77
200,134.14
1,499,985.91
2006–2010 Totals
RECAPITULATION — April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010
2006
April–June
2006–2010 Totals
18
STATEMENT NO. 2
GENERAL FUND — Profit & Loss — April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010
Ordinary Income/Expense
April ‘06–March ‘10
Income
Convention Advertising
22,000.00
SAS Relief
530.00
Realized Gains Contingent Fund
4,767.79
SAS Disaster Relief
4,855.00
Local/GC Accounting Fees
95,290.67
Dividend Incomes
1,843.70
Interest
78,099.61
Interest Contingent Fund
551,052.63
Membership Fees (Initiation)
143,150.00
Miscellaneous
174,643.44
Per Capita Tax
16,160,326.03
Per Capita Tax Late Fees
348.42
Sale of Securities
1,850.09
Sale of Supplies
40,410.20
Subscriptions
855.00
Total Income
17,280,022.58
Expense
SAS Relief Disbursement
300.00
SAS Disaster Relief Disb.
9,600.00
Contingent Fund Allocation
200,726.00
Contributions & Donations
33,900.00
Convention
220,539.11
Direct Taxes/Use Tax
8,754.39
Dep. Building
232,402.02
Dep. Other
257,464.32
General Chairmen’s Meeting
1,482.59
Health & Welfare Benefits
1,713,512.89
Office & Administrative
Advertising
6,680.93
Bank Charges
9,754.32
Building Expense
236,162.46
Express Mail Charges
36,081.63
Flowers
2,157.56
Food Service
58,321.34
Insurance Expense
66,622.30
Meeting Rooms
24,741.47
Membership & Registration
58,551.37
Office Equipment Maintenance 5,315.57
Rent — Office Equipment
5,547.69
Rent — Office/Storage
128,341.85
Supplies
583,135.23
Total Office & Administrative 1,221,413.72
Payroll Expenses
Officer Salary
Payroll Taxes
Representative Salary
Employee Salary
Special Detail Salary
Total Payroll Expenses
Pension — Retired Officers
Pension Benefits — Local 1546
Per Capita Taxes
AFL- CIO
Assessments — AFL-CIO
TTD
TTD-Rail Labor
Union Label
Total Per Capita Taxes
3,121,727.57
1,211,744.54
1,374,136.23
1,972,852.40
7,018.52
7,687,479.26
169,122.74
30,880.15
306,145.74
9,111.00
103,342.50
34,430.00
8,900.00
461,929.24
Postage
Printing
Professional Fees
Accounting & Auditing
Attorney
Professional Services
Total Professional Fees
123,365.41
23,633.47
Real Estate Tax
Ry Pub & Stat Data
Service Charge
Telephone
The Signalman’s Journal
Articles
Binding
Photo Finish
Print & Mail
Update — Print & Mail
Total The Signalman’s Journal
31,135.21
101,976.58
50.00
164,049.51
84,186.24
431,619.11
207,882.92
723,688.27
1,680.00
5,213.67
21.39
374,021.39
107,070.51
488,006.96
Education & Training
65,160.63
Travel Expenses
Expenses — Travel Officers 814,234.57
Expenses — Travel Reps.
172,427.44
Expenses — Travel Special Detail 16,450.57
Expenses — Travel Employees 20,716.66
Transportation Officers
828,763.73
Transportation Reps.
127,943.30
Transportation Special Detail 11,358.74
Transportation Employees
17,703.33
Total Travel Expenses
2,009,598.34
Total Expense
15,980,170.81
Net Income
1,299,851.77
19
STATEMENT NO. 3
GENERAL FUND — Balance Sheet Changes — April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010
Assets
Current Assets
Checking/Savings
Wachovia Bank, N.A. — Checking
CD Investments
Wachovia Bank, N.A. — CD
Wachovia Bank GC — NS — WLE
Wachovia Bank — SAS Disaster
Wachovia Bank — SAS Relief
Petty Cash
Total Checking/Savings
Accounts Receivable
Accounts Receivable
Total Accounts Receivable
Other Current Assets
Total Prepaid Expenses
Expense Advances
Total Securities
Security Deposit
Total Other Current Assets
Total Current Assets
Fixed Assets
Building
Land
Office Furniture & Equipment
Telephone System
Total Fixed Assets
Total Assets
Liabilities & Equity
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Other Current Liabilities
A/P Building Fund
Total Payroll Liabilities
Total Other Current Liabilities
Total Current Liabilities
Total Liabilities
Equity
General Fund Balance
Total Equity
Total Liabilities & Equity
20
March 31, 2006
March 31, 2010
$ Change
935,862.17
—
—
12,357.35
4,745.00
—
200.00
953,164.52
1,024,136.59
993,000.00
22,094.23
—
—
225.00
200.00
2,039,655.82
88,274.42
993,000.00
22,094.23
(12,357.35)
(4,745.00)
225.00
—
1,086,491.30
318.51
318.51
3,235.80
3,235.80
2,917.29
2,917.29
52,956.11
3,500.00
83,008.14
436.60
139,900.85
1,093,383.88
50,222.35
3,500.00
—
436.60
54,158.95
2,097,050.57
(2,733.76)
—
(83,008.14)
—
(85,741.90)
1,003,666.69
2,221,330.62
81,663.00
190,547.69
33,961.65
2,527,502.96
3,620,886.84
2,014,895.60
81,663.00
100,178.47
8,840.09
2,205,577.16
4,302,627.73
(206,435.02)
—
(90,369.22)
(25,121.56)
(321,925.80)
681,740.89
614,995.55
7,277.17
622,272.72
622,272.72
622,272.72
—
4,161.84
4,161.84
4,161.84
4,161.84
(614,995.55)
(3,115.33)
(618,110.88)
(618,110.88)
(618,110.88)
2,998,614.12
2,998,614.12
3,620,886.84
4,298,465.89
4,298,465.89
4,302,627.73
1,299,851.77
1,299,851.77
681,740.89
STATEMENT NO. 4
CONTINGENT FUND — Balance Sheet Changes — April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010
March 31, 2006
March 31, 2010
$ Change
Assets
Current Assets
Checking/Savings
Wachovia Bank N.A.
Money Market
Total Checking/Savings
Other Current Assets
AFL-CIO Housing Fund
A/R Building Fund
Securities (Bonds & CDs)
Securities (Stocks)
Total Other Current Assets
Total Current Assets
15,516.83
52,769.88
68,286.71
12,335.91
288,745.08
301,080.99
(3,180.92)
235,975.20
232,794.28
—
614,995.55
2,341,289.04
299,970.26
3,256,254.85
3,324,541.56
120,002.64
—
2,058,730.30
1,044,861.77
3,223,594.71
3,524,675.70
120,002.64
(614,995.55)
(282,558.74)
744,891.51
(32,660.14)
200,134.14
Total Assets
3,324,541.56
3,524,675.70
200,134.14
Liabilities & Equity
Liabilities
Equity
—
3,324,541.56
—
3,524,675.70
—
200,134.14
Total Liabilities & Equity
3,324,541.56
3,524,675.70
200,134.14
Financial Report
continued from page 17
natives to our established investment policy. Our policy
prior to 1999 produced an annualized return of less the
five percent. Under our old policy, our investments were
primarily a mutual fund invested in Government Bonds
coupled with U.S. Treasury instruments of short-term
duration.
The goal of the BRS investment strategy is to maintain
some liquidity for payments during a strike, maximize
return on income producing investments for continued
use in the General Fund, produce growth on investments
in equities, and protect the fund from any large losses.
The foundation of a successful investment strategy is the
asset allocation. In 2005 and 2008, the International
Secretary-Treasurer and the Grand Board of Trustees
consulted investment advisors to review the asset allocation. The International Secretary-Treasurer and the Grand
Board of Trustees unanimously adopted the following
asset allocation in December 2008:
Investment Allocation
50% – 75% — Fixed Income
25% – 45% — Equities
3% – 7% — REIT
0% – 5% — Cash
Fixed Income Allocation
60% – 90% — Secured investments
(CDs, US Treasury, or Agency bonds)
10% – 40% — Investment Grade bonds
(including bond funds)
Equities Allocation
30% – 50% — Railroads
30% – 50% — Large Cap US (excluding railroads)
5% – 20% — Small and Mid Cap US
Following this strategy, stock, bond, and CD investments were made through an investment advisor at
Wachovia (Wells Fargo) Securities and CDs were purchased through CD Securities.
The current investment strategy has proven to be beneficial. During very volatile markets, the annualized rate
of return for BRS investments held at Wachovia (Wells
Fargo) Securities for the past four years was 5.85%.
The current return on Contingent Fund CD investments at CD Securities is 3.43%. The total Contingent
Fund investment income during the four year period
ending March 31, 2010, was $551,052.63 compared
to $665,721.59 in the period ending March 31, 2006.
In addition to the realized gains, booked as income,
the Contingent Fund investments currently have
$488,590.48 of unrealized gains. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
21
STATEMENT NO. 5
CONTINGENT FUND — Profit & Loss — April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010
Income
General Fund Allocation
Total Income
200,726.00
200,726.00
Expense
Bank Charges
Total Expense
591.86
591.86
Net Income
200,134.14
STATEMENT NO. 6
OFFICER’S EXPENSES — April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2010
TRANSPORTATION
WD PICKETT
WA BARROWS
FE MASON
CA MCGRAW
JL MATTINGLY
GE JONES
JC BOLES
DM BOSTON
TJ DEPAEPE
L PARKER JR
KA HALEY
MJ CIUREJ
JD BRAGG
JK YORK
BM WILSON
MK OWENS
KT POOLE
RG DEMOTT
TOTAL
22
P
S-T
VP
VP
VP
VP
VP
VP
GLR
GLR
GLR
GLR
GLR
T
T
T
T
T
EXPENSES
TOTAL
215,792.85
97,894.46
102,895.88
50,414.02
88,518.59
103,179.75
15,898.76
127,081.31
20,840.92
40,904.78
37,431.47
24,490.16
4,275.97
814.95
7,638.99
12,152.00
5,955.17
527.00
234,052.44
87,677.01
111,361.87
52,039.52
89,573.67
78,567.86
18,599.27
122,411.41
24,638.62
61,821.29
55,196.56
22,644.71
8,126.26
1,110.15
6,986.41
5,734.18
5,390.54
730.24
449,845.29
185,571.47
214,257.75
102,453.54
178,092.26
181,747.61
34,498.03
249,492.72
45,479.54
102,726.07
92,628.03
47,134.87
12,402.23
1,925.10
14,625.40
17,886.18
11,345.71
1,257.24
956,707.03
986,662.01
1,943,369.04
STATEMENT NO. 7
SALARIES for Grand Lodge Officers
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2010
International President
International Secretary-Treasurer
PER YEAR
125,622.26
102,291.86
97,503.47
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2010
Grand Lodge Representatives
PER MONTH
7,295.60
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2009
Grand Board of Trustee
DAILY
295.16
Report of the Grand Executive Council
This reporting period also brought significant challenges and expenditures to BRS in the form of commuter rail expansion in Florida and Massachusetts.
The challenge came initially in Central Florida’s
SunRail project with a planned sale of CSXT track
to Florida, which in turn, would use non-rail and
non-union contractors to compete for the work. The
problem spread with plans to separate BRS members
from Tri-Rail, a commuter operation over freight lines
in South Florida. This same signal work was, and still
is at this point, performed exclusively by BRS members, however, this battle and similar scenarios in other
states are ongoing and must continue to be monitored.
During this reporting period there were no changes in
the Grand Executive Council. The 2006 Convention
elected Dan Pickett to his fourth full term as
International President; Walt Barrows was elected
to his second full term as International SecretaryTreasurer; Charlie McGraw was elected to his sixth
full term as International Vice President NRAB;
Floyd Mason was elected to his fourth full term as
International Vice President East; Joe Mattingly was
elected to his third full term as International Vice
President Midwest; Dennis Boston was elected to
his third full term as International Vice President
Commuter, Passenger, Transit/Political Director;
George Jones was elected to his second full term as
International Vice President West; and Jerry Boles was
elected to his second full term as International Vice
President Headquarters.
Throughout this reporting period the Executive
Council continued to monitor activities under
the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). The
Executive Council also serves as an appellate body for
proceedings under Article IV of the Constitution.
As a final note, the check for the last payment for
Grand Lodge Headquarters in Front Royal, Virginia,
was written on March 31, 2008, well before the estimated 15 year payoff period. This move has saved the
BRS tens of thousands of dollars each year in reduced
travel expenses and property taxes. The offices of
the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen are located
at 917 Shenandoah Shores Road in Front Royal,
Virginia, and serves as the Brotherhood’s International
Headquarters. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
23
REGULAR CONVENTION
International Vice Presidents’ Activities
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen International Vice Presidents, in
accordance with Article I, Section 42 of the Brotherhood’s Constitution, are
under the supervision and direction of the International President. During
this reporting period assignment of the officers in the six international Vice
President positions has remained consistent with the Brotherhood’s previsous operating practices. The following outline reflects the current assignment status of these offices.
CONVENTION REPORT OF — George E. Jones
International Vice President assigned to the Western Region
Following this convention, I plan to retire. It is with
mixed emotions I write this report. While I look forward to retirement and dedicating more time to my
family and other endeavors, I cannot help but reflect
back to the long and winding road that led me to this
point.
GEORGE E. JONES
My first union
position was that
West
of Local Chairman
of Local 24 on
the D&RGW. I was elected to that position to fill a
vacancy in 1977. At that time, we were part of the
ATSF General Committee. In 1981, the D&GW and
the ATSF General Committees parted ways and I was
elected as General Chairman of the D&RGW-DUT
General Committee. I have maintained friendships
with many members of the former ATSF Committee,
which is now part of the BNSF General Committee.
Due to a merger between the D&RGW and Southern
Pacific Railroads (Eastern and Western Lines), in 1989
those committees and a few others merged. At that
time, I was elected as General Chairman of the newly
formed Southwestern General Committee. I held that
position until 1998 when I was elected as International
Vice President at Headquarters. In 2001, when
Brother Val Van Artsdalen retired, I was elected to fill
the remainder of his term. I was reelected to that position in 2002 and 2006 respectively. My first position
as a Grand Lodge Officer was that of Trustee, to which
I was elected at the 1988 Convention here in Orlando,
so this kind of brings it full circle for me.
I have witnessed many changes in the industry and
the union in my career. Mergers in the railroad industry caused many of the former general committees to
merge. For instance, the UPGC represents employees on the following former properties: UP, SP, MP,
C&NW, SSW, D&RGW, TP, and Katy. In addition,
the UPGC represents employees on TRRA, Amtrak
24
West, and the Idaho and Sedalia Railroad Co., LLC.
The BNSF General Committee represents employees
on the following former properties: CB&Q, ATSF,
NP, GN, FW&D, SLSF, and SP&S. In addition, the
BNSFGC represents employees on the Kansas City
Southern (including GWRR, South Rail Corp., and
Mid-South), DW&P, KCT, MRL, and Tex-Mex.
The two Western General Committees represent over
4,000 BRS members, or approximately 43% of the
total BRS membership. Additionally, these changes
reduced the number of General Committees from 11
to 2.
We have witnessed many changes in technology in the
craft as well. When I hired out, most of the systems
were relay driven. Today’s technology involves electro
logic or microprocessors. With the coming of PTC,
even more of the relay driven systems will disappear.
This sets up our latest challenge; it is imperative that
BRS secure the PTC work. To that end, the Western
General Committees have spent many hours in negotiations with UP and BNSF on this topic.
At this writing, BNSF is seeking to extend its sub-contracting agreement until the end of 2015. The BNSF
General Committee entered into its present sub-contracting agreement during the last round of national
bargaining. If that agreement runs its course, it drops
dead in June of 2012. The culmination of that agreement, I believe, was the major reason that the NCCC
dropped its lawsuit against BRS during the last round
of negotiations. The Committee was able to protect
BRS interests and secure several rule changes and benefits that will not be enumerated here.
Initially the UP was attempting to negotiate a sub-
contracting
agreement
to cover
the PTC
installation
through
December
31, 2015.
The initial
negotiations
involved
both
BRS and
IBEW.
After
several
meetings
where little progress was made, the negotiations shifted
towards the use of signal helpers to do the “bull work.”
The importance of securing agreements on PTC cannot be over stated. BRS is the sole existing non-ops
craft that does not have a national sub-contracting
rule. This fact is not because we are lucky. It is because
we have been good. We have been able to show that in
every case when a Carrier has shown a legitimate need
to sub-contract or seek relief through other methods,
the General Committees have stepped up to the plate
and made the necessary agreements. The General
Chairmen in the West have shown a willingness to
continue that practice. I believe this is critical to our
future and survivability.
My assignments at Grand Lodge too, have kept me
involved in the national bargaining. During the last
round of negotiations we were bargaining with several
other unions in the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition
(RLBC). Again, in this round, we are a member of the
RLBC with President Pickett as the head of RLBC. I
support the decision of President Pickett and the rest
of the Grand Executive Council to join with the other
Rail Labor organizations in national negotiations. This
concept helps keep rail labor on focus and helps secure
better agreements by eliminating self-interest negotiations.
With this action I’ll be relegated to watching all of
this from the side lines. I’m not certain I can do it.
Nonetheless, I am confident we will continue as we
have the past to do everything in our power to protect
the interest and improve the lives of our members. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
25
CONVENTION REPORT OF — Jerry C. Boles
International Vice President assigned to Headquarters
Convention report of Jerry C. Boles, International
Vice President at Headquarters, covering activities
from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2009.
• Attended 49th Regular Convention of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, July 10,
through July 14, 2006, in Las Vegas, Nevada, and I
was elected to my second full term.
• Principle duties throughout the reporting period
included: The administration of claim and grievance handling procedures. Chaired the committee
designated to review all unsettled disputes referred
to Grand Lodge under Article I, Section 64 of the
BRS Constitution. Prepared and reviewed submissions for cases scheduled for arbitration at the
National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB),
Public Law Boards (PLB), and Special Boards of
Adjustment (SBA), as well as research and prepare
submissions for special arbitration. Presented arguments before the NRAB and PLBs in cases supplemental to the ones presented by the BRS member
at the Board and attended meetings of the Section
3 rail labor subcommittee.
Attended, presented, and prepared curriculum for
General Chairman’s meetings and training:
June 4–8
September 11–12
October 21–23
2007
2008
2009
Linden Hall, PA
Front Royal, VA
Front Royal, VA
Continued revision of Local Chairman’s Training
program and held Local Chairman’s Training as
follows, during this reporting period:
Date
November 1–2, 2006
April 19–20, 2007
June 22–23, 2007
May 16–17, 2008
June 17–18, 2008
October 17–18, 2008
October 22–23, 2008
April 24–25, 2009
November 3–4, 2009
26
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Front Royal, VA
Front Royal, VA
Front Royal, VA
Sparks, NV
Front Royal, VA
Cleveland, TN
Front Royal, VA
Las Vegas, NV
Attendees
29
18
19
11
20
9
12
8
31
• Assisted Local
Chairmen
and General
Chairmen on
grievance issues,
claims, and
appeals and
provided results
of research
on arbitration
decisions when
required.
JERRY C. BOLES
Headquarters
• Reviewed agreements, researched past agreements, and assisted
with advice and language when needed.
• Attended all Grand Executive Council meetings and attended meetings of Local Lodges and
General Committees, as assigned.
• Served as trustee of the Baltimore and Ohio
General Committee.
• Continue to serve on Fatality Analysis Maintenance
Employees and Signal (FAMES) workgroup as a
Labor member of the committee.
• Participated in the continuing development of the
Grievance Tracking System for use at Grand Lodge.
• Reviewed, corrected, and drafted By-Laws for Local
Lodges and General Committees.
• Attended Labor/Management Section 3
Committee meetings.
• Performed general administrative duties as required
at Grand Lodge Headquarters. CONVENTION REPORT OF — Joe L. Mattingly
International Vice President assigned to the Midwest Region
This report covers activities from March 16, 2006,
through March 1, 2010. The Midwest Region’s Office is
presently headquartered in Trenton, Kentucky.
The following is a list of some of Brother Mattingly’s
activities that cover this reporting period:
• Attended 49th Regular Convention, July 10 – 14,
2006, in Las Vegas, Nevada.
• Researched and prepared correspondence for the
President.
• Researched, prepared, and assisted General
Committees, Negotiating Committees, and Local
Lodges with Memorandums of Agreements, dispute
resolutions, membership services, and contract proposals.
• Coordinated BRS’s organizing drives to assist signal and communications employees on the Dakota
Minnesota & Eastern Railroad and the Iowa Chicago
& Eastern Railroad.
• Assisted with the research and preparation of arbitration cases for presentation to the National Railroad
Adjustment Board, Public Law Boards, and Special
Boards of Adjustments.
• Served as a member of the Federal Railroad
Administration’s (FRA) Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee (RSAC). This committee is responsible
for negotiating federal safety rules and regulations.
The committee formulated regulations that cover The
Roadway Worker Protection Act, Microprocessorbased Interlocking Equipment, and Positive Train
Control Systems.
Interlocking
Equipment
(CFR 49 Part
234 and Part
236 Subpart H).
• Attended AAR
Technical
Conferences on
railroad signaling
and communications.
JOE L. MATTINGLY
Midwest
• Attended
Designated Legal
Council Meetings.
• Assisted members with Labor Protective benefits concerning Feb. 7 and New York Dock protective benefit.
• Attended Transportation Trades Department — Rail
Labor Division meetings.
• Attended Railway Systems Suppliers, Inc. (RSSI)
C&S Exhibition.
• Coordinated and attended Joint Midwest General
Chairman’s Meeting.
• Attended BRS Grand Executive Council Meetings.
Agreement Administration
Reviewed claims and grievances as a member of the
Review Committee and progressed claims & grievances as prescribed by Article I, Section 64 of the BRS
Constitution.
Lobbying legislative objectives of:
• Coordinated the development of the American
Association of Railroads joint National Safety
Sensitive Training Committee. Also served as a member of BRS’s Safety Sensitive Training Committee.
• Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS).
• Served as a Communications & Signal Labor
Member of the American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance of Way Association.
• American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO).
• Attended regular & special meetings of BRS Local
Lodges and General Committees when requested, and
as time and finances permitted.
• Participated in the FRA’s Technical Resolution
Committee that addressed technical issues concerning the Rules, Standards, and Instructions for
Railroad Signal Systems and Highway/Rail Grade
Crossing Warning Systems & Microprocessor-based
• Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
(TTD).
• Met with candidates holding and seeking public
office to enlist support for issues supported by BRS
members.
• Attended meetings with Association of American
Railroads, individual railroads, American Short
Line Railroad Association, and the American Public
Transportation Association.
27
Attended meetings to address BRS issues with Federal
agencies in the Washington, DC, area. These agencies
included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
U. S. Department of Transportation
U. S. Department of Labor
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Labor Relations Board
National Transportation Safety Board
National Mediation Board
National Railroad Adjustment Board
U. S. Railroad Retirement Board
Public Law Boards
U. S. Surface Transportation Board
Duties also involved addressing BRS issues with the following associations, committees, and institutes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Association of American Railroads
American Public Transit Association
American Association of Arbitrators
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of
Way Association
Bureau of Labor Statistics
George Meany Center
National Carriers Conference Committee
High Speed Ground Transportation Association
Railway Progress Institute
Volpe Safety Center
Additional Assignments:
Union Privilege Liaison — The Midwest Vice
President continues to serve as the liaison for the AFLCIO’s Union Privilege programs. Union Privilege
requires the appointment of the liaison in order to
perform functions set forth in Section IV of the
Participation Agreement. A few of the programs
reviewed and approved during this reporting period
include the Union Plus Program for Eldercare Services,
Referrals & Placements, UnionSecure Term Life
Insurance, Union Plus Union SAFE Benefits, Union
Plus Credit Card Program, UnionSecure Insurance
Program for Monthly Installments Accidental Death
Insurance, Union Plus AT&T Wireless Discount
Program, Union Plus Leader Survey, UnionSecure 5Year Term, and Senior Life Insurance program for BRS
members aged 55-74. The Midwest Vice President
also attended the Union Plus Liaison’s Conference in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on April 22 – 24, 2009.
28
FRA — Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC):
The Midwest Vice President continues to serve as
one of the two BRS voting members allotted to the
Federal Railroad Administration’s Rail Safety Advisory
Committee. The 41st Meeting of the Rail Safety
Advisory Committee was held on March 18, 2010, in
Washington, DC.
FRA — Fatality Analysis of Maintenance-of-Way
Employees and Signalmen (FAMES): During 2009,
the Midwest Vice President was assigned by President
Pickett to an industry task group with the Federal
Railroad Administration to analyze roadway worker
fatalities. The task group is identified as Fatality Analysis
of Maintenance-of-Way Employees and Signalmen
(FAMES).
FRA — Positive Train Control Implementing Work
Group (PTC): The Midwest Vice President was
assigned by President Pickett to an industry task group
with the Federal Railroad Administration to develop
implementing regulations for Positive Train Control
(PTC) Systems and their deployment under the Rail
Safety Act of 2008.
Status of Section 6 Negotiations
Midwest Region
Alton & Southern Railway: Alton & Southern
Railway employees belong to Local #132. They are
members of the Union Pacific General Committee and
are represented by General Chairman Harry Doucet
and Assistant General Chairman Mike Sanders. During
the 2010 round of negotiations, the A&S will be represented by the National Carrier’s Conference Committee
with respect to its National Section VI Notice. The
terms of the current Agreement run through December
31, 2009. However, either party may serve a new contract notice after November 1, 2009, not to become
effective before January 1, 2010. Via notice dated
November 2, 2009, the Alton & Southern advised that
the NCCC was serving a Section VI Notice on the
Organization. Via notice dated December 16, 2009,
the BRS advised the NCCC that it had joined other
rail labor organizations in authorizing the Rail Labor
Bargaining Committee to represent it during this round
of collective bargaining for wages and benefits.
Belt Railway of Chicago: Belt Railway of Chicago
employees belong to Local #194. They are members of
the BRS Northeast General Committee and are represented by General Chairman Bill Duncan. During
the 2010 round of negotiations, the Belt Railway of
Chicago will be represented by the National Carrier’s
Conference Committee with respect to its National
Section VI Notice. The terms of the Agreement run
through December 31, 2009. However, either party
may serve a new contract notice after November 1,
2009, not to become effective before January 1, 2010.
Via notice dated November 2, 2009, the NCCC served
a Section VI Notice on the Organization. Via notice
dated December 21, 2009, the BRS advised the NCCC
that it had joined other rail labor organizations in
authorizing the Rail Labor Bargaining Committee to
represent it during this round of collective bargaining
for wages and benefits.
Canadian National Railway:
(Bessemer & Lake Erie) Bessemer & Lake Erie
employees belong to Local #15. The General Chairman
of the Bessemer & Lake Erie General Committee
is Kevin Walker. Our current Agreement covers the
Canadian National/Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad
members from January 1, 2005, through December
31, 2009. Via notice dated December 16, 2009, the
Bessemer & Lake Erie General Chairman served a
Section VI Notice on the Canadian National requesting to revise and supplement all existing agreements in
accordance with its proposed notice. This Notice was
conference on January 13, 2010, and the two parties
mutually agreed to resume negotiations at a later date.
(Chicago Central & Pacific) Chicago Central &
Pacific employees belong to Local #29. They are members of the Illinois Central General Committee and are
represented by General Chairman Dave Picou. The
Chicago Central & Pacific contract currently mirrors
the Canadian National/Illinois Central BRS contract.
The Chicago Central & Pacific Agreement was ratified
on September 18, 2007. The terms of the Agreement
run from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2009.
However, either party may serve a new contract notice
after November 1, 2009. Via notice dated December 8,
2009, the Illinois Central General Committee served a
Section VI Notice on the Canadian National requesting to revise and supplement all existing agreements in
accordance with its proposed notice. At the time of this
report, the two parties mutually agreed to resume negotiations on March 25, 2010, in Homewood, Illinois.
(Grand Trunk Western) Grand Trunk & Western
the BRS Northeast General Committee and are represented by General Chairman Bill Duncan. The Grand
Trunk & Western’s current Agreement was signed
on December 9, 2005, in Homewood, Illinois. The
terms of the Agreement run from January 1, 2006,
to December 31, 2009. However, either party may
serve a new contract notice after November 1, 2009.
Via notice dated December 28, 2009, the Northeast
General Committee served a Section VI Notice on the
Canadian National requesting to revise and supplement
all existing agreements in accordance with its proposed
notice. At the time of this report, the two parties mutually agreed to resume negotiations on March 23, 2010,
in Homewood, Illinois.
(Illinois Central Gulf) Illinois Central employees
belong to Locals #51, #81, #107, #162, and #191.
They are members of the Illinois Central General
Committee and are represented by General Chairman
Dave Picou. The Illinois Central Agreement was ratified on September 18, 2007, and signed on October 5,
2007. The terms of the Agreement run from January
1, 2006, to December 31, 2009. However, either party
may serve a new contract notice after November 1,
2009. Via notice dated December 8, 2009, the Illinois
Central General Committee served a Section VI Notice
on the Canadian National requesting to revise and supplement all existing agreements in accordance with its
proposed notice. At the time of this report, the two parties mutually agreed to resume negotiations on March
25, 2010, in Homewood, Illinois.
(Wisconsin Central) — Signal Department
Technicians: Wisconsin Central employees are
members of BRS Local #239. They are members of
the Wisconsin Central General Committee and are
represented by General Chairman Nate Bolton. The
Wisconsin Central’s current Agreement was signed on
January 24, 2006, in Homewood, Illinois. The terms of
the Agreement run from January 1, 2006, to December
31, 2009. However, either party may serve a new contract notice after November 1, 2008. On December
9, 2008, the BRS filed a Section VI Notice on the
Canadian National. Contract negotiations were held on
January 6, 2009, in Homewood, Illinois; April 7, 2009,
in Steven’s Point, Wisconsin; July 14, 2009, November
11, 2009, and on January 11–12, 2010, in Homewood,
Illinois. At the time of this report, the two parties
mutually agreed to resume negotiations on March 24,
2010, in Homewood, Illinois.
(Wisconsin Central) — Communications
Department Technicians: Wisconsin Central employees are members of BRS Local #239. They are members
of the Wisconsin Central General Committee and are
represented by General Chairman Nate Bolton. The
Wisconsin Central’s current Agreement was signed on
January 24, 2006, in Homewood, Illinois. The terms of
the Agreement run from January 1, 2006, to December
31, 2009. However, either party may serve a new contract notice after November 1, 2008. On December
29
9, 2008, the BRS filed a Section VI Notice on the
Canadian National. Contract negotiations were held on
January 6, 2009, in Homewood, Illinois; April 7, 2009,
in Steven’s Point, Wisconsin; July 14, 2009, November
11, 2009, and on January 11–12, 2010, in Homewood,
Illinois. At the time of this report, the two parties mutually agreed to resume negotiations on March 24, 2010,
in Homewood, Illinois.
(Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway) On September
26, 2007, Canadian National Railway Company
announced it had agreed to acquire a major portion of
the EJ&E. The transaction was subject to the Surface
Transportation Board’s approval under Finance Docket
No. 35087. On February 2, 2008, the Canadian
National served BRS with a proposed Implementing
Agreement. An Implementing Agreement was finally
reached and signed between the Canadian National/
Illinois Central/Elgin Joliet & Eastern West Railroad
Companies (CN/IC/EJ&EW) and the BRS on January
8, 2009, in Homewood, Illinois. This Agreement
addressed, among other issues, operating territory, job
classifications, seniority, prior rights, pension benefits,
rates of pay, and protection benefits. Effective May
1, 2009, all signal employees transferred from the
EJ&E became subject to the terms and conditions of
the Implementing Agreement and the IC/CCP-BRS
Collective Bargaining Agreement. They are now members of the Illinois Central General Committee and
are represented by General Chairman Dave Picou.
The terms of the IC/CCP-BRS Collective Bargaining
Agreement run from January 1, 2006, to December
31, 2009. However, either party may serve a new
contract notice after November 1, 2009. Via notice
dated December 8, 2009, the Illinois Central General
Committee served a Section VI Notice on the Canadian
National requesting to revise and supplement all existing agreements in accordance with its proposed notice.
At the time of this report, the two parties mutually
agreed to resume negotiations on March 25, 2010, in
Homewood, Illinois.
Canadian Pacific Railway —
(Soo Line Railroad Company): BRS members on
the Soo Line belong to Local #226. They are represented by Soo Line General Committee Chairman Kim
Poole. By letter dated October 6, 2009, the BRS was
advised that during the 2010 round of negotiations, the
Canadian Pacific — Soo Line will be represented by the
National Carrier’s Conference Committee with respect
to its National Section VI Notice. The Soo Line’s last
Agreement was ratified, and then signed on March 11,
2008. That Agreement ran through January 1, 2010.
30
a Section VI Notice on the organization. Via notice
dated January 13, 2010, the BRS advised the NCCC
that it had joined other rail labor organizations in
authorizing the Rail Labor Bargaining Committee to
represent it during this round of collective bargaining
for wages and benefits. Since the last report, Local #226
has revised its Local Bylaws to incorporate the members
of the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern (DM&E) and the
Iowa, Chicago & Eastern (IC&E) Railways into their
Local Lodge.
(Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation
— Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railway): Soo Line Local
#226 has incorporated the members of the Dakota,
Minnesota & Eastern and the Iowa, Chicago and
Eastern into its Local Lodge. They are represented by
Soo Line General Committee Chairman Kim Poole.
Via Certified Mail dated July 6, 2009, BRS served its
Section VI Notice for employees represented by the
BRS employed on the DM&E and the IC&E. The
DM&E and IC&E acknowledged receipt of the Notice
via letter dated July 16, 2009. On July 20, 2009, the
Organization held a Section VI conference with the carrier. The two parties’ first negotiations were held at BRS
Headquarters in Front Royal, Virginia, on September
16, 2009. Subsequent negotiations have been held on
November 4–5, 2009, and January 14–15, 2010, in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota. At the time of this report,
the two parties mutually agreed to resume negotiations
on April 28–29, 2010, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Evansville Western Railway, Inc.: The Evansville
Western (EVWR) employees belong to the Illinois
Central General Committee and are represented
by General Chairman David Picou. The Evansville
Western’s current Agreement was signed on December
30, 2005, in Paducah, Kentucky. The terms of the
Agreement run from December 30, 2005, to January 1,
2011. However, either party may serve a new contract
notice after July 1, 2010.
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company: Indiana
Harbor Belt employees belong to Local #3. They are
represented by the Northeast General Committee and
General Chairman Bill Duncan. During the 2010
round of negotiations, the Belt Railway of Chicago will
be represented by the National Carrier’s Conference
Committee with respect to its National Section VI
Notice. The terms of the Agreement run through
December 31, 2009. However, either party may serve
a new contract notice after November 1, 2009, not to
become effective before January 1, 2010. Via notice
dated November 2, 2009, the NCCC served a Section
VI Notice on the organization. Via notice dated
December 21, 2009, the BRS advised the NCCC that
it had joined other rail labor organizations in authorizing the Rail Labor Bargaining Committee to represent it
during this round of collective bargaining for wages and
benefits.
New Orleans Public Belt: The NOPB remains under
the jurisdiction of the BRS’s Illinois Central Gulf
General Committee. They are members of the Illinois
Central General Committee and are represented by
General Chairman David Picou. The current term of the
NOPB contract has been extended under the provisions
of the Railway Labor Act.
Paducah & Louisville: Paducah and Louisville
the Illinois Central General Committee and are represented by General Chairman David Picou. The current
Agreement ran through January 1, 2009. However,
either party could have served a bargaining notice after
July 1, 2008. The BRS served a Section VI Notice dated
August 19, 2009. On October 15, 2009, the two parties
reached a tentative agreement covering wages and fringe
benefits in Paducah, Kentucky. On December 1, 2009,
the tentative agreement was rejected by the membership.
A second tentative Agreement was reached between the
two parties on January 22, 2010. At the time of this
report, this tentative Agreement is in the ratification
process.
Safetran Systems Corporation: Safetran Systems
Corporation employees belong to Local #234. They are
members of the Safetran General Committee and are
currently
represented
by General
Chairman
Mike Leasor.
They are
covered by
the National
Labor
Relations
Act.
Organizing
of the satellite plant that
was opened
in Marion,
Kentucky,
is a concern
for Local
#234 mem-
bers. Additionally, Safetran System plans to phase out
metal fabrication work currently being performed at
its Louisville, Kentucky, Division plant and having
this work performed by an outside vendor. The current working agreement expires April 30, 2010. On
February 12, 2010, in accordance with Safetran Systems’
Kentucky Division Agreement Rule 109, Duration of
Agreement, the company filed a collective bargaining
notice on BRS Local #234. At the time of this report,
negotiation dates have been scheduled thru April 30,
2010, in Louisville, Kentucky.
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis: Terminal
Railway Association of St. Louis employees belong to
Local #132. They are members of the Union Pacific
General Committee and are represented by General
Chairman Harry Doucet and Assistant General
Chairman Mike Sanders. During the 2005 round of
negotiations, the Terminal Railroad Association of
St. Louis was represented by the National Carrier’s
Conference Committee with respect to its National
Section VI Notice. The terms of the Agreement run
through December 31, 2009. However, either party
could serve a new contract notice after November 1,
2009, not to become effective before January 1, 2010.
a Section VI Notice on the Organization. Via notice
dated December 16, 2009, the BRS advised the NCCC
that it had joined other rail labor organizations in authorizing the Rail Labor Bargaining Committee to represent
it during this round of collective bargaining for wages
and benefits.
Union Railroad: Union Railroad employees belong to
Local #193. They are represented by the Union Railroad
General Committee and General Chairman Dennis G.
Skrbin. The new agreement runs 12 months beyond
the period of the current BRS National Agreement.
However, either party may serve or progress a bargaining notice two months before the end of the term of this
agreement. The next Section VI may be served on May
1, 2008. On October 19, 2009, the BRS received a proposal to allow a contractor to do brush cutting or tree
removal along the Carrier’s communication pole line.
The Carrier was willing to assign a signal department
employee to provide flagging services for the contractor’s
employees, when and as required. The BRS countered
with furlough and overtime protection for BRS members. This contracting out issue is still open.
Wheeling & Lake Erie —
(Signal & Communications): Wheeling & Lake Erie
Signal and Communication employees belong to Local
31
CONVENTION REPORT OF — Floyd E. Mason
International Vice President assigned to the East Region
East
This is the Convention report of Floyd E. Mason,
International Vice President East for the period of April
2006 to April 2010. The office of Vice President East,
in connection with International officers, along with
general committee officers, as well as local officers and
members, have made some important improvements
during the report period.
About the East Jurisdiction
The East jurisdiction ended the previous reporting
period with 3024 members. The East jurisdiction
includes CSXT (B&O, B&OCT, C&OCD/PM,
CSXTN {former Conrail}, RF&P, Clinchfield, L&N/
C&EI, SCL {w former A&WP}, and Monon), NSR
(ERN former Conrail), N&W, Southern/CofGA, the
Pan Am RR (former Springfield Term.), the D&H, the
P&W, the NYS&W (newly organized 1st CBA 2007),
St. Lawrence and Atlantic, Conrail (referred to the
Shared Asset Areas). Commuter operations over freight
railroads include Tri-Rail, portions of MBTA, as well as
VRE, and parts of Amtrak. The East ends the reporting
period with 3167 members. The membership levels
were steady throughout the period even with a severe
recession and significant attrition. Protecting work and
active involvement in the field has contributed to these
membership levels. Hiring has picked up recently with
the expectation of more than 300 members expected by
mid 2010.
The East administers 21 separate collective bargaining
agreements and a variety of national, system, and local
agreements that apply to multiple properties. The territory covers 27 states, Washington, DC, and part of
Canada.
There are 11 General Chairmen (6 full-time), and two
additional full-time Committee officers in the East
Jurisdiction.
Important Issues April 2006–March 2010
On February 2, 2009, I was interviewed by the White
House for the position of Board Member at the
National Mediation Board. The interview was one of
the first conducted by the Obama Administration, but
the position was ultimately filled by Linda Puchela, a
former President of the Flight Attendants (from the airline side of TTD) and who at that time was employed
at the NMB.
There were changes in the full-time general chairmen
32
positions as Bill
Wilson retired and
Greg Vincent was
elected to head
the L&N General
Committee. There
were changes in
part-time general
chairmen also as
Jeff Beal assumed
FLOYD E. MASON
the duties of
Chuck Cleghorn
East Region
on the B&OCT
and Tim Edwards
returned as general
chairman Clinchfield in place of Bill Burton.
There were Committee related problems that led to
assumption of duties on the B&O General Committee
by the BRS International. In recent months I have
worked with Mark Ciurej who is acting general chairman B&O.
The year 2006, brought some important challenges
to BRS representation. The newly organized members
on the New York and Susquehanna Railroad had to
establish their first collective bargaining agreement. The
bargaining was ultimately successful, a new Local was
formed, and the NYS&W, which is now part of the
United General Committee, prepares for its Section
6 negotiations for the first revisions to its initial BRS
CBA. In 2006 a battle was waged about whether the
BRS could insist upon local issues being negotiated
locally with individual railroads. The BRS, although it
was part of the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition, was
sued individually by every major Class I Carrier over its
insistence to raise counter-proposals over local issues at
the national table. The carriers had refused to bargain
locally. The structure of the RLBC was also challenged
by rail carriers. The lawsuits were ultimately dropped,
RLBC remained intact, and a national agreement
was made without forced changes in local agreements
by national carriers. The material and research developed, cataloged by General Counsel Phillips and then
Director of Research DePaepe, about the local verses
national issue should serve BRS and its Committees for
many years. Among the principles strengthened in this
process was that national carriers may not force bargaining over subcontracting and starting times, issues traditionally handled locally, without involvement of general
committees and without specific counter-proposals
from the individual committees dealing with the specific collective bargaining agreement. Changes made that
affected local agreements were ultimately ratified locally.
As of the end of the reporting period we begin the next
round of national bargaining (Nov. 2009). There are
limited local issues in the East for the national table
but there are extensive negotiations occurring locally on
issues related to Positive Train Control, which involve
local work rules and in some instances discussions about
subcontracting, and on other matters.
The reporting period also brought a significant challenge to BRS in the form of commuter rail expansion.
Plans by those opposed to BRS and rail labor in Florida
to expand commuter service over existing freight railroads, where signal work was performed exclusively
by BRS members, were planned to be accomplished
using all non-union and
non-railroad employees.
The challenge came initially in Central Florida
with a planned sale of
track to Florida that would
then seek non-rail and
non-union contractors to
compete for the work. The
problem spread to plans
to separate BRS members
from Tri-Rail, a commuter
operation over freight lines
in South Florida. Finally,
plans were to develop a
complete state transportation network where all BRS
members would be required
to seek work in another
state if they desired to
remain employed.
The BRS, at the national,
committee and local level,
fought this vigorously, and
at times was the only rail
labor organization in the
fight. The fight took BRS
to new battlegrounds,
having to fight the issue at the state legislature, in the
court of public opinion, and with state transportation
officials, in addition to efforts with the U.S. Congress.
At the end of the reporting period this fight is not over,
however, BRS defeated state legislative efforts on two
separate occasions and on the third was able to secure
a compromise, for Signalmen to be the only rail labor
group to remain employed on what will now be called
Sunrail. Work to defend Signalwork in South Florida
and throughout the state continues with the coordinated effort of my office, that of General Chairman
Demott, and Florida AFL-CIO President Williams.
I work with President Pickett and Special Counsel
Edelman in conjunction with the national effort to
protect signal work including, at present, Florida and
Massachusets from commuter expansion if those plans
involve elimination of railroad jobs.
This reporting period also brought the establishment of
a second full-time training position to CSXT to implement advanced training for Signalmen. The position
comes from BRS ranks, is interviewed by BRS general
chairmen and this office, and is a position represented
by BRS. The pay and benefits are among the highest in
this territory.
Revised collective bargaining agreements were reached
and ratified on the P&W
and the D&H. Agreement
revisions negotiated locally
on the Pan Am were
rejected by the membership
and bargaining continues in
effort to reach an acceptable
agreement.
An important and extensive
agreement was reached
with CSXT that involved
the deconsolidation of its
dispatching centers from
primarily a single location
to ten regional centers. In
the process of negotiation,
and with the help of the
various general committees,
an agreement was reached
that retained and expanded
the ESS work in the new
regional centers. In addition
to the approximate 18 new
well-paid positions, the BRS
established a voluntary bid
and relocation system that is
outside the protective agreement requirements of New
York Dock. Under the creative plan existing and new
ESSs have their names added to a Relative Ranking list
and can use seniority to affect a transfer. The regional
centers have point seniority minimizing the potential
for forced relocation. The combination Railway Labor
33
Act/New York Dock protective agreement retains the
rights established for ESS over the last two decades and
establishes some important local seniority rights creating
new potential for advancement of CSX Signalmen.
An important Agreement revision was also established
on NSR in conjunction with General Chairmen
Luttrell, Everett, and Mullins. Beginning early in the
reporting period and reaching completion early in 2010
was the first major local NSR Agreement revisions
since 2003. The revised Apprentice Training Agreement
returns part of Apprentice Training to the concept of
experienced Signal Maintainers providing training to
new employees, through a mentoring process. The program which spans 43 to 52 weeks involves assignment
of new employees to signal construction, formal classroom training, and 20 weeks of assignment working
directly under a signal maintainer or other maintenance
employee. Those that train new employees receive a
$1.00 per hour differential.
There were a variety of local agreements made with
terms beneficial to signalmen during the reporting
period with the assistance of this office, including the
establishment of new rules to cover special gangs on
CSXT, lifting seniority restrictions on
employees
that work
on specialized auger
and boring
gangs.
This office
assisted
with many
local matters and
some longstanding
disputes
have had
arbitration agreements established with cases listed either
before arbitrators that we wanted to hear the disputes or
a process was established that is favorable to Signalmen.
These plans for resolution were developed in conjunction with IVP Boles in the arbitration group.
Currently, there are extensive discussions proceeding
with CSX on the subject of the installation of Positive
Train Control. The agreement negotiations are chaired
by my office with the active participation of many of
the nine general committees affected. The basis of the
discussions are short term entry rate helper positions to
expedite hiring and training for new members that can
assist with PTC Installation, and long-term pay increases for maintenance employees, temporary changes to a
variety of related work rules. There remains the potential
for some limited subcontracting in exchange for pay or
other benefits for current members. The installation of
PTC is described as a massive installation of new signal
equipment on a scale not seen in many decades.
As chair of the national training committee serving
with IVP George Jones and Trustee Chairman Mike
Owens we have helped to develop Signal Training and
a goal is to increase that effort consistent with mandates
in the Rail Safety Act.
This office assists the BRS national bargaining committee in connection with the Rail Labor Bargaining
Coalition (RLBC) for national issues and it organizes
and coordinates the general committees at both the
national and local bargaining tables. I am presently
involved with a variety of challenging issues that involve
commuter and high speed rail expansion over freight
lines. Fraternally, Floyd Mason. 34
CONVENTION REPORT OF — Charlie A. McGraw
International Vice President assigned to the National Railroad Adjustment Board
Provided research and guidance for BRS Legal
Counsel.
Performed administrative duties, research, and
preparation of submissions for progressing disputes
to the NRAB, Public Law Boards, Special Boards of
Arbitration, and labor disputes under the National
Labor Relations Act.
CHARLIE A. MCGRAW
NRAB
National Railroad
Adjustment Board (NRAB)
The following report covers activities from April 1,
2006, through March 31, 2010, for International
Vice President Charlie A. McGraw.
Attended the 49th Regular Convention, July 10–
July 14, 2006, in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Participated as the BRS Labor Member in 36 arbitration hearings involving various Public Law Boards
(PLB) and Special Boards of Arbitration (SBA).
Attended 62 hearings held at the National Railroad
Adjustment Board (NRAB) in Chicago, Illinois.
Participated as Labor Member in 8 arbitration hearings concerning the National Labor Relations Act.
Attended Labor/Management Section 3 Committee
meetings and Labor’s Section
3 Sub-Committee Meetings.
Attended regular Labor
Members meeting at the
NRAB. Attended meetings
with the National Mediation
Board (NMB). Attended
Railroad Organizations
Arbitration Review (ROAR)
meetings.
Attended regular meetings of Local Lodges and
General Committees when requested.
Attended and participated in advanced training
seminars conducted by the National Academy of
Arbitrators (NAA), the Association of Railroad
Referees, the National Mediation Board, and the
Railroad Retirement Board.
Attended Local Chairmen’s training meetings, and
assisted International Vice President Jerry Boles.
Participated in four Local Chairmen/General
Chairmen training programs.
Attended and participated in the following
meetings:
• BRS Executive Council meetings
• Local Chairmen and General Chairmen training programs
• Orientation meetings with new referees
• NRAB Labor Member meetings
Assisted in reviewing claims
and grievances submitted
to Grand Lodge by General
Committees to be presented to
the NRAB, Public Law Boards,
Special Boards of Adjustment,
and Boards of Arbitration.
35
• Labor/Management Section 3 Committee
meetings
• Labor’s Section 3 Sub-Committee meetings
• ROAR meetings
• NRAB meetings
• NRAB adoption sessions
• NMB meetings
• NAA meetings
• NMB Mediation Hearings
Section 3 Committee
The Section 3 Committee is comprised of Labor and
Management representatives from Class 1 freight
railroads and commuter carriers. This Committee
is charged with the responsibility to provide input
to the National Mediation Board and implement guidelines for the handling of disputes. The
Committee made several suggestions regarding
the handling of disputes between the parties. The
Committee reviewed the handling of cases at the
NRAB and established revised guidelines for case
progression. Instead of filing written submissions
to the Board, the parties file electronic submissions.
The arbitrator is required to submit his/her decision
electronically. The NRAB issues the draft and final
Awards electronically. This process reduces the total
cost of copying thousands and thousands of pages
36
and the cost of mailing.
The Committee additionally monetered six-month
time limit for arbitrators to render a decision after
hearing a case. In most cases, the arbitrators have
complied with this rule. However, during this
reporting period, the NMB essentially stopped all
arbitration activity for three to four months every
year because of inadequate funding. The result of
this shutdown required the NMB and NRAB to
work under a Continuing Resolution until Congress
passed a federal budget. During this period of
Continuing Resolution the number of cases presented to arbitrators was severely limited. While a
reduced number of cases were presented during this
time, the arbitrators were not allowed any travel
authority, and they were limited in the number of
days to work in a given month. CONVENTION REPORT OF — Dennis M. Boston
International Vice President assigned to Passenger, Transit, and Commuter Operations
This reporting
period began on
April 1, 2006,
and ran through
February 2010.
The past four
years have been
very busy, and
DENNIS M. BOSTON
I would like to
provide you with
Passenger, Transit, and
the details of
Commuter Operations
what I have been
up to, as well as
provide you with
an update on all General Committees that fall under
Passenger, Transit, and Commuter Operations.
Since our last Convention I have been a part of three
different bargaining coalitions. First, the Amtrak
coalition called the Passenger Rail Labor Bargaining
Coalition (PRLBC), consisting of four Labor Unions
who fought hard through negotiations, mediation, a
Presidential Emergency Board (PEB), and culminated
with the signing of a new agreement for Amtrak.
There were many great moments with the PRLBC.
The Republican-appointed PEB sided with the Labor
Unions over the Company, former Senator Ted
Kennedy was present at the signing of our agreement,
and my office organized a rally in front of Amtrak
Headquarters in Washington, D.C., providing a voice
for over 500 union members letting Amtrak know
“Enough was Enough.” The second Coalition I have
been a member of is the Massachusetts Bay Commuter
Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (MBCRLBC). I have
been appointed spokesperson for the MBCRLBC,
which consists of 12 separate craft unions, and we are
currently engaged in tough mediation with the company. The third coalition, for who I am also the appointed
spokesperson, is the Long Island Rail Road Bargaining
Coalition (LIRRBC). The LIRRBC consists of four
Labor Unions that have begun the negotiation process
with the company.
One benefit of my participation in the Bargaining
Coalitions is the involvement I have had with the
National Mediation Board’s (NMB) members and
staff. Along with President Pickett, I have participated
in meetings with the NMB concerning the selection
of a new Democratic-appointed Board Member by the
Obama Administration. I have personally met with the
NMB over 10 times in requesting mediation for NJT
and MBCR. I have also met directly with NMB Board
Members while requesting our release from mediation on Amtrak, during PEB 242 (the Amtrak PEB)
and in meetings regarding the status of mediation on
MBCR. As a result of my developing relationship
with the NMB, I was selected to be the Rail Labor
Representative on the Dunlop II Commission, which
developed recommendations for the improvement of
NMB agency operations. Finally, I was chosen to be a
panelist at the 2nd PEB Conference where I gave a presentation on Coalition Bargaining within the PassengerTransit and Commuter Rail sector. Being asked to
contribute my experience as a leader in Rail Labor on
the Dunlop II Commission and at the PEB Conference
were both a result of the exposure I have had with the
National Mediation Board while fighting through many
tough negotiations and mediation sessions over the past
few years. It is my belief that the respect I have gained
with the members of the NMB will ultimately benefit
Rail Labor.
Over the past 40 months I have spent my time traveling to over 25 local meetings; 25 meetings with Amtrak
Presidents, Vice Presidents, Management; and Amtrak
East and West General Committee members. I have
attended more than eight meetings with BBRI and
Posey which include negotiations with both contractors.
I have also been to more than 15 meetings with LIRR
that consisted of negotiations, Railroad Disability, and
General Chairman’s meetings. For Metra, I have participated in 11 CRLA, Quarterly Labor Management,
and General Chairman’s meetings along with 55 Metra
negotiation meetings. On New Jersey Transit, I have
attended 18 meetings and mediation sessions that
include meeting with the Vice President of Operations,
General Manager of Labor Relations, and other high
level Managers dealing with disputes over our agreement. I was in attendance at multiple SEPTA meetings
and a number of meetings on PATH, which included
negotiations that resulted in a ratified agreement.
MBCR and its Coalition have been keeping me busy
with more than 30 meeting. I have also been in attenBrotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
37
dance at 30 TTD and TTD-Rail meetings, along with
meetings with RRB. There have also been more than 25
meeting regarding General Chairman’s training, Trustee
elections, and meetings of the Grand Executive Council
that I have attended.
For the past few years I have been able to coordinate the
Passenger-Transit and Commuter Operations General
Chairman’s meetings with the RSSI Show. I also attended several APTA conferences and the Union Industries
show, held last year in Detroit,
Michigan. I was honored
to attend the Democratic
Convention in Denver,
Colorado, where history was
made by the selection of Barack
Obama as the Democratic
Party’s Candidate. I then
watched the dream become
reality as he was sworn in as the
President of the United States.
The months on my calendar
are full of meetings, negotiations, air travel, and train rides.
As a result, I spend a significant
amount of time away from my
wife, children, and grandchildren. I have been a Signalmen
and working to represent my
fellow Signalmen for over 35
years. Our Union is a part of
every aspect of my life, from
the car I purchase, the clothes
I wear, and to the stores in
which I choose to shop. The dedication I have to the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen feeds my daily
desire to make life better for all Railroad workers.
Amtrak
Shortly after our last Convention in Las Vegas, President
Pickett once again brought all of Rail Labor together
to discuss Amtrak’s unwillingness to negotiate and the
Bush-appointed NMB’s refusal to release the Unions
from mediation. We met with Amtraks President
Kummant who suggested that both sides should sit
down at the bargaining table again. Once more, we
came to the table with Amtrak, and once again, Amtrak
refused to negotiate in good faith.
Soon after Amtrak’s refusal to negotiate, many of the
unions met with Amtrak individually to no avail. The
38
BRS pushed for the formation of the Passenger Rail
Labor Bargaining Coalition (PRLBC). Ultimately, the
bargaining coalition consisted of the BRS, BMWED,
ATDA, and the NCFO. President Pickett was chosen
as our Chairman to lead the members of the PRLBC.
The coalition had selected Roland Wilder to Council
for the Coalition and Rail Labor Economist Tom Roth
who provide analysis and long term assumptions for
contract proposals. The Coalition went to the NMB
and met with senior mediators to once again push for
a release (Proffer for Arbitration)
from mediation. The PRLBC
argued that by forming a coalition it would bring a focus to
the issues and would allow the
Board to release the Unions in
the Coalition all at once and not
have to deal with separate and
continues rolling releases that
could disrupt the daily transportation needs of the riding
public. We were told to expect
a Proffer for Arbitration on or
about October 31, 2007. While
awaiting release, the PRLBC
gathered all pertinent documents
in preparation of our ensuing
battle. Thousands of documents
were put together in support of
our positions taken at the bargaining table. We not only had
all of our own documents, but
the documents on all cases of
negotiations and PEB’s since the
creation of Amtrak and prior. When low and behold,
Amtrak went to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia and requested “a declaratory judgment
against the Bargaining Coalition for its existence” under
the RLA. You just can’t make this stuff up! Amtrak
continued to prove that they were going to do everything to stall the negotiations, knowing that a release
was imminent. The stunt by Amtrak did not work;
we were granted our Proffer for Arbitration and began
a full fledged attack on all fronts of this very complex
situation. We had a legislative plan to gain support
on Capital Hill and a plan to bring workers together
in D.C. for a public protest of Amtrak’s conduct. We
had a PEB committee working on our presentation
and I worked tirelessly to ensure that all of this went
off as planned. My assistant and I pulled permits and
organized a rally for over 500 attendees just outside of
Union Station (Amtrak Headquarters) in D.C. We had
an array of speakers at the rally that consisted of Union
Presidents, members of Congress, and a special appearance from then Senator Joe Biden. It was a wonderful day for Amtrak workers and the labor movement.
Thanks to our meticulous preparation, the PRLBC was
successful. As all of you know, our presentation to PEB
242 was spectacular. The presentation by Tom Roth
blew the competition away. Roland Wilder presented a
flawless case to the very conservative panel. When the
presentations were over, the PEB members summoned
us to NMB offices to give the parties one last chance to
come to a voluntary agreement. Rail Labor took time to
meet and came up with a plan of action just incase the
carrier was finally willing to negotiate. The PEB’s meeting with Amtrak did not seem to take very long and
then they asked the Coalition to come into the conference room. It was our turn to reiterate the stance of
Rail Labor. When we entered the conference room the
PEB members informed us that Amtrak had refused to
meet and had left the building. The PEB members were
furious, and, to our benefit, their frustration showed
in their final report which we accepted and initialed in
the House of Labor, the AFL-CIO. The official signing
of the agreement would occur the following day and
took place at Amtrak’s offices in D.C. A very special
guest came into the room just as the signing was to
take place; our dear friend Senator Ted Kennedy came
in and told us all that we had done a tremendous job.
The Senator stated that we “lifted up the lives of the
men and women you represent, you gave them their
just due, you are the heroes who made this happen, not
me.” We all knew that Senator Kennedy had made it
abundantly clear to Amtrak that there would be no running to Congress to clean up the mess they themselves
had created. PEB 242 ensured that our members would
receive 100% of their back pay. The contract provides
for General Wage Increases (GWI) over the ten year
contract period as follows: July 2002 — 6.087%, July
2003 — 3%, July 2004 — 3.25%, July 2005 — 2.5%,
July 2006 — 3%, July 2007 — 3%, July 2008 — 4%,
July 2009 — 4.5%.
We have recently served our Sections 6 notices and have
agreed to initiate this process as a Bargaining Coalition
once again. We continue to have a host of serious issues
that bombard Managers and Labor Relations Officers.
Unfortunately, Amtrak may never change their stripes
and continue the same practices that got them into this
mess in the first place. As a good friend once told me
“you can’t fix stupid” but I will be there every step of
the way to ensure that our members receive their due.
Balfour Beatty
They are one of our two contractors under the NLRA
that performs signal work on short line railroads and
commuter agencies. In January of 2008 we entered into
a 3-year agreement that gave a 3% increases affective
on January 1, 2008; January 1, 2009; and January 1,
2010. We will be serving our notice to negotiate this
year. President Pickett appointed Mark Ciurej as acting
General Chairman on this property.
Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)
On LIRR we represent all Signal and Communication
workers on the property. We currently have an agreement in place that provides for some of the richest
benefits in the United States, all of us should be proud
of the members on this property for setting the bar so
high. The members on LIRR have seen an increase
in membership like no other. Much of this is due to
the hard work of the General Chairman and Officers,
together they have gone to Capitol Hill and secured
funding for many projects that deal with Homeland
Security and growing the infrastructure of LIRR. Our
members are currently under an agreement from 2008
– 2010 that gave them a 4% increase, 3.5% increase,
and 3% increase in wages, respectively. We have formed
a bargaining coalition on LIRR, served our Section 6
notices, and have had our first meeting on the property.
Our coalition consists of the BRS, IBEW, IAM, and
the IRSA. Much of our time has been spent beating
back the unfounded attacks of the Railroad Retirement
Disability benefits. A scathing article was published in
the New York newspapers detailing the alleged “handing out” of benefits by the Railroad Retirement Board
to members who were not disabled. After a lengthy
review by the GAO, the New York State Attorney
General and an additional review of some 400 LIRR
disability annuitants, there was nothing found to be
inconstant with the long time policies and procedure of
the Railroad Retirement Board. President Pickett, who
is the Chairman of the CRLO Retirement Committee,
set up a meeting with all of the General Committee
Officers represented on LIRR to brief them of the circumstances surrounding this tragic, unjust, and almost
criminal accusations made by the New York newspapers. President Pickett and I were invited by the LIRR
General Committee to take a tour of a new project
called “East Side Access” that will connect Long Island,
NY, to Manhattan, NY, by using a LIRR train. This
39
will cut travel times by more than 40 minutes a day.
The tunnels, four in all, will connect into the historic
Grand Central Station and open up a world of possibilities for commuters coming in and out of New York
from Long Island.
Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad (MBCR)
This property was formally run by Amtrak through an
agreement with the State of Massachusetts to run commuter services in the Boston metropolitan area. MBCR
is a conglomerate made up of investors who petitioned
to be a carrier and were approved. The uniqueness of
having a contractor apply and receiving status as a carrier brings with it many benefits and securities that
would not have been possible otherwise. As many of
you know, a carrier provides Railroad Retirement benefits, protection under the Railway Labor Act, in this
case FELA, and a host of other benefits to our members. In today’s market place where states are looking
for the lowest bid for a vital and safety sensitive industry, MBCR does allow us the safety of being under the
carrier umbrella. While all of this should promote a
good working relationship, it has been no bed of roses
with MBCR, including expansion projects that brought
contractors on the property that ultimately had to be
cleaned up by our members.
The BRS helped form a coalition representing 12 Rail
Labor Organizations, and I am the spokesperson for the
coalition called the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail
Labor Bargaining Coalition (MBCRLBC). The collision members all filed and received mediation together;
this took place after President Obama had appointed
the additional Democratic appointee to the NMB,
Board. The new NMB Board Member’s name is Linda
Puchala, a former union President. We have gone two
years without coming to terms on this property. The
carrier continues to stall all aspects of the negotiations.
MBCR has made it clear that they are against coalition
bargaining and expressed this position to the NMB
who responded to MBCR by telling them to negotiate
with the coalitions. We are meeting in the very near
future and are hopeful that by the time you read this at
the convention you will be hearing about our new ratified agreement.
Metra
We have been very active on Metra, this property and
our Local 183 still holds the BRS in 1st place for the
most cases of discipline and claims. Now this is no
small feat, this property touts itself as a Labor-friendly
property. It has a true labor management committee
40
that just celebrated its 25th anniversary. This is what
makes it unique, they have a true labor management
committee and continue to hold the award for the most
cases sent to Grand Lodge for handling. Just think what
could happen if we did not have a labor management
committee in place, the possibilities are endless.
During this period, we were able to negotiate an agreement on January 17, 2008, that will be amendable
on or after April 1, 2012. The agreement allowed for
one of two options. The unions could select to be paid
more in percentage increases and pay a minimal Health
and Welfare (H&W) contribution or to accept less in
percentage increases with no H&W contribution. Our
members ratified an agreement with the higher wage
increases and the minimal H&W contribution. The
package included GWI on June 30, 2008, 2.0%; July
1, 2009, 3.0%; July 1, 2010, 3%; July 1, 2011, 3.5%;
and July 1, 2012, 3.5%. This agreement allowed for
improvements that were valuable to both Metra and the
Union members.
Recently, long standing Director of Labor Relations
Mike Nielson retired. Mike was a man of his word and
always fought for labor when we convinced him our
members had been wronged. We will miss his integrity.
The person who replaced Mike is no stranger to the
BRS. It is Jeff Barton, a former Officer of this Union.
Besides the enormous amount of claims, discipline, and
day-to-day disputes, we have had some interesting outof-the-box issues to deal with on this property. Take for
instance the agreement we reached on a vacation relief
position, we negotiated long and hard to clear up ambiguities in the past agreement to make it clear as to what
shift, rate to pay, days off, how to calculate the monthly
rates, etc., only to find that the carrier decided that
before they are required to pay a penalty payment they
decide to lay in the vacation relief man, under pay but
not working on his relief assignment in order as they say
“not to pay the penalty payment”. Another interesting
bit of trickery the carrier played was to audit back three
or more years the wages of many of the classifications
and allegedly found over payments and claimed that the
employees should have known they were being overpaid even though most of the rates were monthly rates
and some were vacation relief. When we asked if Metra
payroll systems could fix the alleged overpayments in
the future we were told, “the computer didn’t find these
issues we did an actual hand written audit.” The payroll
system is not capable of flagging issues such as incorrect
rates of pay or over payments. We asked if they were
going to update their system to correct this alleged error
in the near future. Their response was that there is no
money for upgrades. The good news is that General
Chairman Mike Owens and his Local Chairmen are
seasoned to handle these issues.
New Jersey Transit
What a ride it has been on this property. We have been
in mediation and made a settlement like no other for
the BRS. Our mediator on the property was a former
NMB Board Member Ernie DuBester. During our
negotiations and mediation, another craft settled an
agreement supposedly establishing a pattern. The negotiating committee put an agreement out to the membership but the agreement was rejected. After a great deal
of continued negotiations, we were able to find a way to
bring the first of its kind 1/52 agreement to our members. This allows our members to take all vacation days
allotted to them at 1/52 of last year’s Gross Earnings.
This was only possible because of the committees’ belief
in the 1/52 proposal and proper documentation that
proved the other Unions settlement for a work rule
change was an equivalent benefit of value and substance
to the one we fought for and received. The agreement
also brought wage increases of 19.5% over the life of
the agreement, increased the Supplemental Life insurance benefits to $50,000, increases in the Supplemental
Benefit Plan to NJT wages, and a snap forward provision that will bring the rates for the benefit up to those
being paid prior to serving our next section 6 notice.
We also agreed to use the Grievance Mediation as
adjusted to solve a number of outstanding disputes. We
are still dealing with Managers on the property who
continue to violate the agreement on a daily basis causing an additional back log of cases to be processed.
Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH)
Since my last report, we have negotiated a settlement
that the members then voted down. That did not stop
us from going back into negotiations and finally getting an agreement that the members voted to accept.
The agreement is a seven-year deal that will expire on
January 28, 2012. The details of the agreement are as
follow; the pension plan payments will increase to make
up for the very poor performance of many pension
plans and will help keep benefits at their current level.
The overall wage increases equal 21% over the term
of the agreement. We were finally successful in getting
language in a side letter that will secure our members
being involved in all of the new technology dealing with
Security Positive Train Stops and a host of new and
future technology that is going to come to PATH.
Posey
Posey is the other contractor that we represent who
installs signal and crossing systems across the United
States. We were able to come to terms on a three year
agreement with Posey and the members ratified the
agreement. The details of the agreement are as follows:
January 1, 2009, 2% increase; January 1, 2010, 2.5%;
January 1, 2011, 3%. Raised the per diem from $30 to
$39. There were no increases in the H&W contributions. The contract expires on December 31, 2011.
Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
We have had a number of outstanding issues including foul time; our members were being asked to foul
track to perform testing without the proper protections
in place. Training of members also continues to be an
ongoing dispute; the carrier refuses to comply with
the provisions of the agreement that clearly spell out
the procedure to follow. We served our Section 6 on
January 1, 2009, and have met a couple of times and
we are scheduled to meet again in April 2010. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
41
REGULAR CONVENTION
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) was created with the passage of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970. Its purpose is to protect the safety and health of the men and women in the
United States workplace.
The general duty of an employer under OSHA requires
that a worker be provided a place of employment which is
“Free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely
to cause death or serious physical harm.” If the workplace
is unsafe, OSHA is violated.
In addition to the federal railroad safety laws and regulations,
railroad workers are covered
under the various occupational
safety and health laws. The
OSHA law covers railroad
workers where another Federal Agency has not exercised
authority over the particular working condition involved.
Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the FRA
issued a rule or regulation over a specific working condition. If not, the OSHA laws are applicable.
It should always be kept in mind that all of the working
conditions of a railroad worker are subject either to the
railroad safety laws or the OSHA law. The intent is that
there should be no gaps in safety law coverage.
Amendments to the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) transferred authority for rail carrier employee whistleblower
protections to OSHA, and now include new rights and
42
remedies. These amendments include whistleblower
protection for rail carrier employees who request medical
attention
In the early 1970s, the Nations railroads challenged
OSHA’s right to enforce any of its safety regulations in
the railroad industry. During the middle 1970s the FRA
considered adopting the federal OSHA standards as FRA
standards. However, that rulemaking was terminated in
1978 and, instead, a Policy Statement was issued. That
document explained what FRA
considered to be within its jurisdiction, and what would continue to
be enforced by the Department of
Labor. OSHA should have jurisdiction over safety regulations and supply coverage where FRA regulations
fail to address a subject matter. In general, where the subject matter relates to operation safety (i.e. safe movement
of equipment over rails), the FRA will exercise its jurisdiction. All other aspects are enforceable by the Department
of Labor where the conditions are similar to those in any
other U.S. industry.
For more information on OSHA, FRSA or other employee whistleblower protection provisions, including copies of
the statutes and regulations, go to www.osha.gov. In Memoriam
JAMES KENNETH “JIM” YORK 1944–2006
Amtrak Eastern General Committee Chairman, Grand Lodge Trustee, and member of Local
102, James Kenneth “Jim” York. Brother York held the positions of Executive Assistant General
Chairman and later General Chairman for the United General Committee. Jim joined the BRS
when he was hired by the Penn Central Railroad in 1969, as an Assistant Signalman. During his
career, he also worked for Amtrak and Conrail.
VALENTINO JOSEPH “JOE” SARTINI, JR. 1920–2006
Valentino Joseph “Joe” Sartini, member of Local 77, retired in 1990 after 50 years of service with
Norfolk & Western Railroad. Brother Sartini began his railroad career in 1940, in the Roanoke
telegraph office of the Norfolk & Western. Joe served more than 34 years as an elected union
officer and served as the Norfolk Southern General Chairman for 26 years at the time of his retirement.
WALTER W. ALTUS, JR. 1922–2007
Retired BRS Vice President — NRAB, and member of Local 206, Walter W. Altus, Jr. Brother
Altus began his railroad career in 1946 with the Missouri Pacific Railroad as a signal helper. He
served as Local Chairman and Union Pacific General Committee Chairman before his appointment to Grand Lodge Representative in 1960. In 1970 Walter was elected to the office of Vice
President — NRAB.
AMBER MARIE YOUNG 1979–2008
Amber Young began her career with the BRS in 2004 and worked at the Grand Lodge in
Front Royal, Virginia, as receptionist until her passing. Amber enjoyed performing arts; acting, singing, and dancing. Always pleasant and polite, Amber was the first person you would
meet upon entering the BRS Grand Lodge. She greeted members and strangers alike with a
kind smile and a helpful attitude.
THOMAS A. KITE 1934–2008
Retired BRS General Chairman Thomas A. Kite. Brother Kite passed away on January 30,
2008. Brother Kite began his railroad career in 1958 and retired on June 20, 1996, after 38
years of service with the Hudson and Manhattan-PATH Railroad. Brother Kite served as a
General Chairman, Recording Financial-Secretary, and Local Committee Chairman.
WILLIAM T. PRITCHARD 1924–2010
Retired member of Local 77. Brother Pritchard retired in 1985 after 44 years of service with
the Norfolk & Western Railroad. Brother Pritchard was a Signal Maintainer at Harper, West
Virginia, at the time of his retirement. Brother Pritchard served as General Chairman for the
former Virginian Railroad.
GEORGE RUSSELL JONES 1931–2010
Retired member of Local 141. Brother Jones retired in 1993 after 43 years of service with
the Texas & Pacific; Missouri Pacific; and Union Pacific Railroads. Brother Jones was a
Maintenance Foreman at Fort Worth, Texas, at the time of his retirement. Brother Jones also
served as Recording Financial Secretary, Local Chairman, and General Chairman.
43
REGULAR CONVENTION
BRS Conventions, 1908–2010
44
1ST
Altoona, Pennsylvania
2ND
New York, New York
3RD
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
4TH
January 1908
26TH
New York, New York
August 1942
April 1908
27TH
Cleveland, Ohio
August 1944
August 1908
28TH
Jacksonville, Florida
August 1946
Buffalo, New York
June 1909
29TH
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
August 1948
5TH
New York, New York
June 1910
30TH
Hamilton, Ontario
August 1950
6TH
Boston, Massachusetts
June 1911
31ST
Los Angeles, California
August 1952
7TH
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
June 1912
32ND
Chicago, Illinois
August 1954
8TH
Detroit, Michigan
June 1913
33RD
Washington, D.C.
August 1956
9TH
Hazelwood, Pennsylvania
June 1914
34TH
Miami, Florida
August 1958
10TH
St. Thomas, Ontario
June 1915
35TH
Denver, Colorado
August 1961
11TH
Chicago, Illinois
June 1916
36TH
Montreal, Quebec
August 1964
12TH
New Haven, Connecticut
June 1917
37TH
Chicago, Illinois
August 1967
13TH
Baltimore, Maryland
June 1918
38TH
Las Vegas, Nevada
August 1970
14TH
Kansas City, Missouri
June 1919
39TH
New Orleans, Louisiana
15TH
Kansas City, Missouri
July 1920
40TH
Quebec City, Quebec
August 1976
16TH
Cincinnati, Ohio
October 1922
41ST
Chicago, Illinois
August 1979
17TH
St. Louis, Missouri
September 1924
42ND
San Francisco, California
August 1982
18TH
New York, New York
September 1926
43RD
Las Vegas, Nevada
August 1985
19TH
Chicago, Illinois
August 1928
44TH
Lake Buena Vista, Florida
July 1988
20TH
Denver, Colorado
August 1930
45TH
Las Vegas, Nevada
July 1991
21ST
Chicago, Illinois
August 1932
46TH
Las Vegas, Nevada
July 1994
22ND
Chicago, Illinois
August 1934
47TH
Cincinnati, Ohio
July 1998
23RD
Chicago, Illinois
August 1936
48TH
Las Vegas, Nevada
July 2002
24TH
Toronto, Ontario
August 1938
49TH
Las Vegas, Nevada
July 2006
25TH
Denver, Colorado
August 1940
50TH
Orlando, Florida
July 2010
July 1973
REGULAR CONVENTION
Grand Lodge Headquarters
The International Headquarters of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen is located at 917 Shenandoah Shores
Road in Front Royal, Virginia. The office building was
built in 2004, and is approximately 13,000 sq. ft.
The BRS International Headquarters office space is
divided into a large conference room, a small conference
room, ten individual offices, three secretarial areas, a
reference library, a lunch room, a mail room, a computer
room, a membership area, an archive room, storage
rooms, and closets.
The following officers and representatives occupy the
Brotherhood’s offices in Front Royal: International
President W. Dan Pickett, International SecretaryTreasurer Walt Barrows, International Vice President
— Headquarters Jerry Boles, Director of Research Kelly
Haley, and Grand Lodge Representatives Mark Ciurej,
and John Bragg. The headquarters staff includes Mr.
James Padilla, Executive Assistant to the International
President; Mrs. Cynthia Haley, Executive Assistant to
the International Secretary-Treasurer; Mr. Gene Moore,
BRS Accountant; Mrs. Teresa Embrey, Communications
Assistant to the President; and four staff personnel whose
responsibilities include arbitration, membership, reception and general office duties.
In addition to the Front Royal offices, the Brotherhood
rents office space in Washington, DC.; Denver, North
Carolina; Trenton, Kentucky; Spanish Fork, Utah;
Centreville, Virginia; and Bartlett, Illinois. International
Vice President George Jones and a part-time secretary are
assigned to the Spanish Fork, Utah, office. International
Vice President Floyd Mason and a part-time secretary are
The BRS Grand Lodge Headquarters is conveniently
located just 76 miles west of Washington, D.C.
assigned to the
Denver, North
Carolina,
office.
International
Vice President
Joe Mattingly
and a parttime secretary
are assigned to
the Trenton,
Kentucky,
office.
International
Vice President
Dennis Boston
and a parttime secretary
are assigned to
the Centreville,
Virginia, office
and National
Legislative
Director
Leonard
Parker is
assigned to the
Washington,
D.C., office.
This drawing by Brotherhood member M.C. Nead was
published in The Signalman’s Journal in the 1920s. At
that time a Grand Lodge buidling fund was started
with voluntary contributions. Reading Lodge No. 26
contributed one day’s pay for each of its members.
The archive
room remains an attraction to visitors and guests.
This room contains the original 1902 charter for the
Brotherhood’s first local lodge and the Brotherhood’s
1914 certificate of affiliation with the American
Federation of Labor. The BRS also displays historical
photos of BRS officers and mementos from various
conventions and meetings. Historical documents and
records, including Convention records, are maintained in
this office as well.
BRS officers and staff members are always pleased to
welcome members who take time to stop by, say hello,
and see the Brotherhood’s Front Royal headquarters. We
encourage the delegates of this 50th Regular Convention
to convey that message to members of their local lodges
upon returning home and while making reports on the
Convention in forthcoming meetings. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
45
LMA
N’S
JOU
PDAT
E
RNA
L
Bill
Clea
rs H
The H
ou
sed th se and
e
Act of Rail
ty bill 2008,
since
ouse
4th Q
and
uart
REGULAR CONVENTION
er 20
Sen
Official Publications
08
With
re
FRA gard to
co
is
certifi to establ nductor
for m cation of ish a prog certificati
co
in
on, th
ra
mon imum tr nductors m requ
e
a man
th
s
of en aining st with a iring
da
actm
contro te P
requ
an
os
en
itive
t of th dards wit iremen
rohibi l
Tr
hin 18 t
is legi
tion railroads ain Con
slatio
reatand in trol: R
muter
n.
eq
railroa tercit
uires
s to th
by
y
e w Decembe ds to im passenge all Class
ce la
I
plem
r and
here
r 31
w
muter intercity , 2015, on ent a PTC comd rest
pa
inhala railroads ssenge all main- system
o
r railr
line tr
oper
tion
po
oa
at
ha
ac
rted
e,
ds
zard
s.
ous m and whe and com k
the de . It also
re to
ater
in
electr ploymen cludes a ials are xic-byt
gr
trans
on
rail in ically co of variou ant pr
s
teg
nt
s
ate
NALMAN’S
RNAL
1st Quarter 2010
The Signalman’s Journal, the official publication of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, is now in its 88th
year of publication. The Journal strives to fulfill its original mandate to, “publish such information as will be
helpful and beneficial to the members of our craft.”
The BRS publications have been under the direction of two editors since the Convention in 2006.
Communications Director Kelly Haley took over the
editor’s responsibilities in 2001 and with his move to
Director of Research in 2009, relinquished the publishing duties associated with that position.
SiGNALMAN
Currently, Vice President Jerry Boles manages
JOURNAL ’S the day-to-day operations of the publications department along with his duties as Vice
President Headquarters. Brother Boles is also
responsible for the BRS web site.
THE
r 3
3rd Quarter 200
8
THE S
TH
IG
GNALM
MA
N’S
ALMLA
RNA
hat
att ca
vee bee
bbeee
URN
UR
NAL
N
DATE
4th Qu
arter 20
09
arter 20
1st Qu
trai
tra
ai
N’S JO
O
20
0ss,
s
EN
The Signalman’s Journal Update and The
Signalman’s Journal are published quarterly. The
BRS now produces and completes the layout
of all BRS publications in-house.
The move to in-house
production terminated
our association with GSB
Communications services,
resulting in a substantial savings in production costs.
is propo
sin
lookbac g a “continuo
k”
us
continuo — Under the
FR
us
hours of lookback: the A’s
uninterr
10
must be
upted res
period.
within
Th
t
period at is change would the 24-hour
reports least 10 hours start the 24-ho
s of Se
for duty.
be
S rvice
ur
“contin
In certai fore the emplo
ficantly
uo
yee
n circums
im
the 24-ho us lookback”
tances,
oS revisiopro
the past. ur period greate vision would the
ns
sta
09, and
In
r
the
cause ex the best case than 10 hours rt
piration
scenario
in
as a hu
period on
ge
of
, this wo
uld
ly 14 ho the employee
agemen
’s 24
urs after
t.
Addition
reporting -hour
all
ates tha
for duty.
receives y, if an off-du
t
ty signa
a
, such
l emplo
number call to report
yee
to
of
f-duty
lookbac hours later, the work a certai
n
k” condit
“c
our
hour pe
ion would ontinuous
rio
employee d to initiate 10 cause the 24
ts
hours be
extreme was notified to
for
ca
report for e the
interpret ses, the propo
sed 24-ho work. In
ation cou
barely mo
ld leave
ur
employee period
re than
theeir
four ho
ir 24-ho
urs to wo s with
ur pe
to go off
ff duty. riod expires an rk before
d cause
s them
Currentl
yy, two Ho
hat woul
S regula
ld ca
tor
availabble use a signal em y events exist
tim
plo
emplooye e to complete yee to run ou
t
their wo
e reach
es the ma
rk
alloweed
by
ximum — 1)
on-duty
expirrat law, either 12
ion of the
or
24-hour 16 hours, or
A200
period.
0 8 ma
de
no ch
merggenc
y provis anges to the
ion, wh
oyyee
3rd Quarter 2006dit s to extend the ich permits
ittional
4 hours ir on-duty
beyon
n when
an emerg d the 12en
6 hours
. The rai cy exists,
lroads uti
lize
vement
Act
ific
ficant iim of 2008
8
provem
e ts
ety-crit
itical em en
plooy-
N
SiGNALMAN’S
JOURNAL
THE
09
The printing of The Signalman’s
Journal Update and The
Signalman’s Journal are currently
being handled by Peake/DeLancey
Printers of Cheverly, Maryland.
Feature Journal articles include
photos and reports from the BRS
Convention, General Committee
meetings, Local meetings, and joint
and regional meetings. Also included
are reports on national and local negotiations,
federal legislation, court decisions affecting Signalmen and their families, Railroad
Retirement issues, and activities related to rail
safety, especially rail safety initiatives involving
the FRA.
terly publications.
The purpose of
the Washington
Report is to inform
and educate BRS
members regarding
political topics that
are important to
our craft and the
labor movement.
JERRY C. BOLES
Headquarters
Regular features
appearing in the
Journal include
the International President’s Column, the International
Secretary-Treasurer’s Column, the International Officers’
Directory, the (Insurance) Benefits Directory, a list of
BRS designated counsel in the FELA Directory, a listing
of Signalmen receiving service pins in the Continuous
Membership column, Obituaries, the AFL-CIO Do-Buy
and Don’t-Buy lists, and the Signalman’s Store. There have
also been occasional Journal features about the Union Plus
credit card, mortgage, and legal service programs available
to members. Member benefits regarding the Union Plus
program can be found on the web at www.unionplus.org.
The Signalman’s Journal continues to host an annual
photo contest, publishing photographs submitted by BRS
members depicting railroad scenes of signal equipment
and Signalmen at work. With the increasing popularity
of email, high-resolution digital cameras, and broadband
internet connections, more and more of the photo entries
are coming to us in file format over the Internet. All active
and retired members are encouraged to enter the popular
contest. Prizes for the winners of the annual contest continue to include merchandise and gift certificates to the
Signalman’s Store.
continu
ed on pa
ge 6
8
terr 200
aarrte
4th Quu
e and
s Hous
e
Senat
the
onn, th
i icatiion
or
or ceeerrttif
inngg
ucttor
rin
uirri
nd
nduuc
qquui
rrdd to cooon a pro
mennntt
aard
grrraam rreq eq
ogggra
irreeme
prog
uuiire
i h rreegaar
reqquuir
sh pr
sh
With
thh a req
wiith
eest
es abliish
s
o
to
t
tor
s
in
i
is
uc
t 18
th
A
RA
wiiith
onndd
on
FR
sw
ion of co ing
ttiion
tannndardds la
ficaatio
iioonn.
ion
ttio
ti
tiffi
in ng sta
cceerti
isslaati
ain
ai
gisl
gis
egi
leeg
his lleg
tthi
imuum tr eenntt of th
nim
n
mi
or
me
m
fo
for
tm
ss I
laaasss
of eenac
alll Cllas
rees all
ire
uiir
quir
monthhss
mReeqqu
coom
co
l: Re
rool:
ttro
ntr
ontr
er anndd
Coon
ge
ger
inn C
em
tem
te
tem
paassssseennng T
yyst
yssste
sys
C ssy
sitive Tra d int
rcciittyy pa
rci
errc
PTC
teeerc
nnte
int
ck
nt a PT
n in
ent
en
te Po ads annd
traack
me
m
e
em
le
l
ne tra
pl
p
ple
i
ine
in
l
--l ne
im
n-l
nninto im
railro
main
aall m
ooaaadds to
roa
n al
lrro
lr
iilr
on
ccomail
a
,
r
rai
5
5,
nd
n
r
1
15
an
a
er
e
ter
t
te
01
0
s
uute
20
d d
muut
oa
oadds
rroa
31, 2
ilro
ilr
ion m
-bbyy-mbbbeeerr 31
m
er rraail
er
iiccc-b
ice
ge
g
xi
xic
x
c
ce
ng
ox
o
ec
e
tox
to
t
e
se
s
De
D
e
sse
ss
s
re
y
as
a
er
b
by
p
whhheere
ity pa
ciit
ccit
rrci
eerrc
erc
anndd w
tter
te
nnte
ee,, an
te,
aannnssran
r
ra
tr
tra
t
ra
r
eerrree int
ere
era
e
er
e
he
h
pe
p
r
re
op
o
are
ar
a
wh
w
ia
ials
oaadds
oa
ria
hee
roa
rro
eri
llro
ter
iilr
atter
o the
aail
maate
am foorr
am
ram
teeerr rai
us m
grra
gra
uttter
ous
ogr
muuute
rdo
rrdddoou
ard
aar
nt pprog
aannt
rran
aw m
ie
ieess,
llaaw
ggiies
e law
iiooonn hhaaazz clu
ogie
og
log
ollo
aattion
es a gra
la
llat
des
hnolo
nhhaaala
eecchn
iinnh
inh
ttec
iinnclude
PTC te
aallso inc
est
rees
rres
It als
us PT
keess,
ake
iouus
iou
rak
brak
teeddd.. It
te
rtted
orrte
ort
t c bra
tic
ti
o vaario
por
po
ati
at
msss,,
m
meeennntt of
m
pneeuma nngg ssys
oyyym
loy
to
yssstteem
yyst
leedd pn
led
epllo
dep
rroollle
tro
thhhee de
the
rnnnii sy l
rni
oonntr
c
co
a
ar
y
wa
w
lly
l
d
.
all
a
al
s
s.
n
ca
c
n
o
ol
iic
rol
rro
niica
ttro
tr
ioon
ion
io
sio
roonnic
iooonn aan
ttro
cttr
ectio
leeccctr
te ccontr
elec
ele
otte
innnssspppeec
iins
moote
mo
em
e
y
rem
r
t
ty
i
it
,
rit
ri
r
s
ty
gri
g
r
rs
rs,
rit
r
ri
eg
o
tte
ttor
to
eggriity
integ
tteeg
icaato
integ
dic
di
aill in
ndic
rail
rai
ind
ind
ck in
riacck
prri
trrac
e ppri
tio
ti
tioon in
,
itio
it
s,
s
si
sit
s
es,
osi
o
es
ies
i
ie
ies
i
p
po
gie
gi
gi
gie
g
o
h
og
llog s.
ch
oollo
ttch
olo
iittc
hnoolo
witc
wi
hnool
ssw
chn
miiinntteecch
dm
cchh teeccchhn
Addm
tch
tc
itc
her tec
wiit
othe
weerr sw
w
yy,, andd oth
ppoow
al
ts
its
loggy,
log
nolo
siigggnnal
hno
ty is iit
ty
tecchhn
ideess sig
id
vvid
i tec
it
ovi
roov
Prrov
ds
ircuuuit
irc
forr ccir
for
m: P
xtteenndds
foorrm:
ffor
ttivveess fo
eefo
tt,, eexxt
nnti
nt
Reef
esst,
res
res
re
ce R
i
ic
l
vic
vi
v
a
rvi
rv
r
na
n
er
e
erv
o
io
i
S
Se
tio
t
ti
-S
it
ditio
edd
of
c nllllled
ss-of
s-o
olle
rsrrooll
ttro
th adddddit
th
ntr
ntr
lrooaaadd co
lr
with
Hoouuurrrs
rraailr
ws wi
ew
ccrrew
aiilai
on
ion
ioon
rdds to rai
rrds
tio
tti
itio
it
sit
eess rail
res
tr inn cre
ire
anddaaard
tan
h posi
sta
anndd ttra
re uir
iccee sst
viic
rvi
anndd req
s
erv
e
ser
an
lan
f-s
me
pla
tim
t
ti
-o
nt ns .
mbbboo
hours
lim
itss lim
nagggeeme oggra
m.
m
ram
e maaanna
s limit
on pro
tion
tractors, velop fatigu red
ion
educti
de
k red
vel posit
atory ris
roads to mand
a ds
cerr, ad
a n
law is
ffiice
h
e
off
ce
gh
ic
i
ou
rvi
thr
d
-of-se
ecutive
tors, an n
the hours least 10 cons ffreight
y,
all
tio
ti
ifi
ific
so no
nsporta im- Spec d to require at -duty. Also,
de
for
off
urs-oftrategy lude amen upted hours red by the ho s they
inc
uninterr ployee cove to work unles off,
gy must and
em
lled
er
railroad
ted hours
y be ca
e numb ties.
law ma 10 uninterrup
e
ali
vic
fat
ser
st
s and
period.
d at lea
have ha prior 24-hour
uired the
s of the
the
that req
al
provision
during
provision ing from the fin
en, the
e”
ent return
r Signalm
duty tim
ng stan- Fo hour of time sp nsidered “off
ini
tra
a- last
mum
be co
certific
call to
es
le
.
uir
ub
ted
tro
as; req
elimina
certific
has been
study on
l ees
NTION
REPORT
TION
O SP
SPE
S CIAL
AL REP
46
The Washington Report, highlighting the work
and progress of the BRS Legislative Department,
is featured twice quarterly, once in both quar-
The Signalman’s Journal is distributed to all active and
retired BRS members, numerous members of Congress,
other labor organizations, and railroad officials. The
Signalman’s Journal Update is sent to all active and retired
BRS members. Circulation has averaged 13,603 for the
Journal and 12,710 for the Journal Update since the last
convention, and is currently about 14,014 for the Journal
and 12,859 for the Journal Update. REGULAR CONVENTION
BRS Membership Report
After a six year decline that started in 2000, BRS membership grew during the first three years of the four-year
reporting period. For the first three years following the
2006 Convention, total membership, including fee
paying officials and dues exempt, grew from 9,462 to
10,280, an increase of 818. This was followed by a small
decline of 26 in the last year. The chart below graphs the
membership numbers by full dues paying members, fee
payers, and dues exempt. The growth of full dues paying
members is 729 members over the four-year period, or
an 8.7 percent increase.
Membership Per Capita Audits
To further improve membership reporting, audits on
local per capita reports were continued and are performed upon receipt of each per capita tax report. We
have continued our annual audits of membership records
using seniority rosters. Audits have proven to be very
valuable and are a necessary part of resolving underpayment or overpayment of per-capita tax to Grand Lodge.
Communications Between Members and
Financial Secretaries
While computer programs and auditing have improved
reporting, there is still concern that new signalmen are
being employed without being contacted and joining
the BRS. We have uncovered unreported membership
changes with our roster audits. While the local secretary is charged with tracking and reporting the status
of members in the local lodge, this
responsibility cannot be done by one
person. It requires effort on the part
of each member of the local lodge.
Lack of communication is the foun9462
dation of most membership reporting
problems. Members do not inform
9103
the local secretary when a change in
his status occurs. This is especially
8414
true when transfers take place.
Local officers and local chairmen are
encouraged to work to ensure that
communications are improved and
the local financial secretary is made
aware of membership status changes.
One important aspect of this communication need concerns new members.
Apr-06
In most instances, new signal employees are hired and go
to work on signal construction gangs. It has been strongly recommended that signal gang foremen be contacted
by the financial secretary and encouraged to report new
employees to the financial secretary, providing at the very
least the new employee’s name, home address, and social
security number.
Membership transfers remain a problem. With increased
construction territories, BRS members are more mobile
and, as a result, membership transfer from one local
lodge to another has increased. The Constitution provides for the transfer of members from one local lodge to
another to occur on the first day of the calendar quarter
following such a transfer. The transfer provision of the
Constitution does not eliminate the need for communication from a member when he or she transfers to
the jurisdiction of another local lodge. It remains the
member’s obligation to start the transfer process through
notification to his or her local financial secretary.
While we look for ways to improve membership reporting, good lines of communication between members and
the financial secretary are necessary.
Each delegate needs to report back to his or her local
lodge on the need for better communication between
officers, local chairmen, and members of the local lodge.
Only in this way will we stay better informed on the status of each BRS member. 10280
10254
9923
9896
9179
9143
Apr-09
Apr-10
10109
9754
9784
9414
9051
8687
Apr-07
Apr-08
Dues Exempt Members, Fee Payers & Active Full Dues
Active Full Dues & Fee Payers
Active Full Dues
47
REGULAR CONVENTION
Railroad Retirement Board
75th Anniversary
During 2010, the U.S.
Railroad Retirement
Board (RRB) will
observe the 75th anniversary of the enactment of the Railroad
Retirement Act of
1935. Part of President
Franklin Roosevelt’s New
Deal legislation, the Act
was signed into law on
August 29, 1935, and
the RRB made its first annuity payments 11 months later.
The 1935 Act was the cornerstone of the present railroad
retirement system. In addition to paying retirement and
survivor benefits to railroad employees and their families,
subsequent legislation also authorized the payment of
unemployment and sickness benefits to rail workers.
Since its inception, the RRB has paid $281 billion to
2,000,000 retired employees, 1,100,000 spouses, and
2,400,000 survivors; unemployment and sickness benefits
have totaled some $8 billion.
Benefits and Beneficiaries
During fiscal year 2009, benefit payments under the railroad retirement program totaled nearly $10.5 billion. Gross
unemployment and sickness benefit payments totaled $190
million and net benefits totaled some $159.8 million.
The number of beneficiaries on the retirement and survivor rolls on September 30, 2009, totaled about 552,000.
The average age annuity being paid by the RRB at the end
of fiscal year 2009 to career rail employees was $2,690 a
month and for all retired rail employees the average was
$2,125. The average age retirement benefit being paid
under social security was $1,160 a month. Spouse benefits
averaged $795 a month under railroad retirement compared to $555 under social security.
Because recent awards are based on higher average earnings, regular annuity awards for career railroad employees
retiring at the end of fiscal year 2009 averaged over $3,280
a month. Monthly benefits awarded to workers retiring
under social security at full retirement age averaged about
$1,625. If spouse benefits are added, the combined benefits
for the employee and spouse would approximate $4,550
under railroad retirement coverage, compared to $2,435
50
under social security.
Adding a supplemental
annuity to the railroad
family’s benefit increases
average total benefits
for current career rail
retirees to about $4,585
a month.
V.M. “Butch” Speakman
Survivor benefits awarded by the RRB at the
end of fiscal year 2009 to aged and disabled widows and
widowers of railroaders averaged approximately $1,725 a
month, compared to about $890 under social security.
Unemployment and sickness benefits under the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) were paid to almost
38,000 railroad employees during the benefit year from July
2008, through June 2009. Most received the maximum
daily benefit rate of $61. This amount increased to $64 for
the benefit year ending June 30, 2010, and will increase to
$66 on July 1, 2010, and remain $66 for the benefit year
beginning July 1, 2011.
Railroad Retirement Financing
RRB Financial Reports — The Board’s 24th triennial
actuarial valuation, submitted to Congress in June 2009,
was generally favorable, concluding that, barring a sudden,
unanticipated, large decrease in railroad employment, or
substantial investment losses, the railroad retirement system
will experience no cash-flow problems during the next 21
years. Cash-flow problems arise only under the Board’s
most pessimistic employment assumption, and even then
not until 2031. Like other financial reports over the last
decade, the 24th valuation also indicated that the long-term
stability of the system, under its current financial structure,
is still dependent on future railroad employment levels and
investment returns. No financing changes were recommended.
The Board’s 2009 railroad unemployment insurance financial report was also generally favorable. Even as projected
maximum benefit rates increase 43 percent from $61 to
$87 from 2008 to 2019, experience-based contribution
rates maintain solvency. While small, short-term cash-flow
problems may occur in 2010 and 2011, projections show
quick repayment of loans resulting from any shortfall, even
under the most pessimistic employment assumption. The
report also predicted average employer contribution rates
well below the maximum throughout the projection period.
A 1.5 percent surcharge, in effect in calendar year 2009, in
order to maintain a minimum account balance, remains in
effect in 2010, and will likely rise to 2.5 percent in 2011.
National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust — Funds
not needed immediately for benefit payments or administrative expenses are invested by the National Railroad
Retirement Investment Trust, which was established
pursuant to section 105 of the Railroad Retirement and
Survivors’ Improvement Act of 2001. The Act authorizes
the Trust to invest the assets of the Railroad Retirement
Account in a diversified investment portfolio in the same
manner as those of private sector retirement plans. Prior
to the Act, investment of Railroad Retirement Account
assets was limited to U.S. Government securities. The
sole purpose of the Trust is to manage and invest railroad
retirement assets and it has no powers or authority over the
administration of railroad retirement benefits. The Trust is
a tax-exempt entity independent from the Federal government, domiciled in and subject to the laws of the District
of Columbia.
The Trust initiated investment in private equities in
September 2002. As of September 30, 2009, total railroad
retirement system assets, comprising assets managed by the
Trust and the railroad retirement system accounts at the
Treasury, totaled almost $25 billion.
The RRB’s financial reports on the retirement and unemployment insurance systems are available in their entirety
on the agency’s web site at www.rrb.gov. Information on
the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust, including its quarterly and annual reports, is also available on the
site.
Customer Service Enhancements
The RRB has implemented a number of initiatives in
recent years to improve agency operations and better serve
its customers. These initiatives include:
Nationwide Toll-Free Service — In 2009 the RRB completed implementation of
a nationwide
toll-free telephone service
that provides
customers
with easy
access to all
field offices
by dialing a
single tollfree number
(1-877772-5772).
The system provides for the routing of phone calls from
one field office to another, based on logical business rules
and customer needs. This enhances the agency’s ability to
balance workloads and route calls to representatives who
can respond in the most timely and effective manner.
Through automated services available 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, customers can also call the toll-free number
to find the locations of RRB field offices, obtain information on unemployment and sickness benefits or statements
of creditable service and compensation, request a letter to
verify a current monthly benefit rate, secure a replacement
Medicare card, or request a replacement tax statement.
Document Imaging — In fiscal year 2009, the RRB completed the expansion of its document imaging system to
the agency’s field offices across the country. This technology
enables all 53 field offices to quickly access documents processed in those offices. The imaging network also provides
valuable support to the nationwide toll-free telephone service. It does this by providing documents online so staff in
any office can access them promptly, respond to telephone
inquiries, and provide better customer service. In addition,
new imaging servers and software were put into production
in 2009. This initiative, which entailed moving almost 14
million imaged files to the new equipment, will improve
reliability and response time while reducing storage costs.
Contact Log — The RRB has implemented an online
system to better manage customer contacts in its network
of field offices. The system, known as a contact log, is an
interactive database used to record real-time information
from customer contacts, primarily telephone calls. It replaces paper files and notes and is available to any customer
service agent across the country, both in the field and in the
agency’s Chicago headquarters. All representatives are able
to electronically record contacts or transactions completed
with customers in order to maintain a chronological service
history for each customer. Coupled with the toll-free system, the contact log gives the RRB much-needed management information about telephone call volumes and the
nature of those calls.
Internet Services
The RRB has continued to implement comprehensive
Internet services in order to expand access to information
and allow the railroad public to conduct its business with
the agency online. For labor and rail employers these services have included:
Employer Reporting System — This Internet service was
developed to allow labor and rail employers to file information related to the reporting of employee service and compensation data.
Employers can electronically file reports of compensation adjustments, records of employer determination on
51
employee protests, and their annual employee address
report used by the RRB for mailing certificates of service
months and compensation to rail employees. Employers
can also access a summary report of monthly and yearly
compensation adjustment totals which is solely available
online.
In fiscal year 2009, the RRB implemented an
additional service, known as ERSNet, which
allows employers to electronically provide
information to the RRB regarding
employees who have filed for unemployment or sickness insurance benefits
under the RUIA. Previously, employers
could only provide this information to
the agency by mail or fax.
Employers can access these services by
clicking on “Employer Online Services”
under the heading “Rail & Labor Employers” on
the home page of the RRB’s web site.
Services for rail employees have included the following:
Service and Compensation History — This online service
allows rail employees to access their individual railroad
retirement records of service months and compensation.
This electronic alternative does not replace the “Certificate
of Service Months and Compensation” (Form BA-6)
mailed to current employees each year, but makes the
same information readily available online for current and
former employees. In addition to providing a record of an
employee’s creditable railroad service and compensation as
reported by rail employers, these records include any service
months deemed by the RRB, the amount of any separation
allowance or severance payment that was subject to railroad
retirement taxes, and the cumulative amounts of railroad
retirement payroll taxes paid by the employee over and
above social security equivalent payroll taxes.
RUIAnet — Through the RRB’s RUIAnet system, railroad employees are able to file applications and claims for
unemployment benefits over the Internet. Applications are
automatically transferred to the agency’s RUIA mainframe
systems for review and approval by RRB staff.
Although claimants cannot file applications or biweekly
claims for railroad sickness benefits over the Internet, the
RRB is planning to add the online filing of sickness claims
in the future.
Employees can also access information about their individual railroad unemployment insurance account statements via
the Internet. These account statements provide a summary
of the unemployment and sickness benefits paid under the
RUIA to rail employees.
This service, called “RUIA Account Statement,” displays
the type and amount of an employee’s last five benefit
52
payments, the claim periods for which the payments were
made, and the dates that the payments were approved.
Employees can also confirm the RRB’s receipt of their latest
application or claim for unemployment or sickness benefits,
along with the receipt of any supplemental doctor’s statement required to continue the payment of sickness benefits. In addition, the service allows employees to view the
address currently on record for them and, if applicable,
their direct deposit information.
Retirement Planner — Another service is the
online Retirement Planner, which provides
employee and spouse estimates for employees
who have not yet retired under the Railroad
Retirement Act. The estimates are based on the
service and earnings records maintained by the
RRB and show the earliest date the employee can
receive a full annuity and, if applicable, the earliest date he or she can receive a reduced annuity. Only
railroad employees are allowed to access the Retirement
Planner, but employees can also use the service to get annuity estimates for their spouses. In addition, employees can
view and print a summary of their current record of railroad retirement service months, compensation, and social
security wages. By adding service months, compensation,
and wages in future years, they can also obtain an estimate
based on projected earnings.
To access Service and Compensation History, the services
under RUIAnet, or Retirement Planner, employees must
visit the RRB’s web site and click on “Benefit Online
Services” for directions on establishing an RRB Internet
Services account. At that time, to ensure security, they must
apply for a Password Request Code, which they will receive
by mail in about 7 to 10 days. Once employees establish
their online accounts, they will be able to access their
individual unemployment insurance account information,
as well as conduct other business with the RRB, over the
Internet. All railroaders are encouraged to establish online
accounts while still employed so the account is ready whenever they need to use these Internet services.
Pay.gov — RRB customers have the option of paying
certain bills from the agency through the Department of
the Treasury’s Pay.gov online payment system, rather than
through the mail.
Pay.gov enables individuals or businesses that have received
an overpayment letter, debt notice, or bill from the RRB to
securely pay that debt online.
Pay.gov processes collections electronically through the
Internet. It is accessible from any computer with Internet
access and allows customers to pay debts by debit/credit
card or to authorize a debit from their savings or checking
accounts.
RRB customers can access Pay.gov by visiting the RRB’s
web site and clicking on “Benefit Online Services.”
Beneficiaries should click on the “Pay Retirement or
Survivor Bill Online” link, and unemployment and
sickness insurance claimants should click on the “Pay
Unemployment or Sickness Bill Online” link. The links
will take them to a collection form hosted by Pay.gov. Each
RRB debt type will have its own form type on Pay.gov.
Once an RRB customer has entered the requested identifying information, he or she will be directed to a collection
form requesting credit card or bank account information.
RRBVision — The RRB’s online multimedia system,
RRBVision, allows visitors to the agency’s web site to view
video presentations with accompanying training materials,
such as slide programs or online screens. A number of topics of interest to rail employees, employers and retirees are
covered, including basic retirement eligibility, advance filing
of proofs for retirement, and how to file an application for
sickness benefits. Other presentations include instructions
on completing a variety of compensation forms, and navigating the web site to locate needed information.
RRB Strategic Plan
The RRB, like other Federal agencies, is required by the
Government Performance and Results Act to submit a
strategic plan to Congress and the Office of Management
and Budget outlining the agency’s mission and its general
goals and objectives. These plans cover a six-year period,
define how the agency will meet those goals and objectives,
and are updated every three years. The RRB’s most recent
Strategic Plan covers the years 2009-2014.
The plan includes two strategic goals, and for each goal
a number of objectives has been established to enable the
RRB to focus on achieving that goal.
The agency’s first strategic goal is to provide excellent customer service.
The RRB’s objectives under this goal are to pay benefits in
an accurate and timely manner while providing a range of
choices in service delivery methods and personalized attention. The agency aims to achieve this goal to a large extent
by expanding availability of online services and making
enhancements to its toll-free telephone system.
The agency’s second strategic goal is to serve as responsible
stewards for its customers’ trust funds and agency resources.
Under this goal, the RRB’s objectives are to ensure that
trust fund assets are projected, collected, recorded, and
reported appropriately; ensure the integrity of benefit programs; and ensure effectiveness, efficiency, and security of
operations. The agency will also treat its employees with
the respect they deserve and ensure that funds appropriated
for agency operations are used for the intended purposes.
A related effort is to effectively carry out the responsibilities of the RRB with respect to the National Railroad
Retirement Investment Trust. These responsibilities include
reviewing the Trust’s monthly reports, annual management
reports, and annual audit reports of its financial statements.
The RRB also has periodic meetings with the Trust’s leadership to fulfill its obligations in this area.
The agency will support these activities by effectively managing information technology to improve service and costeffectiveness; developing and implementing human capital
and succession plans to create a diverse, stable workforce
while maximizing employee performance and potential;
enhancing information security and financial reporting;
and effectively using competitive procurement to obtain
the best value in contracting and spending.
The RRB’s Strategic Plan will guide the agency as it continues its long and distinguished tradition of excellent customer service. In many instances, direct customer feedback
will shape planning efforts and enhance responsiveness as
the RRB attempts to maintain its customer service levels as
a standard of excellence within the Federal government.
The complete plan is available on the agency’s web site.
Customer Satisfaction Survey
The RRB’s most recent American Customer Satisfaction
Index (ACSI) survey was conducted in fiscal year 2009,
with the agency earning a score of 88. This was 19 points
higher than the latest Federal government average (69) and
6 points higher than the previous survey on the same segment. The ACSI survey focused on recent railroad retirees,
which is the largest component of the agency’s customer
base and was the very first group surveyed using the ACSI
approach in 2001. Results improved in all areas of measure
since that initial survey.
The survey found the RRB scoring highest (93) in the area
of customer service, as respondents praised the courtesy,
professionalism, and responsiveness of agency employees,
along with the accuracy of information provided. The
retirement application process received a score of 87, with
most respondents pleased with the guidance provided during the process. The RRB also earned a confidence index
score of 91 — up from 85 in the 2001 survey — indicating that its customers are very confident they will continue
to receive outstanding service in the future.
This marks the fifth time the RRB has participated in the
survey. In 2006, the agency earned a score of 85 in an
ACSI survey of railroad workers who were recently awarded disability benefits, and a score of 90 in a 2005 ACSI
survey that focused on its survivor benefit process. The
RRB also earned a score of 75 in a 2002 survey of railroad
unemployment and sickness benefit claimants, and a score
of 82 in the 2001 survey of recently retired railroad workers. The agency will conduct an ACSI survey of visitors to
its web site in fiscal year 2010. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
53
REGULAR CONVENTION
Agreement Status
The following summary reflects the status of working Agreements between employers and their BRSrepresented employees. This report notes whether there were any changes in the Agreements other
than changes in the wage and fringe benefit provisions. Wage and fringe benefit negotiations are
covered in other sections of this report. The date cited for each Agreement is the original date of the
working Agreement.
RAILROAD
Alton & Southern
Amtrak (Northern District)
Amtrak (Pacific Division)
Amtrak (Southern & Western Districts)
Atlanta & West Point —
Western Railway of Alabama (CSX)
Balfour Beatty Rail Systems Inc.
Baltimore & Ohio (CSX)
Baltimore & Ohio — Chicago Terminal (CSX)
Belt Railway Company of Chicago
Bessemer & Lake Erie
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Central of Georgia (NS)
Chesapeake & Ohio (CSX)
Chesapeake & Ohio — Pere Marquette (CSX)
Chicago, Central & Pacific
Clinchfield (CSX)
Conrail (Shared Assets)
CSX Northern
Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern
Delaware & Hudson
Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific
Elgin, Joliet & Eastern
Evansville Western Railway
Gateway Western
Grand Trunk Western
Idaho & Sedalia
Illinois Central
Indiana Harbor Belt
Kansas City Southern —
Louisiana & Arkansas
54
DATE
REMARKS
11-01-70
09-13-99
09-13-99
09-13-99
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
07-01-06
08-15-04
05-01-69
05-01-69
08-08-96
11-17-58
01-01-01
05-01-88
03-01-81
09-01-82
01-01-06
07-01-50
09-01-81
12-14-98
12-30-05
12-31-89
11-30-92
11-18-04
09-01-76
05-14-94
Obsolete
Minor revisions
Major revisions
Major revisions
Minor revisions
No revisions
Major revisions
No revisions
Major revisions
Major revisions
Minor revisions
Major revisions
Minor revisions
Major revisions
New Agreement Pending
Major revisions
No revisions
Obsolete
Major revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
08-01-92
Minor revisions
07-17-91
04-21-81
RAILROAD
Long Island
Louisville & Nashville (CSX)
L&N — C&EI (CSX)
Massachusetts Bay Commuter (MBCR)
Midsouth
Montana Rail Link
Monon (CSX)
New Orleans Public Belt
New Jersey Transit
Norfolk & Western (NS)
Northeast Illinois Regional
Commuter Rail Corporation (Metra)
Paducah & Louisville
Peoria & Pekins Union
Port Authority Trans Hudson (PATH)
Providence and Worcester
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac (RF&P)
Safetran Systems Corp.
St. Lawrence & Atlantic
Seaboard Coast Line (CSX)
Soo Line
Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
Southern (NS)
Southern Eastern Region North (NS)
Springfield Terminal
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
Texas Mexican
Union
Union Pacific Railroad
UP (MP-Communications)
Wheeling & Lake Erie (Signal)
Wheeling & Lake Erie (MofW)
Wheeling & Lake Erie (Locomotive/Mech)
Wisconsin Central
Worldwide Signal Systems Intl. Inc. (Posey)
DATE
REMARKS
12-05-89
02-01-67
05-01-45
07-01-03
05-02-86
10-20-87
09-01-49
01-16-63
01-16-83
10-01-57
Major revisions
Major revisions
Major revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
Major revisions
No revisions
Minor revisions
No revisions
03-01-84
09-01-89
07-01-60
01-28-00
06-12-74
10-01-72
04-27-05
05-19-89
07-01-95
01-01-86
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
No revisions
No revisions
No revisions
Major revisions
No revisions
No revisions
Major revisions
Major revisions
05-05-02
02-16-48
12-14-98
11-01-02
07-13-50
07-01-78
10-01-50
02-01-00
06-15-99
10-08-03
10-08-03
10-08-03
01-24-06
07-11-00
Minor revisions
No revisions
No revisions
New agreement
Minor revisions
Major revisions
Major revisions
Minor revisions
No revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
Minor revisions
55
REGULAR CONVENTION
The National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB)
was established in 1934 when Congress amended the
Railway Labor Act to establish a federally funded system for resolving minor disputes in the railroad industry. The NRAB, established under Section 3 of the Act,
was assigned as the final arbiter of “disputes between an
employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances or out of interpretation or
application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules,
or working conditions.”
Third Division
The Board consists of four divisions, which have jurisdiction over disputes involving employees from the specific crafts assigned to each respective division. Disputes
involving Signalmen are assigned to the Third Division.
The four divisions of the NRAB consist of 34 Board
members, 17 selected by the carriers, and 17 selected by
the rail labor organizations. The Third Division consists
of Designated Labor Representatives from the various
Labor Organizations and Carrier Representatives usually assigned from Labor Relations Department from
the various Carrier’s under the division jurisdiction.
The Third Division’s labor members include the BRS
International Vice President assigned to the NRAB.
The Railway Labor Act provides for the carrier and
labor members to be compensated by the parties they
represent. The administrative functions of the Board are
funded through the National Mediation Board (NMB)
and funding is subject to the Federal government budgeting process through the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
The NMB also compensates individuals assigned as
referees or neutral members of the Board. While carrier
and labor members of the Board have authority to issue
awards without the participation of a neutral member,
there are very few exceptions to the regular process of
cases becoming deadlocked and requiring a referee decision.
NRAB Jurisdiction
In accordance with the Railway Labor Act, the NRAB
has jurisdiction only in disputes which have been
handled through the normal claim and grievance
procedures at the local level. The “Uniform Rules of
56
Procedure” adopted by the NRAB along with the Rules
of Procedure “Circular No. 1” require that the Board
accept jurisdiction only when a case has been progressed
through the regular appeals process on the property
involved. This includes the requirement for the parties
to conduct a conference on the dispute and the employees to appeal to the highest officer designated by the
carrier.
The Board functions as an appellate body, whereby no
new evidence or testimony can be presented. The Board
is limited to addressing only arguments that have been
raised on the property. However, the members of the
Board have an obligation to consider any procedural
issues that may be contrary to the Railway Labor Act or
the Board’s Rules and Procedures. The Board is barred
from addressing the merits of a case if it finds that the
petitioning party has failed to comply with the Rules
and Procedures of the Board. These cases typically
receive an award indicating that the claim has been dismissed.
Unsettled disputes referred to the Board must include
a full statement of facts and any other supporting arguments and evidence pertaining to the case. Statements
are limited to matters which were addressed during
the local handling of the dispute. New arguments or
evidence not discussed and presented during local handling are barred from consideration.
As a result of the Board being considered an appellate
body, the Railway Labor Act stipulates that the awards
of the Board are considered final and binding upon the
parties.
Public Law Boards
In 1966, Congress passed Public Law 89456 amending
the Railway Labor Act in an effort to resolve an increasing backlog of undecided cases at the NRAB. This law
provided for the use of Special Boards of Adjustment
on individual railroads, commonly referred to as Public
Law Boards, to resolve disputes otherwise referable to
the NRAB. The objective of establishing Public Law
Boards was to provide either party the means of withdrawing a dispute which had been pending before the
Adjustment Board for 12 months from the date the
dispute (claim) was received by the Board.
Public Law Boards, which are established at the request
of either party in a dispute, include one member
assigned by the carrier and one assigned by the union.
Public Law Board matters involving BRS members
are handled through the office of the International
President, in accordance with Article III, Section 27 of
the BRS Constitution. The International Vice President
assigned to the NRAB serves as the BRS member on
most Public Law Boards involving Signalmen.
Public Law Boards, which are established by written
agreement by the parties, generally operate without the
rigid rules and formal procedures required for handling
cases at the NRAB. While the carrier member and labor
member of a Public Law Board are empowered to make
an award in a dispute, the Board is typically joined
by a referee who sits as the third member and renders
decisions based on the information presented. As with
awards from the National Railroad Adjustment Board,
Public Law Board awards are final and binding when
approved by not less than two members of that Board.
The carrier and labor members are compensated by the
parties they represent and the referee is compensated
by the NMB. Cases referred to Public Law Boards are
usually adjudicated on the line of road of the particular
carrier.
Special Boards of Adjustment
There are other disputes that do not fall under the
direct jurisdiction of the NRAB or PLB’s, and therefore,
Special Boards of Adjustment (SBA) are established
for the adjudication of disputes involving numerous employee protective provisions, i.e., the February
7, 1965 Agreement, the Washington Job Protection
Agreement, New York Dock Conditions, Oregon Short
Line Conditions, and Mendocino Coast Conditions.
Disputes arising from these provisions are adjudicated
at Arbitration Boards or Special Boards of Arbitration.
Unlike disputes that are handled at the NRAB or Public
Law Boards, the parties are required to equally finance
the cost of adjudicating those disputes, including salary
and expenses of the referee.
Appointment of Arbitrators
The appointment of arbitrators to adjudicate railroad
disputes in PLBs, SBAs, or at the NRAB is normally
accomplished by agreement between labor and management. The NMB, however, provides special regulations
for appointment to these positions as arbitrators are
considered Special Government Employees. If the parties cannot agree to a referee, the Railway Labor Act
provides a procedure for the NMB to appoint a referee.
The Railway Labor Act provides that if the parties so
agree, and the arbitrator named by the parties fulfills the
NMB’s requirements, the NMB authorizes the referee to
adjudicate the disputes. The referee’s expenses are paid
by the NMB based on government standards; the compensation for such service is currently $300.00 per day.
To be eligible for placement on the NMB’s roster of
arbitrators, an individual must have personally adjudicated and issued at least five written arbitration awards,
have 10 years of substantive experience in connection
with collective bargaining or labor agreement administration in the railroad and/or airline industries, or
demonstrated an exceptional understanding of labormanagement relations for at least 10 years.
The NMB recognizes arbitrators that are currently
members in good standing with the “National Academy
of Arbitrators.” The Academy is an organization comprised of arbitrators, whose principal goal is administering rules of conduct for arbitrators and providing
a forum for addressing new issues in the arbitration
industry.
The NMB also requires that any individual designated
as an arbitrator must be “wholly disinterested in the
controversy to be arbitrated and impartial and without bias as between the parties” and “must follow the
required code of ethics established under Subsection III
(a) of the NMB’s ‘Uniform Guidelines.’
There are several organizations that represent arbitrators:
the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the Society
of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR), the
National Academy of Arbitrators, and the Association of
Railroad Referees. These organizations provide a forum
for arbitrators to review current trends in arbitration and
provide training for referees, labor, and management
representatives involved in dispute resolution.
Currently there are approximately 400 individual arbitrators listed on the National Mediation Board’s roster.
However, a number of these individuals only handle airline disputes. During this reporting period, the NRAB
Third Division utilized the services of approximately
115 arbitrators. Because of the number of available
arbitrators compared to the work available, a number of
arbitrators also have careers as college professors, practicing attorneys, or lecturers and many hold permanent
assignments on private and public arbitration panels.
57
REGULAR CONVENTION
Amendments to the Railway Labor Act in 1966 authorized the use of special boards
of adjustment to handle disputes that would otherwise be referred to the National
Railroad Adjustment Board. The amendments provided for employees and individual carriers or groups of carriers to establish such boards on an individual craft basis.
Such boards are generally referred to as Public Law Boards.
Special Boards of Adjustment/Arbitration have also been established to handle
more specialized disputes. A number of agreements and Interstate Commerce
Commission/Surface Transportation Board orders resulting from carrier transactions
such as line sales, mergers, and abandonments include employee protective conditions and provisions for establishing committees to adjudicate disputes involving
application of those agreements and orders. The following summaries outline special
board activities during this reporting period:
Referee
SBA 605 (Open Board)
SBA 954 (BRS vs. NJT)
SBA 1139 (BRS vs. LIRR)
Gayle Gavin
James Conway
Public Law Boards
Referee
PLB 5622
PLB 6384
PLB 6459
PLB 6516
New — Charlotte Gold
New — Lisa Kohn
New — Margo Newman
New — Lisa Kohn
(BRS vs. NS)
(BRS vs. CSX)
(BRS vs. UP)
(BRS vs. BNSF)
Expedited Board
PLB 6525 (BRS vs. CSX)
PLB 6675 (BRS vs. PATH)
David Vaughn
Stephen Rosen
Public Law Boards
Referee
PLB 6683
PLB 6748
PLB 6785
PLB 6930
PLB 7070
PLB 7141
PLB 7262
PLB 7270
PLB 7313
Robert Douglas
Peter Meyers
Peter Meyers
Don Hampton
None Assigned
Janice Frankman
Roy Detwiler
Lisa Kohn
Gayle Gavin
(BRS vs. SEPTA)
(BRS vs. W&LE)
(BRS vs. IC)
(BRS vs. UP)
(BRS vs. NJT)
(BRS vs. CSX)
(BRS vs. CSX)
(BRS vs. UP)
(BRS vs. LIRR)
Special Boards of Arbitration
BRS vs. SafeTran
Section 3 Committee
The Section 3 Committee is comprised of labor and
management representatives from Class 1 freight railroads and commuter carriers. This Committee is charged
with the responsibility to provide input to the National
Mediation Board and implement guidelines for the
handling of disputes. The Committee made several suggestions regarding the handling of disputes between the
parties. The Committee reviewed the handling of cases
at the NRAB and established revised guidelines for case
progression. Instead of filing written submissions to the
Board the parties file electronic submissions. The arbitrator is required to submit his/her decision electronically.
This process reduces the total cost of copying thousands
and thousands of pages and also eliminated the cost of
mailing.
58
The Committee additionally established a six month time
limit for arbitrators to render a decision after hearing the
case. In most instances, the arbitrators have complied
with this rule, however, the NMB, during this reporting
period, essentially stopped all arbitration activity for three
to four months every year because of inadequate funding. The result of this shutdown required the NMB and
NRAB to work under a Continuing Resolution until
Congress passed a federal budget. During this period of
Continuing Resolution the number of cases presented to
arbitrators was severely limited. While a reduced number
of cases were presented during this time, the arbitrators
were not allowed any travel authority, and were limited in
the number of days to work during a given month. REGULAR CONVENTION
Case Handling Status
During the reporting period from January 1, 2006, through December
31, 2009, the NRAB Third Division issued 2569 final awards on disputes
involving Signalmen and the other crafts under the Division’s jurisdiction.
During the previous reporting period, the Third Division had issued 3371
awards.
During this reporting period, 599 BRS cases were added to the Third
Division docket. During the previous reporting period, 725 BRS cases
were submitted to the Board. The Board issued 268 final awards in BRS
cases during the 2006–2009 reporting period. Those awards closed the
record on cases docketed both before and during the past four years.
The following summary lists NRAB awards issued in final resolution of
BRS cases during this reporting period:
KEY TO DECISIONS: S — Sustained, S/P — Sustained in part, DS
— Dismissed, DN — Denied, WD — Withdrawn
AWARD
37673
37702
37703
37704
37705
37706
37707
37708
37709
37710
37711
37712
37713
37714
37722
37723
37724
37725
37726
37727
37728
37750
37751
37752
37753
37754
REFEREE
R.M. O’Brien
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
RAILROAD
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
KCS
KCS
KCS
UP
KCS
KCS
KCS
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
BNSF
CN(IC)
BNSF
BNSF
CSXT(C&O(CD))
ISSUE
An evasion of the rules
Construction vs. Maintenance
Based on seniority
Proper rate of pay
Seniority rosters
Seniority rosters
New technologies — systems
Contracting, signal work
Travel time
Travel time
Travel time
Transportation
Seniority, used for overtime
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Agreement Violation
Flagging crossings — Signalmen
Definition of Abolishment
25% of work load (Article 10B)
DECISION
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DS
DS
S
DN
DN
S/P
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
S
DN
59
60
AWARD
37755
37756
37766
37791
37792
37795
37796
37858
37859
37860
37861
37862
37863
37864
37865
37866
37867
37868
37869
37870
37871
37872
37873
37874
37875
37876
37877
37878
37879
37880
37881
37882
37883
37884
37885
37890
REFEREE
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Mason
James E. Mason
Marty E. Zusman
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Robert G. Richter
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
Marty E. Zusman
James E. Conway
RAILROAD
CSXT(L&N)
CSXT(B&O(CT))
UP
CSXT(B&O)
UP
BNSF
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
UP
UP
PanAm(ST)
PanAm(ST)
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
CSXT(B&O)
CSXT(B&O)
BNSF
CSXT(B&O)
CSXT(L&N)
BNSF
CSXT(SCL)
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
UP
37891
37892
37893
37894
37895
37896
37897
37898
37899
37900
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
James E. Conway
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
37905
James E. Mason
UP
ISSUE
DECISION
Proper employee not called
DN
Safety/carrier rules violation, effect of
S/P
Due process, entitled to
S/P
Vehicle accident
S/P
Failure to qualify
S
S/P
Dishonesty, effect of
W
Burden on Carrier to prove call made
DN
Covered work
DN
Carrier failed to allow
DN
Based on seniority
DS
DN
Fair and impartial, entitled to
DN
DN
Agreement Violation
DN
Agreement Violation
DN
Based on seniority
DN
Car retarder systems
DN
Absenteeism
DN
Discipline
DN
DN
new technologies — systems
DN
Based requirements of rule
DN
DN
Travel time
DN
DN
DS
Meals
DN
DS
Agreement Violation — overtime
DN
DN
Seniority, used for assignment to work
DN
DN
DN
DN
Assignment of vacation, union-management
DN
must cooperate (Article 4A)
Carrier officers performing signal work
DN
DN
DN
DN
Transportation
DN
DN
DN
Failed to make proper assignment
DN
Failure of proof by Carrier, effect of
DN
Carrier permitting outside parties to install
their equipment on property (contractors) DN
DN
AWARD
37906
37907
37908
37909
37910
37911
37912
37913
37914
37970
37971
37972
37973
37974
37975
37976
37977
37978
38002
38003
38004
38005
38006
38024
38035
38036
38037
38056
38057
38058
38074
REFEREE
James E. Mason
James E. Mason
James E. Mason
James E. Mason
James E. Mason
James E. Mason
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
John R. Binau
John R. Binau
John R. Binau
John R. Binau
John R. Binau
James E. Conway
Ann S. Kenis
Ann. S Kenis
Ann S. Kenis
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Danielle L. Hargrove
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
James E. Conway
RAILROAD
UP
UP
UP
CSXT(B&O)
CSXT(B&O)
CSXT(B&O)
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
BNSF
UP(TexMex)
UP(TexMex)
KCS
A&S
UP
UP
UP
UP
BNSF
PanAm(ST)
PanAm(ST)
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
38075
38084
James E. Mason
METRA(NIRC)
CSXT(L&N)
ISSUE
DECISION
DN
DN
Based on seniority
DN
Based on seniority
DN
Based on seniority
DN
Seniority lines/districts, restriction
DN
Proper rate of pay
S
DN
Brush cutting
DN
Work, within rule cannot be removed
DN
Failure to grant hearing
DN
Transportation
DN
Performing service/report to work
DN
DN
Change shift
DN
S
Qualifications, qualifying for vacation (Article I) S
Drug test — Positive
DN
S
DN
Necessary expenses
DN
DN
DS
Injury/accident (report), effect of
S
DN
Responsibility of employee, effect of
DN
Assignment denotes classification
DN
Seniority must be used (not regular assignee) S
Overtime
S
Seniority must be used (not regular assignee) S
Carrier permitting outside parties to install their
DN
equipment on property (contractors)
Absenteeism
DN
Losing work account of being required to work
DN
another position (reduced work week)
61
AWARD
38085
38094
38095
38096
38097
38098
38099
38100
38130
38220
38221
38222
38223
38227
38228
38251
38252
38353
38365
38366
38367
38368
38593
38700
38843
38850
38851
38944
38945
38946
38950
38961
38989
38992
38993
38994
38995
38996
38997
38999
39004
39005
39006
39007
39008
39022
39023
39024
39025
62
REFEREE
James E. Mason
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Sinclair Kossoff
Sinclair Kossoff
Sinclair Kossoff
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Elizabeth C. Wesman
Gerald E. Wallin
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Peter R. Meyers
Edwin Benn
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Sinclair Kossoff
Peter R. Meyers
Peter R. Meyers
Peter R. Meyers
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Peter R. Meyers
Peter R. Meyers
Peter R. Meyers
Peter R. Meyers
RAILROAD
CSXT(B&O)
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
CSXT(L&N)
UP
UP
CSXT(SCL)
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
KCS
UP
KCS(Midsouth)
KCS
CSXT(L&N)
CSXT(B&O)
LIRR(LI)
KCS
KCS
MBCR
MBCR
METRA(NIRC)
UP
CSXT(L&N)
UP
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
KCS
UP
UP
MBCR
CSXT(B&O)
UP
UP
UP
UP
CSXT(C&EI)
CSXT(C&EI)
UP
UP
ISSUE
DECISION
Assignment (when it is effective)
S/P
Burden on Carrier to prove call made
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
Necessary expenses
S
DS
DN
Other crafts — doing signal work
DN
S/P
Based on seniority
DN
Burden of proof, on carrier to prove charges S/P
Insubordination
DN
Burden of proof, on carrier to prove charges DN
DN
Overtime
DN
Assault/Fighting/Violence (treat of ), effect of S/P
Reprimand/letter in personal record
S
Absenteeism
DN
S/P
DN
S/P
Absenteeism
DN
Carrier officers performing signal work
DS
Monthly rated employee
W
W
DN
DN
Based on seniority
DN
Seniority, used for assignment to position DN
DN
Regularly assigned employee (duration)
DN
DN
DN
Conduct (on duty improper), effect of
DN
DN
Displacement
DN
Alcoholism, (see alcohol - drugs)
DN
Per diem
DN
overcoming disqualification
S/P
Seniority, used for assignment to position DN
Physical condition, effect of
DN
Physical condition, effect of
DN
DN
Working on another railroad, effect of
DN
Displacement
DN
DN
AWARD
39026
39142
39143
39144
39146
39148
39266
39280
39281
39282
39283
39284
39285
39286
39287
39312
39313
39314
39315
39318
39326
39327
39332
39360
39361
39362
39367
39368
39369
39370
39378
39379
39383
39384
39385
REFEREE
Peter R. Meyers
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Sinclair Kossoff
Edwin Benn
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Peter R. Meyers
Joan Parker
Joan Parker
Robert E. Peterson
Robert E. Peterson
Robert E. Peterson
Robert E. Peterson
Martin F. Scheinman
Dennis. J Campangna
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joan Parker
Martin W. Fingerhut
Joan Parker
Joan Parker
Dennis. J Campangna
Dennis. J Campangna
Joan Parker
Joan Parker
Joan Parker
RAILROAD
UP
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
UP
CSXT(B&O)
UP
BNSF
BNSF
KCS(GWWR)
UP
A&S
UP
UP
UP
CSXT(SCL)
UP
UP
BNSF
METRA(NIRC)
UP
UP
UP
UP
KCS
KCS
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
39386
39468
39469
39491
39492
39493
39494
39495
39496
39497
39498
39499
39507
Joan Parker
John R. Binau
John R. Binau
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Dennis. J Campangna
BNSF
UP
UP
METRA(NIRC)
METRA(NIRC)
METRA(NIRC)
METRA(NIRC)
METRA(NIRC)
METRA(NIRC)
UP
UP
UP
UP
ISSUE
DECISION
Necessary expenses
DN
Seniority rosters
DN
Availability, effect of
DN
Falsifying records/reports, effect of
S/P
DN
S/P
S/P
DN
Off-track vehicle
DN
Covered work
S
Carrier cannot arbitrarily abolish position DN
DN
Washington Job Protection Agreement (WJPA) DN
Carrier determines fitness and ability
DN
Based requirements of rule
DN
S/P
Proper rate of pay
DN
Displacement
DN
Classification
DN
Agreement by Supervisor Officer valid
S/P
Travel time
S/P
Meals
S/P
Seniority, used for assignment to work
S
Overtime
DN
DN
DN
Offer of settlement by Carrier effect of
DS
S
Proper rate of pay
DS
Weekend trips
DN
Attending investigation
DN
Disputed outcome
S
Noon meal
DN
Noon meal
DN
Arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable,
(fair trial)
DS
overcoming disqualification
DN
Digging, trenching, backfilling
DN
Working elsewhere, effect of
S
Based on seniority
DN
Based on seniority
DN
Travel time
S
Overtime
DN
Travel time
S
Absenteeism
DN
Overtime
DN
Overtime
DN
Seniority must be used (not regular assignee) DN
Work-off assignment
DN
63
64
AWARD
39508
REFEREE
Dennis. J Campangna
RAILROAD
UP
39509
39512
39513
39514
39515
39516
39604
39605
39606
39607
39608
39609
39650
39652
39653
39654
39655
39656
39657
39658
39659
39663
39664
39665
39668
39688
39689
39690
39691
39692
39700
39701
39702
39715
39716
39740
39742
39855
39856
39857
39858
39867
39868
39869
39870
39871
39872
Dennis. J Campangna
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Lisa. S Kohn
Joyce Klein
Joan Parker
Joan Parker
Joan Parker
Joan Parker
Martin F. Scheinman
Susan R. Brown
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Joan Parker
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Gerald E. Wallin
Susan R. Brown
Susan R. Brown
Susan R. Brown
Joyce Klein
Joyce Klein
Robert E. Peterson
Robert E. Peterson
Robert E. Peterson
Edwin Benn
Edwin Benn
Robert E. Peterson
J. Zimmerman
Steven M. Bierig
Steven M. Bierig
Steven M. Bierig
Susan R. Brown
Ann S. Kenis
Ann S. Kenis
Ann S. Kenis
Ann S. Kenis
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
METRA(NIRC)
METRA(NIRC)
METRA(NIRC)
METRA(NIRC)
EJ&E
MBCR
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
MBCR
METRA(NIRC)
UP
UP
UP
UP
CSXT(L&N)
CSXT(L&N)
CP(Soo)
MBCR
MBCR
MBCR
MBCR
UP
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
UP
UP
UP
UP
KCS
KCS
UP
UP
UP
UP
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
ISSUE
DECISION
Shunt wires: placed on track by other
S
than Signalmen
Officers, carrier doing signal work
DN
Proper rate of pay
DN
Proper rate of pay
DN
Rest days follow work week (days)
DN
Work, under the control of the carrier
DN
Assignment denotes classification
DN
Half time — off territory
DN
DN
Vehicle accident
S
Absenteeism
DN
Circumstantial evidence, effect of
S
Based on seniority
DN
DN
Work, under the control of the carrier
DS
DN
DN
DN
Burden of proof, on carrier to prove charges S/P
Failure to grant hearing
DN
DS
Actual expenses
DN
Proper rate of pay
DN
Rights dependent on agreement
DN
DN
Absenteeism
DN
DN
DN
DN
protest of seniority roster, time limits/etc.
S
DS
DN
Classification rules — do not restrict
DN
DN
Proper rate of pay
S/P
S
Non-signal work
DS
Estoppel
DN
S
DN
Proper rate of pay
DN
Holiday pay
DN
S/P
S/P
DN
Special rules — classification
DN
Absenteeism
DN
DN
AWARD
39873
39874
39875
39904
39905
39906
39907
39908
39916
39917
39918
39919
REFEREE
Ann S. Kenis
Ann S. Kenis
Ann S. Kenis
Steven M. Bierig
Steven M. Bierig
Steven M. Bierig
Steven M. Bierig
Steven M. Bierig
Ann S. Kenis
Ann S. Kenis
Ann S. Kenis
Ann S. Kenis
RAILROAD
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
A&S
BNSF
BNSF
KCS
KCS(GWWR)
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
39920
39960
40212
40220
40221
40222
Ann S. Kenis
Joan Parker
Dennis. J Campangna
Ann S. Kenis
Ann S. Kenis
Ann S. Kenis
BNSF
BELT
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
BNSF
ISSUE
DECISION
DN
Conduct (on duty improper), effect of
S/P
DN
DN
DN
Monthly rated employee
DN
Proper rate of pay
DN
Mitigating circumstances, effect of
DN
Falsifying records/reports, effect of
DN
Insubordination
DN
Being under influence of drugs/alcohol
S
major offense
Vehicle accident
DN
DN
S
Medical disqualification
DN
Failure to pass test
DN
DN
Group Insurance Program
The Brotherhood’s Group Insurance Program was initiated by the Grand Executive Council to provide an
opportunity for BRS members to obtain supplemental insurance coverage at group rates. The Insurance
Program currently provides access to a broad range of
coverage for selection by BRS members on an individual
basis.
Programs Sponsored by BRS
The BRS presently sponsors programs offered by two
companies, Union Labor Life Insurance Company
(ULLICO) and American Income Life Insurance (AIL).
The Grand Executive Council endorsed ULLICO in
1990 for the purpose of offering a life insurance program
to BRS members.
AIL was endorsed in 1993 by the Grand Executive
Council to provide a full range of programs, including
whole life, term insurance, disability income protection,
supplemental hospitalization, accidental hospitalization
and a vision maintenance program. Work is presently
underway to reintroduce these programs to BRS members.
The BRS incurs no expense in making the group insurance programs available and the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen, and its officers and representatives receive
no income from the plan administrators in connection
with the Brotherhood’s Group Insurance Program. Plan
administrators are directed to return any profits from the
programs to the individual participants.
Union Plus Insurance
Union Plus offers a variety of insurance products,
such as: Auto Insurance, UnionSecure Insurance, Pet
Insurance, and Retiree Insurance. Visit the Union
Plus website for more information on these programs
— www.unionplus.org.
Ongoing Program Evaluation
The BRS continues to monitor the quality and service
of the current plan administrators under the Program.
The Brotherhood also continues to evaluate the need for
making additional coverage available under the Program.
This monitoring and evaluation is meant to ensure
that Signalmen and their families participating in the
Program receive the best value for their investment
and know that the Program is responsive to the needs
expressed by BRS members. To that end, concerns
expressed by BRS members about AIL program administration have been addressed and will continue to be
closely monitored. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
65
REGULAR CONVENTION
Minor Disputes
Article 1, Section 64 of the Constitution outlines
the provisions for the handling of unsettled disputes
growing out of the interpretation and application of
BRS agreements. Section 64 provides that when a
General Committee (or in the absence of a General
Committee, the Local Grievance Committee) desires
to pursue further handling of a claim or grievance that is not settled on the property, such cases
are to be referred to the International President’s
office for review by a committee designated by the
International President for that purpose. In accordance with the Constitution, the review committee
is to include the General Chairman who forwarded
the case to the International President’s office,
and the International Vice President with jurisdiction over the property where the case originated.
During this reporting period, the International Vice
President assigned to Grand Lodge Headquarters has
served as the third member of the Committee.
During the last four years, a total of 814 unsettled
disputes were referred to the International President’s
office and the review committee. During the previous reporting period, 1,527 cases were forwarded
to the review committee. Over the past eight years,
the review committee has received an average of 293
cases per year. 66
The 814 cases received during this reporting period
were handled in the following manner:
Total cases designated for further handling........ 645
Cases docketed with NRAB .........................315
Cases docketed with PLBs ............................111
Cases docketed with SBAs ............................... 6
Cases handled under NLRA ............................ 4
Cases unassigned ............................................ 66
Cases held in abeyance .................................100
Cases pending docketing ................................ 43
Third party cases ................................................... 3
Total cases returned ............................................. 99
Cases settled ........................................................ 63
Cases withdrawn ................................................... 7
CONTRACT (CARRIER)
A&WP, Western Ry of Alabama (CSXT)
Alton and Southern Railway Co. (A&S)
Alton and Southern Railway Co. (UP)
Amtrak(New England) (NRPC)
Baltimore & Ohio (Chgo Term.) (CSXT)
Baltimore & Ohio (CSXT)
BELT (BELT)
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF)
C&EI Communications & Signal (CSXT)
C&O Pere Marquette (CSXT)
C&O, Chesapeake District (CSXT)
Central of Georgia (NS)
Clinchfield (CSXT)
Conrail Shared Assets (CR(SA))
CSXT Northern (CSXT)
Gateway Western (KCS)
Grand Trunk Western (CN)
Idaho & Sadalia (RCL)
Illinois Central (CN)
Kansas City Southern (KCS)
Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)
Louisville & Nashville (CSXT)
Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad (MBCR)
Midsouth Rail Corp. (KCS)
Montana Rail Link (MRL)
National Railroad Passenger Corp. (NRPC)
New Jersey Rail Transit Auth (NJT)
Norfolk & Western (NS)
Norfolk Southern (NS)
Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Rail Corp. (METRA)
NS Eastern Region North (NS)
Pan Am Railways (PanAm)
Providence & Worcester (P&W)
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac (CSXT)
SafeTran (SafeTran)
Seaboard Coast Line (CSXT)
Soo Line (CP)
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
Southern (NS)
Tex-Mex (KCS)
Union Pacific Railroad (UP)
W&LE(MofW) (W&LE)
W&LE(S&C) (W&LE)
TOTALS
2006
2007
2008
3
1
1
5
2009
1
6
1
8
25
7
2
1
1
1
2
1
13
6
5
7
1
2
1
3
1
2
6
6
1
20
1
1
4
4
5
2
10
1
17
2
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
11
1
2
9
1
3
4
4
2
22
3
6
2
6
1
15
25
4
4
1
45
1
3
3
3
5
7
31
1
1
3
6
3
12
7
6
2
5
3
7
1
6
5
4
5
5
36
10
3
140
2
55
1
1
48
178
265
192
179
67
BRS DESIGNATED COUNCIL
When Signalmen suffer a work-related injury or illness, BRS members or their families are encouraged to determine
their rights and benefits under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act before agreeing to any settlement with the railroad
employer. The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen has designated the attorneys listed in this directory to serve as qualified counsel for BRS members in employee injury cases covered by FELA.
Attorneys are listed by state and are designated to serve BRS members living or working in the general region of their
offices. Designation of FELA counsel is by authority of the BRS Executive Council only.
BRS members are encouraged to provide information regarding FELA cases, including criticism or commendations regarding the service of designated counsel, and information on injuries and settlements. This information, which will be used
in the continuing evaluation of this program, should be sent to W. Dan Pickett, International President, Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen, 917 Shenandoah Shores Road, Front Royal, VA 22630-6418.
ALABAMA
W.C. Tucker, Jr.
Petway & Tucker, LLC
510 Park Place Tower
2001 Park Place North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Tel. (205) 733-1595
800-365-1631
ARIZONA
Lloyd L. Rabb, III
The Rabb Penny Law Firm, PLLC
3320 North Campbell Avenue
Suite 150, Tucson, AZ 85719
Tel. (520) 888-6740
800-354-3352
www.rabbpenny.com
CALIFORNIA
John D. Gilbert
The Crow Law Firm
100 West Foothill Blvd., #201
San Dimas, CA 91773-1170
Tel. (909) 599-2295
800-499-9904
www.crowlaw.com
Jay A. Kaplan
Kaplan Law Corporation
1801 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 600,
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel. (310) 407-2265
800-552-7526
www.kaplanlawcorp.com
Frederick L. Nelson
Hildebrand, McLeod & Nelson
Westlake Building
350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
4th FL
Oakland, CA 94612-2006
Tel. (510) 451-6732
800-448-7575 (CA)
800-447-7500
COLORADO
John J. Rossi
Rossi Cox Vucinovich Flaskamp PC
3801 E. Florida Ave.
Suite 905
Denver, CO 80210-2500
Tel. (303) 759-3500
800-325-4014
www.rcvpc.com
10900 NE 8th Street
Suite 1122
Bellevue, WA 98004-4456
Tel. (425) 646-8004
(866) 357-RAIL (7245)
68
68
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Larry Mann
Alper & Mann, PC
9205 Redwood Ave.
Bethesda, MD 20817
Tel. (202) 298-9191
800-747-6266
FLORIDA
Alva A. Hollon, Jr.
Sams & Hollon, PA
9424 Baymeadows Rd.
Suite 160
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Tel. (904) 737-1995
800-327-4552
Howard A. Spier
Rossman, Baumberger,
Reboso, Spier & Connolly
Courthouse Tower
44 West Flagler Street
23rd Floor
Miami, FL 33130-1808
Tel. (305) 373-0708
(800) 775-6511
ILLINOIS
Frank W. Petro
Petro & Petro
100 N. LaSalle St.
Suite 1605
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel. (312) 332-9596
800-472-5729
Daniel J. Downes, P.C.
60 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel. (312) 781-1852
800-624-2121
www.dandownes.com
MARYLAND
P. Matthew Darby, LLP
Berman, Sobin, Gross,
Feldman & Darby, LLP
32 West Road
Suite 210
Towson, Maryland 21204
Tel. (410) 769-5400
800-248-3352
www.bsg-llp.com
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW MEXICO
TEXAS
Thornton & Naumes, LLP
100 Summer St.
30th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Tel. (617) 720-1333
800-431-4600
www.tenlaw.com
Youngdahl & Citti, PC
12621 Featherwood Drive
Suite 240
Houston, TX 77034
Tel. (281) 996-0750
866-996-0750
www.youngdahl.com
Jones, Granger,
Tramuto, & Halstead
www.jonesgranger.com
Robert T. Naumes
MICHIGAN
Arvin J. Pearlman
Pearlman & Pianin, PLLC
24725 W. 12-Mile Rd.
Suite 220
Southfield, MI 48034
Tel. (248) 356-5000
800-272-5400
www.pearlpi.com
MINNESOTA
Randal W. LeNeave
Hunegs, LeNeave
& Kvas, PA
900 Second Ave. S.
Suite 1650
Minneapolis, MN
55402-3339
Tel. (612) 339-4511
800-328-4340
www.hlklaw.com
Sara Youngdahl
NEW YORK
Michael Flynn
MISSOURI
Gene C. Napier
Hubbell Peak O’Neal
Napier & Leach
Union Station
30 West Pershing Road
Suite 350
Kansas City, MO
64108-2463
Tel. (816) 221-5666
800-821-5257
www.hubbellfirm.com
Drew C. Baebler
Bauer & Baebler, PC
1716 South Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63104-4049
Tel. (314) 241-7700
800-682-4529
www.raillaw.com
Brotherhood of
of Railroad
Railroad Signalmen
Signalmen —
— 2010
2010 Officers’
Officers’ Report
Report
Brotherhood
Robert M. Tramuto
10000 Memorial Dr., Suite 888
Houston, TX 77024
Tel. (713) 668-0230
800-231-3359 (TX)
Law Offices of Michael
Flynn, PLLC
1205 Franklin Ave.
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel. (516) 877-1234
866-877-3352
www.felaattorney.com
UTAH
OHIO
VIRGINIA
Andrew J. Thompson
Stege & Michelson Co. LPA
29225 Chagrin Blvd.
Suite 250
Cleveland, OH 44122
Tel. (216) 292-3400
800-321-1700
www.stege-law.com
Gregory T. Yaeger
Yaeger, Jungbauer
& Barczak, PLC
745 Kasota Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Tel. (612) 333-6371
800-435-7888
www.yjblaw.com
Weldon Granger
PENNSYLVANIA
Mitchell A. Kaye
Coffey, Kaye, Meyers & Olley
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 718
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Tel. (610) 668-9800
800-334-2500
Michael Y. Kleeman
Kleeman, Abloeser &
DiGiovanni, PC
1819 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Suite 350
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel. (215) 963-0187
800-221-5697
[email protected]
Mark T. Wade
The Wade Law Office, PC
901 Western Avenue
Suite 206
Pittsburgh, PA 15233
Tel. (412) 322-7200
877-262-8381
www.thewadelawoffice.com
Brent O. Hatch
Hatch, James & Dodge
10 West Broadway, Suite 400
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Tel. (801) 363-6363
800-574-6310
Willard J. Moody, Sr.
The Moody Law Firm, Inc.
500 Crawford St., Suite 300
Portsmouth, VA 23704
Tel. (757) 393-4093
800-368-1033
www.moodyrrlaw.com
C. Richard Cranwell
Cranwell, Moore & Emick, PLC
P.O. Box 11804
Roanoke, VA 24022-1804
Tel. (540) 344-1000
877-632-3352
www.cranwellmoorelaw.com
WASHINGTON
George A. Thornton
Thornton Mostul, PLLC
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3310
Seattle, WA 89104
Tel. (206) 621-0600
800-525-3352
See Colorado
REGULAR CONVENTION
Resolutions — 2006 Convention
In accordance with the provisions of Article I, Section 65
of the BRS Constitution, the 2006 Convention acted on
resolutions pertaining to national negotiations, including
proposals on working conditions, fringe benefits, employment security, and other collective bargaining issues.
The Convention also addressed proposals for action on
legislative matters and administration of Brotherhood
services. The Convention, in consideration of the report
of the Committee on Resolutions, acted on a total of four
resolutions. The following is a summary of the resolutions
(listed by the letters assigned at the 2006 Convention)
which were adopted by the Convention and the action
taken on these matters:
Resolution A — This resolution addressed the objective of having the Committee on Laws review the
Constitution and propose the amendments necessary
to bring the delegation to a more equal representation
of the membership at the next BRS Convention. The
resolution further stated that this was subject to adoption and approval by the General Chairmen and by
referendum vote of the membership. This resolution
was rejected because the Resolution Committee and
the delegates believed that Article 1, Section 136 of
the Constitution clearly identifies the procedures for
initiating a general referendum vote.
Resolution B — This resolution addressed the objective of allowing General Committees and Locals the
ability of designating legal counsel. This resolution was
rejected due to the delegates at the 47th Convention
passing a policy that would prohibit anyone who was
not designated to be in attendance at any BRS sanctioned meetings.
Resolution C — This resolution addressed the objective of sending a letter to John Amaya, President of
Dole Fresh Flowers, voicing BRS support for the
human rights of Columbian flower workers and to
recognize the right of these workers to form a union
and negotiate a contract. This resolution was passed.
Resolution D — This resolution addressed the objective of investigating all avenues to improve Signalmen’s
unemployment benefits. This matter remains on the
agenda for further handling. Union-Made for Union Members
The Union Plus benefits are brought to you by Union Privilege
Goodyear — Save up to 10% when you service your
car or buy tires.
Union Plus Car Rentals — Save up to 25% on car
rentals.
Theme Park Discounts — Save at parks including
Busch Gardens, Disneyland, Disney World, SeaWorld,
Six Flags, Universal Studios, and more.
Cruise Discounts — Save a minimum of 5% on
cruises anywhere in the world from Norwegian Cruise
Line.
AT&T Wireless Discounts — Save up to 10% on
cellular phone service with a unionized wireless phone
company.
Flowers — Save 20% when you send flowers.
Clothing Discounts — Buy union-made apparel and
save 5% to 10% on everything you buy.
Mortgage — Features include strike, layoff, and disability assistance.
Powell’s Online
Bookstore — This
unionized online
bookstore offers an
afforable selection of used and new books.
Dell Discounts — Discounts on computers and accessories.
Credit Card — Union endorsed credit card, with lowrate balance transfers, no annual fee.
Auto Insurance — Union Plus Insurance provides a
wide range of insurance protection.
Union Plus Scholarship — The Union Plus
Scholarship awards $150,000 annuallly to members,
their spouses, and their children.
Plus many more benefits.
For up-to-date program information, sign up for ENews at www.UnionPlus.org/Enews. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
69
REGULAR CONVENTION
General Counsel’s Report
CONVENTION REPORT OF — William L. Phillips
Following are the Brotherhood’s principal court and
government agency cases during the reporting period.
The affected General Committees are shown in parentheses. Unless otherwise noted, these cases are pending
as of 3/31/10.
Court rules often require a local attorney to participate
along with out-of-state counsel. Special thanks to the
following Designated Legal Counsel for their volunteer
service as Local Counsel during the reporting period:
Dick Cranwell, Gene Napier, Andy Thompson, and
Bob Tramuto.
Claims-Related Lawsuits
Claims-related lawsuits arise when an employer refuses
to arbitrate a claim or to comply with an arbitration
award, or when either side seeks to have an award set
aside.
BRS v. CSXT (L&N). Petition filed 8/09 in Chicago
federal court to enforce application of driver compensation award to held-in-abeyance claims.
BRS v. CSXT and IBEW (SE). Petition filed 1/04 in
Chicago federal court to set aside award that sustained
IBEW’s claim over replacement of data radio by a
Signal Maintainer. The Board had failed to notify the
BRS of the proceeding and refused to make the BRS
a party. The parties agreed that the dispute would be
referred to a new board with third-party participation
by the BRS, and the lawsuit was dismissed. Case closed.
BRS v. KCS (BNSF). Petition filed 3/09 in Kansas
City, Missouri, federal court to set aside Award NRAB
3-39361, holding that FRA safety regulation “justified”
use of GWR Maintainer to repair crossing on KCS territory. The court denied the petition. Case closed.
BRS v. Safetran (Safetran). Complaint filed 1/06 in
Louisville federal court to require Safetran to arbitrate
two dismissal claims. The parties settled the lawsuit and
the parties dismissed the case. Case closed.
Carriers v. BRS (all GCs in national handling).
Complaint filed 3/06 by six major carriers in D.C.
federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
requiring the BRS to negotiate certain work rules on
a national basis. Case dismissed pursuant to terms of
National Agreement. Case closed.
70
FMLA Litigation
(various RLA
GCs). Lawsuits
filed 11/03 by
BNSF in Dallas
federal court,
1/04 by CSXT
in Jacksonville
federal court,
and BMWE in
Chicago federal
court, arising from
carriers’ implementation of
WILLIAM L. PHILLIPS
FMLA policies
BRS General Counsel
requiring employees to substitute
paid leave, including vacation, for FMLA leave. The cases were consolidated in Chicago. On summary judgment, the court
rejected the carriers’ reliance on the FMLA to justify
their policies. The carriers’ appeal was rejected by a
three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
(Chicago) and again by all 11 active Circuit judges.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the carriers’ petition for further appeal. The parties then conducted a
“global” arbitration of FMLA issues under the National
Vacation and National Personal Leave Agreements. The
Board ruled that the carriers’ policies did violate the
Agreements, and that “qualified grievants are entitled to
receive a day’s pay at their then-obtaining straight-time
rates for each day that the carriers improperly required
substitution of FMLA leave for scheduled vacation time
or accrued but not-yet-scheduled personal leave days.”
Case closed.
IBEW v. CSXT and BRS (SE). Petition filed 8/04 in
Chicago federal court asking that award sustaining the
BRS’s claim over replacement of data radios be set aside
on the ground that IBEW’s participation was limited
to traditional third-party status. The court rejected
IBEW’s position and entered judgment confirming
the Award. The IBEW’s appeal was rejected by the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago). Case closed.
Duty of Fair Representation Lawsuit
Providing fair, good-faith, and nondiscriminatory representation, to each and every BRS-represented worker, is
in the best traditions of our Organization. Since 1998,
the case described below is the only lawsuit alleging
that the BRS violated the Duty of Fair Representation
(DFR). While one case is one case too many, the Grand
Lodge officers and the General Counsel congratulate
the Local and General Committee officers for their
efforts to avoid DFR exposure.
Mullet v. W&LE (NS). Complaint filed 4/06 in Akron
federal court alleging DFR breach by the BRS and
seeking damages from the carrier for unjust dismissal
of W&LE locomotive mechanic. W&LE tried to bring
the BRS into the case as a third-party defendant, but
the court granted the BRS’s motion to dismiss. Case
closed.
Major-Minor Lawsuits
Major-Minor lawsuits arise from actual or threatened
Carrier action that the Organization believes is forbidden by the Agreement. The Organization asks the court
to enjoin the Carrier from changing the Agreement
(major dispute). The Carrier asks the court to enjoin the
Organization from striking and to require arbitration
over the meaning of the Agreement (minor dispute).
BMWED and BRS v. BNSF and NMDOT (BNSF).
Lawsuit filed in 2006 in Albuquerque federal court
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief arising from
state’s plan to lease BNSF lines for commuter operations. The Organizations lost in the District Court and
again on appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
(Denver).
BRS v. ICG (IC). Complaint filed 7/07 in Chicago federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief arising from carrier’s proposed use of contractors to install
and maintain Joules retarder system at Johnston Yard,
Memphis. The parties resolved the dispute and the BRS
dismissed the case. Case closed.
BRS v. CSXT (L&N). Complaint filed 10/05 in
Chicago federal court seeking declaratory order and
injunction against contracting out of reconstruction
work on Pascagoula-New Orleans Line destroyed by
Hurricane Katrina. CSXT counterclaimed for a strike
injunction and the BRS moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The parties settled the dispute and dismissed
both the Complaint and Counterclaim. Case closed.
alleged threatened strike over subcontracting on former
Southern Ry. and (2) permanently enjoin the BRS from
ever striking NSR without advance written notice. The
BRS struck on the morning of 6/16/05. NSR immediately obtained a Temporary Restraining Order. The
subcontracting dispute was resolved by expedited arbitration. The court dismissed the lawsuit, giving NS ten
days to pursue the permanent strike injunction, but the
time passed without NS doing so. Case closed.
Other Cases
BRS v. C.T. Edwards (UP). Complaint filed 7/98 in
Robertson County, Texas, state court seeking recovery
of $66,616.80 in funds embezzled from SWGC and
Local Lodge 99 and $5,441.88 in expenses incurred
by SWGC. Judgment was entered against Edwards,
who also faced federal criminal charges that resulted
in jail time and an order to make monthly restitution.
Edwards died on 4/20/09. The BRS is working to
recover the balance of the judgment from his estate.
BRS v. Relco Locomotive. Unfair Labor Practice charges filed 10/09 with National Labor Relations Board
Minneapolis Regional Office arising from employee
discharges related to organizing campaign. The NLRB
General Counsel has issued a formal complaint.
Campbell v. Amtrak (AE and SNE). Racial discrimination class action filed 11/99 in D.C. federal court by
signalman Wayne Bailey, 73, other Amtrak employees
and BMWE General Committee against Amtrak, the
BRS and 14 other Amtrak unions.
Cooperative Rail Labor Cases (all RLA GCs). The BRS
collaborated with other Organizations in legal activities
such as comments to the NMB on proposed arbitration fees, comments to the STB on proposed rules for
Class II and III abandonments, a U.S. Supreme Court
brief challenging the NRAB’s denial of claims for an
Organization’s failure to include evidence of conferencing in the record, and comments to the NMB in support of ending its practice of counting non-votes as “no”
votes in representation elections.
Local 231 v. K.D. Gerber (NS). Complaint filed 10/05
in Tuscarawas County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas
seeking recovery of $24,856.05 and personal property
taken by former RFS through fraud, defalcation of fiduciary duty, and embezzlement. Judgment was entered
against Gerber, with the court retaining jurisdiction to
enforce an installment repayment agreement. NSR v. BRS (NS, SouJt, United). Complaint filed
6/14/05 in Roanoke Federal Court to (1) enjoin
71
REGULAR CONVENTION
National Legislation
CONVENTION REPORT OF — Leonard Parker, Jr., National Legislative Director
Amtrak
Appropriations
JANUARY 1, 2007 — S.294, Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2007, was introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). This
bill contains provisions that would fund Amtrak for
FY2009 through 2013. Funding levels would be $3.2
billion; $1.9 billion in annual appropriations, and $1.3
billion annually in bond authority. The bill would also
address improving the Northeast Corridor (NEC),
operating reforms, improvement in rail service, and
other provisions affecting Amtrak security and its board
of directors. Upon introduction, the bill is referred to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
MAY 22, 2007 — S.294 is reported out of the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, and is placed on the Senate Calendar
for consideration.
OCTOBER 30, 2007 — U. S. Senate passes S.294
as amended by a vote of 70 Yeas to 22 Nays. The bill
moves onto House for consideration
MAY 8, 2008 — H.R.6003, Passenger Rail Investment
and Improvement Act of 2008, was introduced by
Congressman James Oberstar (D-MN). This is a companion bill to S.294 containing the similar provisions.
Upon introduction, the bill is refered to the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
JUNE 5, 2008 — The House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure marks up H.R.6003.
The bill now moves on the U.S. House Floor for further consideration.
JUNE 11, 2008 — S.6003 is passed by the U.S.
House of Representatives by a vote of 311 Yeas to 104
Nays. The bill was sent to the Senate for consideration.
No further action was taken by the Senate in 2008,
subsequently the bill died when the 110 Congress
ended.
JULY 22, 2008 — On a motion to suspend the rules,
the House passes S.294 as amended by a voice vote.
Upon being passed by the House, the bill is referred
to committee to resolve differences. S.294 was stalled
72
before the August
recess of the 110th
Congress, and it
never made it to
a full conference
committee for
consideration.
The Senate
Committee on
Commerce,
Science, and
Transportation is
discharged of considering H.R.2095
LEONARD PARKER, JR.
by unanimous
National Legislative
consent. The
Director
Senate passes
H.R.2095 with
amendment by unanimous consent.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 — James Oberstar (D-MN)
on the House floor proposes to suspend the House
rules and agree to H.R.1492. H.R.1492 calls for the
U.S. House of Representatives to agree to H.R.2095,
as received from the Senate with amendment. After
debate, the House agrees by a two-thirds majority to
suspend the rules and agreed to the H.R.1492 with
amendment.
Antitrust
JANUARY 6, 2009 — S.146, Railroad Antitrust
Enforcement Act of 2009, was introduced by Senator
Herb Kohl (D-WI). The bill amends the Clayton Act
so that antitrust laws apply to all common carriers,
whether or not they have filed a rail carrier rate. Upon
introduction the bill was sent to the Senate Committee
on the Judiciary.
JANUARY 7, 2009 — H.R.233, Railroad Antitrust
Enforcement Act of 2009, was introduced by Tammy
Baldwin (D-WI). The bill amends the Clayton Act
so that antitrust laws apply to all common carriers,
whether or not they have filed a rail carrier rate. Upon
introductions, the bill was sent to both the Committee
on the Judiciary and the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
MARCH 18, 2009 — S.146, is reported out of the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary to the U.S. Senate
for consideration.
• To provide investments needed to increase economic
efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health.
JUNE 1, 2009 — S.146, is withdrawn for further consideration due to a more comprehensive bill being drafted in the Senate Commerce and Judiciary Committees.
A “Dear Colleague” letter is reproduced below.
• To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide longterm economic benefits.
U.S. SENATE —
WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 1, 2009.
Dear Colleagues: We wanted to let you know that we
have jointly decided to ask Senator Reid to withdraw
the pending cloture petition on S.146, the Railroad
Antitrust Enforcement Act. We share the common
goals of addressing the long-standing concerns of rail
shippers and making the rail industry more competitive.
The Commerce and Judiciary Committees intend to
work together on comprehensive rail competition legislation. We hope to shortly have a bipartisan package
that reforms the Surface Transportation Board and
repeals the railroads’ antitrust exemption available for
the consideration by the full Senate. We are working
on harmonizing our two efforts to produce a robust
reform package.
This is a high priority for both of us and we are absolutely committed to finding real solutions that can be
enacted into law this year.
Sincerely,
John D. Rockefeller, IV — Chairman, Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Herb Kohl — Chairman, Antitrust Subcommittee,
Judiciary Committee
SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 — The Judiciary Committee
holds a mark up hearing, and reports H.R.233 to
House for consideration. No further action has
occurred.
Economic Stimulus
JANUARY 25, 2009 — H.R.1, American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, was introduced by
Congressman Dave Obey (D-WI), Chairman of the
House Appropriations Committee. The purpose is the
following:
• To preserve and create jobs, and promote economic
recovery.
• To assist those most impacted by the recession.
• To stabilize State and local government budgets, in
order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential
services and counterproductive state and local tax
increases.
FEBRUARY 17, 2009 — H.R.1, The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, was signed
and passed into law by President Obama. H.R.1 provides $1.3 billion in capital grants for Amtrak to rebuild
and modernize infrastructure and equipment. No more
than 60% may be used on the Northeast Corridor.
In addition to providing funding for Amtrak, this bill
also calls for $8 billion in funding for High Speed Rail
Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service.
Employee Free Choice Act
The right to form a union is one of the basic tenets of
the labor movement. The right to organize and form
a union allows employees an opportunity to level the
playing field when it comes to wages, working conditions, and safety. All too often, those that try to form
unions are faced with harassment, intimidation, and
the possibility of termination by their employers. The
Employees Free Choice Act, if passed, will change
labor laws so that employees have the opportunity to
organize. The Act would amend the National Labor
Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations
Board to certify a bargaining representative without
directing an election if there is a majority of those bargaining unit employees, and there is no other individual
or organization currently certified as the exclusive representative. It contains provisions that expedite the development of initial collective bargaing agreements after
certification. In addition, the Employee Free Choice
Act provides enforcement, and increased penalties for
unfair labor practices during bargaining.
FEBRUARY 5, 2007 — H.R.800, Employee Free
Choice Act of 2007, was introduced by Congressman
George Miller (D-CA). Upon introduction, the bill was
sent to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
FEBRUARY 16, 2007 — H.R.800 is marked up by
the House Committee on Education and Labor, and
reported with amendments to the full House.
MARCH 1, 2007 — H.R.800 passes the full House by
73
a vote of 241 Yeas to 185 Nays. The bill moves on to
the Senate for further consideration.
MARCH 29, 2007 — S.1041, Employee Free Choice
Act of 2007, was introduced by Senator Edward M.
Kennedy (D-MA). Upon introduction, the bill was
sent to the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions. No further action was taken on
this bill.
JUNE 26, 2007 — H.R.800 stalled in the U.S. Senate
as result of a motion to invoke closure to consider the
bill did not receive a 3/5 vote. The cloture motion
received a vote of 51 Yeas to 48 Nays, and 1 not voting.
The bill did not progress, and died in the U.S. Senate.
MARCH 10, 2009 — H.R.1409, Employee Free
Choice Act of 2009, was introduced by Congressman
George Miller (D-CA). Upon introduction, the bill was
referred to the House Committee on Education and
Labor.
MARCH 10, 2009 — S.560, Employee Free Choice
Act of 2009, was introduced by Senator Edward
M. Kennedy (D-MA). Upon introduction, the bill
was referred to the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions. The bill is currently
awaiting further action by the Senate Committee.
APRIL 29, 2009 — H.R.1409 is referred to the House
Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on
Health, Employment, and Pensions. The bill is currently awaiting further action by the House Committee.
Healthcare
After years of debate, affordable health care is now
a reality. The Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, along with the Healthcare and Education
Reconciliation Act are the legislative vehicle with which
affordable health care was made possible. Both Acts
will provide for quality and affordable Healthcare for
all Americans; improvement of Medicare; prevention of chronic disease and improved public health;
an adequate health care workforce, transparency, and
program integrity; improvement to access to innovative
medical therapies; and revenue provisions. In addition,
this legislation will provide coverage to over 32 million
Americans. The bill also contains provisions that will
reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the next years.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 — H.R.3590, Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, was introduced by
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). Upon introduction, the bill was referred to the House Committee
on Ways and Means.
74
OCTOBER 8, 2009 — H.R.3590 passed the full
House on a motion to suspend the rules. The motion
to suspend the rules of the House and pass the bill as
agreed was approved by a vote of 416 Yeas to 0 Nays.
The bill was sent to the Senate for further consideration.
DECEMBER 24, 2009 –— H.R.3590 was passed by
the full Senate with amendment by a vote of 60 Yeas to
39 Nays. The bill was sent back to House in order to
resolve differences due to House amendment.
MARCH 17, 2010 — H.R.4872, Healthcare and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, was introduced
by Congressman John M. Spratt, Jr. (D-SC).
MARCH 21, 2010 — H.R.3950 The House received
the Senate-amended version of the bill, and by a vote of
219 Yeas to 212 Nays, the House agreed to the Senate
Amendments. The bill was cleared for the President.
MARCH 21, 2010 –— H.R.4872 is passed by the full
House by a vote of 220 Yeas to 211 Nays. The bill was
sent to the Senate for consideration.
MARCH 22, 2010 — H.R.3950 was signed by the
President of the United States and became Public Law
No. 111-148.
MARCH 25, 2010 — H.R.4872 is passed by the
Senate by a vote of 56 Yeas to 43 Nays. The bill is sent
back to the full House to vote on resolving the differences between the House and Senate version of the bill.
By a vote of 220 Yeas to 207 Nays, the House agreed
to the Senate version of the bill. The bill is now cleared
for the President’s signature.
MARCH 30, 2010 — H.R.4872 is signed by the
President of the United States.
Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing
Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings need improvements. It is the states responsibility to determine
what improvements are needed. States depend on
federal funding to make improvements which are
provided under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU) program, previously known as
“Section 130.”
APRIL 2, 2009 — S.791, the Surface Transportation
Safety Act of 2009, was introduced by Senator Max
Baucus (D-MT). The bill contains provisions to provide Section 130 funding of $220 million for each of
the fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Upon introduction, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works for further consideration.
APRIL 27, 2009 — H.R.2125, the Surface
Transportation Safety Act of 2009, was introduced
by Congressman Nick J. Rahall, II (D-WV). The
bill contains provisions to provide Section 130 funding of $220 million for each of the fiscal years 2010
through 2014. Upon introduction, the bill was referred
to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for further consideration.
APRIL 28, 2009 — H.R.2125 was referred to the
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit.
JULY 28, 2009 — H.R.3357, a bill to restore sums
to the Highway Trust Fund, and for other purposes,
was introduced by Congressman Charles B. Rangel
(D-NY). This bill contains provisions that allow for an
increase in the Highway Trust Fund Balance to $7 billion. The increase allows for sufficient funding of programs such as the “Section 130” program.
JULY 29, 2009 — H.R.3357 passes the House with
a 2/3 majority on a motion to suspend the rules by a
vote of 363 Yeas to 68 Nays.
JULY 30, 2009 — H.R.3357 passes the Senate by a
vote of 79 Yeas to 17 Nays.
AUGUST 7, 2009 — H.R.3357 is signed by President
Obama and becomes public law.
Rail Infrastructure
MAY 20, 2009 — H.R.2530, the Freight Rail
Economic Development Act of 2009, is introduced
by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). The bill
contains provisions that would direct the Secretary
of Transportation to make capital grants to Freight
Railroad, State, and Local Governments with rail
economic development projects. The bill focuses on
projects that construct freight rail switches and sidings.
The bill upon introduction, was sent to the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
MAY 21, 2009 — H.R.2530 is referred to the
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials for further consideration.
Railroad Retirement
APRIL 4, 2006 — H.R.5074, Railroad Retirement
Technical Improvement Act of 2006, was introduced
by Congressman Don Young (R-AK). This bill amends
the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 in order to repeal
provisions that would require the Railroad Retirement
Board to make agreements with nongovernmental
financial institutions so that they could serve as disbursing agents for annuity and death benefits, effectively
making the Secretary of Treasury the disbursing agent
for those benefits. Upon introduction the bill was
sent to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for further consideration.
MAY 25, 2006 — H.R.5483, Railroad Retirement
Disability Earnings Act, is introduced by Congressman
Don Young (R-AK). This bill contains provisions that
increase the earnings threshold to $700 from $400 for
the amount that individuals under retirement age can
earn while on disability. This amount is in line with
what is permitted under Social Security. Upon introduction, the bill was sent to the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
JULY 17, 2006 — H.R.5074 is marked up by
the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and it reported to the full House for
further action.
JULY 25, 2006 — H.R.5074 passes the full House
on a motion to suspend the rules. By a voice vote the
House suspended the rules of the House and passed
the bill. The bill was sent to the Senate, upon arrival
the bill was sent to Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 — H.R.5483 is marked
up by the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and it sent to the full House for consideration.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 — H.R.5074 — The Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
reports the bill out of committee to the full Senate.
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 — H.R.5074 is passed by the
Senate by unanimous consent, and is delivered to the
President.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 — H.R.5483 passes the full
House on a motion to suspend the rules by a voice
vote. The bill is sent to the Senate, where upon introduction of the bill, is sent to the Senate Committee on
Health, Eduction, Labor, and Pensions.
OCTOBER 6, 2006 — H.R.5074 is signed by the
President of the United States and becomes Public Law
No. 109-305.
75
DECEMBER 9, 2006 — H.R.5483 the Senate discharges the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions of responsibility of H.R 5483 by
unanimous consent. Upon discharge of the bill the full
Senate passes H.R.5483 by unanimous consent. The
bill is sent to the President for signature.
JANUARY 12, 2007 — H.R.5483 is signed by the
President of the United States, and becomes Public Law
No. 109-478.
Rail Safety
The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen has always
made rail safety a top priority in the legislative arena.
Ranging from Hours of Service laws to oversight and
enforcement of regulations, the BRS has led the way
along with Rail Labor to improve safety for all BRS
members, in addition to railroad and transit employees.
JANUARY 1, 2007 — H.R.1, Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007, was introduced by Congressman Bennie G.
Thompson (D-MS). H.R.1 contains provisions that
include mandatory security training for rail and transit
workers, strong whistleblower protections, dedicated
security funding for Amtrak, and programs for transit
and rail providers.
JANUARY 9, 2007 — H.R.1 passes the full House by
a recorded vote of 299 to 128 Nays. The bill moves on
to the Senate.
FEBRUARY 12, 2007 — H.R.985, Whistleblower
Protection Enhancement Act of 2007, was introduced
by Congressman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA). The bill
expands the types of whistleblower protections. Upon
introduction, the bill was referred to House Committee
on Oversight and Government, and the House
Committee on Armed Services.
FEBRUARY 13, 2007 — International President W.
Dan Pickett testifies before the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials about
fatigue in the rail industry. During his testimony,
President Pickett called for changes to the Hours of
Service Laws and for training to prevent fatigue accidents and incidents
MARCH 8, 2007 — H.R.1401, Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act of 2007, was introduced
by Congressman Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS).
This bill contains provisions that direct the Secretary
of Homeland Security to develop and implement a
National Strategy for Rail and Public Transportation
76
Security. Some provisions call for Amtrak to implement
name-based checks against terrorist watch lists, for
grants to Amtrak for fire and life-safety improvements
to tunnels. Upon consideration, the bill was referred
to the House Committee on Homeland Security,
and the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
MARCH 9, 2007 — H.R.985 is reported out of the
House Committee on Oversight and Government with
amendment, and is sent to full House for consideration. In addition, the House Committee on Armed
Services is discharged of responsibility of the bill.
MARCH 14, 2007 — H.R.985 is passed by the full
House by a vote of 331 Yeas to 94 Nays. The bill
moves on to the Senate, and is referred to the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. No further action was taken on this bill.
MARCH 22, 2007 — H.R.1401 is marked up by
the House Committee on Homeland Security, and is
reported with amendment to the full House. In addition, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure is discharged of responsibility of the bill.
MARCH 27, 2007 — H.R.1401 is passed by the full
House by a voice vote of 299 to 124 Nays. The bill
now moves on to the Senate
MARCH 28, 2007 — H.R.1401 is received in the
Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further
action was taken on this bill.
MAY 1, 2007 — H.R.2095, the Federal Railroad
Safety Improvement Act of 2007, is introduced by
Congressman James Oberstar (D-MN). This bill
contains provisions that affect the Federal Railroad
Administration, Hours of Service, Employee Sleeping
Quarters, Fatigue Management Plans, Regulatory
Authority, Employee Protections, Highway-Rail
Grade Crossings, Accident and Incident Reporting,
Enforcement and Civil Penalties, Safety Inspectors,
Positive Train Control, Certification of Conductors,
and Minimum Training Standards. Upon introduction, the bill was referred to the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
MAY 8, 2007 — International President W. Dan
Pickett testifies before the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on
Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials about rail
safety legislation. President Pickett testified in regards
to H.R.2095 amending the Hours of Service Law,
providing whistleblower protections, toll free reporting, criminal and civil penalities for grade crossing
violations, highway-rail grade crossing inventories, the
understaffing of the Federal Railroad Administration,
Positive Train Control systems, and minimum training
standards.
JULY 9, 2007 — H.R.1 passes the full Senate with
amendment by unanimous consent. The bill moves on
to conference committee.
JULY 26, 2007 — S.1889, Railroad Safety
Enhancement Act of 2007, is introduced by Senator
Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ). S.1889 contains provisions that provide authorization for FY2008–FY2013,
which include funding for railroad safety, including
the safe transportation of hazardous materials; research
and development; track safety; and rail security personal in DOT regional offices and Washington, D.C.
Upon introduction, the bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
JULY 27, 2007 — H.R.1 clears conference committee,
and is sent to the President of the United States.
AUGUST 3, 2007 — H.R.1 is signed by the President
of the United States, and becomes Public Law No. 110053.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 — H.R.2095 is marked
up by the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and reported to the full House for consideration.
OCTOBER 17, 2007 — H.R.2095 passes the U.S.
House of Representatives by a vote of 377 Yeas to 38
Nays. The bill is sent to U.S. Senate. Upon receipt,
the bill is delivered to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
MARCH 3, 2008 — S.1889 is marked up by the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, and reported to the full Senate. No further action was taken on this bill.
AUGUST 1, 2008 — The Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation is discharged
of considering H.R.2095 by unanimous consent. The
Senate passes H.R.2095 with amendment by unanimous consent.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 — James Oberstar (D-MN),
on the House floor, proposes to suspend the House
rules and agree to H.R.1492. H.R.1492 calls for the
U.S. House of Representatives to agree to H.R.2095,
as received from the Senate with amendment. After
debate, the House agrees by a two-thirds majority to
suspend the rules and agreed to the H.R.1492 with
amendment.
OCTOBER 1, 2008 — Senate resolves differences
between House and Senate versions of the Federal
Railroad Safety Improvement Act. By a vote of 74 Yeas
to 24 Nays, the bill is amended to resolve difference
between the House and Senate version. The bill moves
to the White House awaiting the President’s signature.
OCTOBER 16, 2008 — H.R.2095 is signed by the
President and becomes Public Law No. 110-432.
Transit Funding
MAY 8, 2007 — H.R.2206, the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, was introduced by Congressman David Obey (D-WI). This
bill contains provisions that provides grants to transit
agencies affected by Hurricane Katrina. Upon introduction, the bill was referred to House Committee on
Appropriations.
MAY 10, 2007 — H.R.2206 passes the U.S. House by
a vote of 221 Yeas to 205 Nays. The bill moves to the
Senate for consideration.
MAY 17, 2007 — H.R.2206 passes the Senate by voice
vote.
MAY 24, 2007 — H.R.2206 is signed by the President,
and becomes Public Law No: 110-28.
MAY 14, 2008 — H.R.6052, Saving Energy Through
Public Transportation Act of 2008, is introduced by
Congressman James L. Oberstar (D-MN). This bill
contains provisions to authorize $850 billion in funding for FY2008–FY2009. The bill helps transit systems
deal with rising fuel costs and provides greater access to
public transportation. Upon introduction, the bill was
referred to the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
JUNE 20, 2008 — H.R.6052 is marked up by
the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and reported to the full House for further consideration.
JUNE 26, 2008 — H.R.6052 passes the U.S. House of
Representatives by a vote of 322 Yeas to 98 Nays. The
bill was referred to the Senate for further consideration.
The bill never progressed and died in the Senate.
Transportation Appropriations
Amtrak Figures are for Operating
Grants and Capital & Debt
77
FY2007
FEBRUARY 6, 2006 — President Bush’s FY2007
budget called for $900 million in funding for Amtrak.
$500 million would be provided for capital costs, and
$400 million for operating costs in the form of discretionary grants. This is in stark contrast to the previous
year’s budget proposal of zero, which was an attempt to
bankrupt the nations only passenger rail transportation
system. Despite the increase in the President’s budget
for Amtrak, the Bush Administration continues in its
efforts to reform Amtrak’s structure. The $400 million
in discretionary grants are contingent on Amtrak management implementing reforms. These reforms include:
• Phasing out costly overnight trains and restructuring its train schedules to emphasize regular short
trips;
• Overhauling money-losing food and dining
services;
• Considering opportunities for competition, such as
contracting with non-Amtrak operators; and
• Addressing the imbalance of Amtrak’s labor costs
exceeding its ticket revenues.
It is clear that the Bush Administration’s desire is to
bankrupt Amtrak, and allow independent entities to
take over Amtrak’s operations.
MAY 25, 2006 — The House Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the Judiciary, District of
Columbia, and Independent Agencies bill for
FY2007. The transportation appropriations bill was
reported out of the subcommittee and sent to the full
Appropriations Committee for consideration.
JUNE 6, 2006 — The House Appropriations
Committee marks up the FY2007 Transportation,
Treasury, HUD, the Judiciary, District of Columbia,
and Independent Agencies bill, which provides $67.8
billion in funding for the Transportation, Treasury,
HUD, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and
Independent Agencies. Included in the bill is an allocation of $900 million for the continued operation of
Amtrak. $400 million of that funding is contingent on
Amtrak implementing reforms.
JUNE 9, 2006 — The House Appropriations
Committee sends the Transportation, Treasury, HUD,
the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent
Agencies bill to the House for consideration. The bill is
placed on the House calendar as H.R.5576.
78
JUNE 13, 2006 — Transportation and Infrastructure
Railroads Subcommittee Chairman, Steven LaTourette
(R-OH), introduces an amendment to H.R.5576. The
amendment provides for $1.4 billion in funding for
Amtrak. Of that $1.4 billion, the amendment calls for
$750 million for Amtrak’s operating costs, an increase
of $250 million from the President’s proposed budget
and the Appropriations Committee bill. In addition,
the amendment calls for $650 million in discretionary
grants, an increase of $250 million. The amendment
passes by a vote of 266 Yeas to 158 Nays.
JUNE 14, 2006 — The U.S. House of Representatives
passes H.R.5576, the Transportation, Treasury, HUD,
the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent
Agencies bill, by a vote of 406 Yeas to 22 Nays.
JUNE 15, 2006 — H.R.5576 is received by the Senate
and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee
for further consideration.
JULY 20, 2006 — The Senate Appropriations
Committee approved the FY2007 Transportation,
Treasurery, the Judiciary, HUD, and Related Agencies
bill as received from the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Committee recommendation for Amtrak funding
is $1.4 billion.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — Due to the Senate not
allocating sufficient floor time, the first of four continuing resolutions were passed by both the House
and Senate and signed into law by the President. A
Continuing Resolution is a legislative mechanism that
extends funding for departments and agencies. In this
case, funding would be available through November
17, 2006.
NOVEMBER 17, 2006 — A second Continuing
Resolution is passed by the House and Senate, and
signed into law by the President. Funding will continue
to be available to Departments and Agencies through
December 8, 2006.
DECEMBER 9, 2006 — A third Continuing
Resolution is passed by the House and Senate, and
signed into law by the President. Funding will continue
to be available to Departments and Agencies through
February 15, 2007.
FEBRUARY 2, 2007 — A fourth and final
Continuing Resolution is passed by the House and
Senate, and signed into law by the President. Funding
will continue to be available to Departments and
Agencies through September 30, 2007.
FY2008
FEBRUARY 8, 2007 — President Bush’s FY2008
Budget called for $900 million in funding for Amtrak,
but only to receive $800 million directly. $500 million
would be provided for capital costs, and $300 million
for operating costs. In addition, $100 million in capital
matching grants will be available to states for intercity
passenger rail projects.
FEBRUARY 8, 2007 — The Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Transportation, HUD, and Related
Agencies holds a hearing on the President’s FY2008
Budget Proposal. While this hearing addresses FY2008,
it is still a reality that FY2007 Transportation budget
proposal is still in limbo, and has not been resolved,
effectively freezing funding level for the transportation
industry.
FEBRUARY 28, 2007 — The Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Transportation, HUD, and Related
Agencies holds a hearing on Amtrak. Subcommittee
Chairman Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) stated that
Amtrak had increased ridership, but that there are some
reforms that make sense:
• Reforming the way the nation’s freight railroads dispatch Amtrak trains, so that the passengers have a
fighting chance to arrive on time;
• Reforming the way Amtrak compensates its
employees, so they can attract and retain the skilled
personnel they need; and
• Reforming the way the Bush Administration budgets for Amtrak’s needs, so that the Administration
and the Congress can focus together on truly modernizing the railroad rather than battling annually
over whether the railroad will be allowed to limp
into the next year.
JULY 11, 2007 — The House Committee on
Appropriations reported H.R.3074, the Transportation,
HUD, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2008
to the U.S. House for consideration. H.R.3074 calls for
$1.4 billion for Amtrak, of which $475 million is for
operating grants, and $925 million for capital and debt
service grants. This is $106 million above the FY2007
funding, and $600 million above the President’s budget
request.
JULY 16, 2007 — The Senate Appropriations
Committee reports S.1789 out of committee to the
Senate for consideration. S.1789 provides $1.37 billion
for Amtrak. $485 million will be provided for operating grants. $885 million will be provided for capital
and debt service grants. This is $76.45 million more
than FY2007.
JULY 24, 2007 — The U.S. House of Representatives
passes H.R.3074 by a vote of 268 Yeas to 153 Nays.
This House bill provides $1.4 billion for Amtrak, $975
million for capital and debt service, and $475 million
for operating grants. The bill now moves on to the
Senate for consideration.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 — The U.S. Senate passes
H.R.3074 by a vote of 88 Yeas to 7 Nays. The Senate
bill provides $1.37 billion for Amtrak, $885 million for
capital and debt service, and $485 million for operating
grants.
NOVEMBER 14, 2007 — The U.S House conference
committee for H.R.3074 agree to a final report by a
vote of 270 Yeas to 147 Nays. The conference report
calls for $475 million for Amtrak’s operating grants,
and $900 million for its capital and debt service. Total
conference funding for Amtrak is $1.375 billion. The
U.S. House conference report is sent to U.S. Senate for
further consideration.
DECEMBER 16, 2007 — In an effort to reach
agreement and finalize the FY2008 appropriations
bills, a consolidated appropriations bill was created to
complete the transportation appropriations process.
H.R.2765, The Consolidated Appropriations bill was
signed into law by President Bush, providing final
funding for Amtrak for FY2008 at $1.325 billion. Of
that amount, $475 million is for operating grants, and
$850 million for capital and debt services.
FY2009
FEBRUARY 4, 2008 — As with the President’s
FY2008 budget proposal funding for Amtrak has been
restricted once again. The President’s FY2009 Budget
calls for $900 million in funding for Amtrak, but only
to receive $800 million directly. $100 million in capital
matching grants will be available to States for intercity
passenger rail projects.
JULY 14, 2008 — The Senate Committee on
Appropriations reports S.3261, The Transportation,
HUD, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill 2009,
out of Committee to the Senate for consideration. The
Committee reports call for $1.55 billion for Amtrak;
$550 million will be provided for operating grants.
$1 billion will be provided for capital and debt service
grants. This is $225 million more than FY2008. In
addition, the Committee includes provisions calling
for sufficient funding so that Amtrak employees will
receive their back pay after the signing of labor contracts.
79
FEBRUARY 17, 2009 — H.R.1, The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, was signed
and passed into law by President Obama. H.R.1 provides $1.3 billion in capital grants for Amtrak to rebuild
and modernize infrastructure and equipment. No more
than 60% may be used on the Northeast Corridor.
In addition to providing funding for Amtrak, this bill
also calls for $8 billion in funding for High Speed Rail
Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service.
MARCH 11, 2009 — H.R.1105, The Omnibus
Appropriations Act of 2009, was signed into law by
President Obama. H.R.1105 provides $1.49 billion in
funding for Amtrak for FY2009 of which $550 million
in operating grants, and $940 million in capital and
debt service.
FY2010
FEBRUARY 26, 2009 — President Obama’s FY2010
Transportation Budget calls for approximately $1.48
billion in funding for Amtrak, of which $929.63 million would be provided for capital and debt service
grants, and $551.35 million for operating grants. In
addition, $1 billion is provided for High Speed and
Intercity Passenger Rail.
JULY 17, 2009 — The House Committee on
Appropriations reported H.R.3288, the Departments
of Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations
bill 2010, to the U.S. House of Representatives for
consideration. H.R.3288 provides $1.482 billion in
Amtrak funding, of which $929.625 million is for
capital grants and debt service, and $553.348 million
in operating grants. That is just over $7 million more
than last year.
JULY 23, 2009 — H.R.3288 passes the U.S. House
of Representatives by a vote of 256 Yeas to 168 Nays.
The bill now moves on to the U.S. Senate for
consideration, where it is referred to the Senate
Committee on Appropriations.
JULY 30, 2009 — The Senate Committee
on Appropriations reports H.R.3288, the
Departments of Transportation, and Housing
and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill, 2010, out of committee to
the Senate for consideration. The Committee
reports call for $1.554 billion for Amtrak, of
which $553.348 million will be provided for
operating grants, and $1.001 billion will be provided for capital and debt service grants. In addition, the report calls for $1.2 billion in capital
80
assistance for High Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity
Passenger Rail Service.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 — The U.S. Senate passes
H.R.3288 by a vote of 73 Yeas to 25 Nays. The Senate
bill provides approximately $1.555 billion for Amtrak,
of which approximately $1.002 billion is to be used
for capital and debt service, and $553.348 million for
operating grants. In addition, approximately $1.2 billion to be used for capital assistance for high speed rail
corridors and intercity passenger rail service. The bill
now moves on to conference committee.
DECEMBER 10, 2009 — By a vote of 221 Yeas to
202 Nays, the U.S. House approves the House conference committee report for H.R.3288.
DECEMBER 13, 2009 — By a vote of 57 Yeas to 35
Nays, the U.S. Senate approves the Senate conference
committee report for H.R.3288.
DECEMBER 16, 2009 — H.R.3288 is signed by
President Obama and becomes law providing final
funding for Amtrak for FY2010 at approximately
$1.565 billion. Of that amount, $563 million is for
operating grants, and approximately $1.002 billion for
capital and debt services. In addition, $2.5 billion is
available for capital assistance for high speed rail corridors and intercity passenger rail service.
FY2011
FEBRUARY 26, 2009 — President Obama’s FY2011
Transportation Budget calls for approximately $1.905
billion in funding for Amtrak, of which $1.313 billion
would be provided for capital and debt service grants,
and $592 million for operating grants. In addition,
$1 billion is provided for High Speed and Intercity
Passenger Rail. REGULAR CONVENTION
Legal Aid Program
Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA)
When on-the-job injuries or job related illnesses occur
in the railroad industry, employees are protected by the
Federal Employers’ Liability Act. This law, enacted in
1908, gives railroad employees the right to recover damages from their employer for such injuries or illnesses. In
many instances, damages for job-related injury or illness
can be recovered through an informal settlement process.
However, in many cases, employees have found it necessary to take legal action under the provisions of FELA in
order to secure just compensation.
While our nation’s railroads have an obligation to provide
a safe working environment and are liable for any injuries
and illnesses caused in part by their negligence, securing
proper compensation for job-related injuries and illnesses
has always been a challenge for Signalmen and other railroad workers. Meeting this challenge often requires professional assistance. Providing such assistance is the continuing purpose of the Brotherhood’s legal aid program.
Primary Goal
The legal aid program was initiated many years ago by
the Grand Executive Council. The primary goal of the
program is assisting BRS members and their families in
protecting their rights in on-duty, job-related injury and
illness cases. The Supreme Court has ruled that labor
unions have the right to advise their members on obtaining legal help in FELA cases.
Legal Aid Directory
The legal aid program provides a directory of experienced
and qualified attorneys who are recommended by the
BRS for assistance in handling railroad injury and illness
cases. Since most individuals seldom utilize the services
of legal counsel, especially in the highly specialized field
of railroad injury compensation, the BRS has developed
this directory of legal counsel. The directory lists strategically located BRS designated legal counsel throughout
the United States, and is distributed to assist members in
obtaining professional help.
Designated Assistance
The attorneys listed in the BRS directory are designated
by sole authority of the Grand Executive Council and
recommended as qualified counsel for members and their
families in employee injury cases covered under FELA.
These attorneys are listed by state and are designated to
provide services to Signalmen and their families residing
in the general regions of their offices.
Free Consultations
Designated FELA attorneys provide initial consultations for BRS members free of charge. They will also
provide advice on obtaining medical treatment, working
with railroad claim agents, and other critical questions
involved in any injury case. Designated FELA attorneys
have further agreed to provide advice on such matters
as wage continuation programs, “light duty” work programs, and other important considerations involved in
the handling of employee injury and illness cases.
FELA Education
In addition to providing assistance in injury and illness
cases, BRS designated counsel work to educate railroad
employees on their rights and responsibilities under
FELA. These designated attorneys and their representatives welcome the opportunity to address members at
Local Lodge and General Committee meetings. Meetings
attended by FELA counsel provide an excellent forum for
answering members’ questions on injury and illness cases
and for distributing pamphlets and other informational
material concerning FELA rights.
Specialized Help
Attorneys listed in the BRS directory are designated on
the basis of experience in the highly specialized field of
FELA litigation. These attorneys have demonstrated
active participation in legislative matters affecting railroad
workers, and they have shown a continuing commitment
to providing quality services to Signal employees and
their families.
The FELA directory is maintained on the basis of information received from BRS members regarding the handling of cases and the services provided by the designated
counsel. Designations are reviewed on a continuing basis.
The Grand Executive Council, as part of the BRS legal
aid program, conducts special meetings with designated
counsel to review FELA issues and discuss handling of
members’ cases.
For a current list of of the Brotherhood’s designated
FELA counsel please consult the BRS Designated
Counsel section contained on page 68 of this report. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
81
REGULAR CONVENTION
CONVENTION REPORT OF — Kelly A. Haley, Director of Research
The Director of Research Office has been under the
direction of two Grand Lodge Representatives since the
last Convention. Kelly Haley, who had been working
as the BRS Communications Director, was appointed
by President Pickett in January of 2008 to take over as
Director of Research when Tim DePaepe vacated that
position. DePaepe left the BRS when he accepted a
position with the National Transportation Safety Board
as a Railroad Accident Investigator.
Created by the Department of Transportation Act of
1966, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is an
agency under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of
Transportation. The FRA promotes and regulates safety
throughout the U.S. railroad system, conducts research
into equipment design and operating practices, and provides railroads with a range of loans and financial aid.
The FRA employs a total staff of about 850.
FRA Administrator
In December 2008, Clifford C. Eby was named acting
administrator, replacing Joseph H. Boardman, who took
over as head of Amtrak. Boardman headed the agency
since May 2005.
On April 29, 2009, the
United States Senate confirmed President Obama’s
nomination of Joe Szabo
as FRA Administrator.
Szabo is the first FRA
Administrator to be
chosen from the ranks
of railroad employment. Szabo began his
railroad career in 1976
with the Illinois Central
JOSEPH SZABO
Railroad as a switchman;
Federal Railroad
he most recently served
Administrator
as Illinois state legislative
director for the United
Transportation Union (UTU).
FRA Emergency Orders 2006–2009
Emergency Order 25, Notice No. 1 — Emergency
Order to Prevent Operation of Trains on Railroad
82
Bridge No. 29.11
of the Toledo,
Peoria, and
Western Railway.
The Federal
Railroad
Administration
(FRA) of the
United States
Department of
Transportation
(DOT) has determined that public
safety compels
KELLY HALEY
issuance of this
Director of Research
Emergency Order
requiring the
Toledo, Peoria, and Western Railway, which is a subsidiary of RailAmerica, Inc., to discontinue operation of
trains or other railroad on-track equipment on a railroad
bridge near the City of LaHogue, Illinois.
Because of the poor condition of the bridge, FRA concluded that use of the bridge posed an imminent and
unacceptable threat to public and employee safety.
Emergency Order 26, Notice No. 1 — Emergency
Order to Restrict On-Duty Railroad Operating
Employees’ Use of Cellular Telephones and Other
Distracting Electronic and Electrical Devices.
FRA clamps down on use of electronic devices by operating employees.
The Chatsworth train collision occurred on the afternoon of September 12, 2008, when a Union Pacific
freight train and a Metrolink commuter train collided
head-on on a single main track equipped with a Traffic
Control System (TCS) in the Chatsworth district
of Los Angeles, California. In the aftermath of that
tragic event, which is one of the most deadly passenger rail accidents in this nation’s history, the National
Transportation Safety Board reported that the Metrolink
engineer had sent and received dozens of text messages
during his duty tour. His last text message was sent
only seconds before the collision. The Federal Railroad
Administration responded by issuing Emergency Order
26, which severely restricts the use of cell phones and
other wireless communication and personal electronic
devices by operating crews.
requirements concerning self-propelled specialized maintenance equipment.
Emergency Order No. 26 went into effect on October
27, 2008. The Emergency Order governs operating
employees’ use of mobile telephones and other electronic
devices. The Order does not apply to non-operating personnel, and it does not restrict use of the railroad radio or
other approved wireless communications.
2007–03 — Recommends that owners of track carried
on one or more railroad bridges adopt safety practices to
prevent the deterioration of railroad bridges and reduce
the risk of casualties from train derailments caused by
structural failures of such bridges.
FRA Safety Advisories 2006–2009
2006–01 — Provides the industry additional information
on the potential catastrophic failure of certain railroad
freight car side frame castings manufactured by National
Castings of Mexico’s (NCM) Sahagun, Mexico, facility
and Buckeye Steel Castings’ (Buckeye) Columbus, Ohio,
facility. The purpose of this safety advisory is to recommend that the rail industry carefully inspect these specific
side frames when equipped freight cars are in shops or on
repair tracks.
2006–02 — Provides recommended practices for the
testing, classification, and reuse of second-hand rail. The
purpose of the safety advisory is to reduce the number of
rail defects that occur when second-hand rail is used.
2006–03 — Provides interested parties information
related to the potential failure of the welded attachment
of vertical load dividers on certain center beam lumber
flat cars.
2006–04 — Recommends that owners of tank cars
equipped with the ACF Industries 200 stub sill design,
inspect, and enhance the underframes in accordance with
the procedures contained in ACF’s Maintenance Bulletin
TC–200.
2006–05 — Recommends that each railroad operating
passenger trains assess the rules, instructions, and procedures used to ensure that a train will not depart a station
until all passengers successfully board or alight from the
train, and ensure compliance with such rules, instructions, and procedures.
2006–06 — Provides interested parties information
related to the potential failure (cracking and breakage) of
the center sills on 89-foot flat cars carrying containers in
municipal solid waste (MSW) service.
2007–01 — Addresses the safety of shoving or pushing
movements in yards, including those involving remote
control locomotives. This advisory also addresses the
behavior of employees on or about tracks.
2007–02 — Provides interested parties guidance on the
proper application of existing statutory and regulatory
2007–04 — Provides updated information to interested
parties on the potential catastrophic failure of locomotive main reservoir tanks manufactured by R&R Metal
Fabricators, Incorporated, and installed on General
Electric Transportation System (GETS) locomotives.
2008–01 — Addresses damage to intermediate air hose
elbow connection on certain freight cars equipped with
end-of-car cushion devices.
2008–02 — Refers to Vertical Handbrake Support Weld
Failures.
2009–01 — Recommends inspection and, when necessary, repair of American Car and Foundry (ACF) Center
Flow Covered Hopper Cars when appropriate.
2009–02 — Inspection of Bottom Outlet Valves and
Assemblies.
2009–03 — This safety advisory reminds States of their
responsibility to identify and document in the U.S. DOT
National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory highway-rail grade crossings where “Low Ground Clearance”
signs have been installed. This safety advisory recommends that States implement policies and procedures to
identify public highway-rail grade crossings that do not
satisfy the standard for vertical profile conditions and recommends that corrective action be taken to bring them
into compliance.
FRA Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
RSAC History — In 1996, the FRA established the
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to develop
new regulatory standards, through a collaborative process,
with all segments of the rail community working together
to fashion mutually satisfactory solutions on safety regulatory issues.
RSAC Representation
Today, the full RSAC is represented by 39 organizations
including Labor, railroads, suppliers, States, chemical suppliers, and passenger advocates. In addition, advisors from
Federal Transit Administration, National Transportation
Safety Board, Transportation Security Administration,
Canada, Mexico, and other diverse groups participate.
83
National Conference of Firemen & Oilers
National Railroad Construction &
Maintenance Association
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
National Transportation Safety Board
Railway Supply Institute
Safe Travel America
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transporte (Mexico)
Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association
Tourist Railway Association, Inc.
Transport Canada
Transport Workers Union of America
Transportation Communications
International Union/BRC
Transportation Security Administration
RSAC Purpose
RSAC–Representated Organizations
American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners
American Association of State Highway &
Transportation Officials
American Chemistry Council
American Petroleum Institute
American Public Transportation Association
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
Association of American Railroads
Association of Railway Museums
Association of State Rail Safety Managers
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way–Employes Division
Chlorine Institute
Federal Transit Administration
Fertilizer Institute
High Speed Ground Transportation Association
Institute of Makers of Explosives
International Association of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
League of Railway Industry Women
National Association of Railroad Passengers
National Association of Railway Business Women
84
The RSAC provides advice and recommendations to the
FRA regarding the development of the railroad safety regulatory program, including issuance of new regulations,
review and revision of existing regulations, and identification of non-regulatory alternatives for improvement of
railroad safety.
It is FRA’s policy to utilize consensus recommendations
of the RSAC as the basis of proposed and final agency
action, whenever possible, consistent with applicable law,
including guidance from the President. However, FRA is
not bound to or otherwise limited by the consensus recommendations. In considering whether to adopt RSAC
recommendations, the Administrator weighs the interests
of the public at large and the ability of the agency to
administer, and, if necessary, to enforce any requirements
that would result from final agency action.
RSAC Tasks
Since its first meeting in April of 1996, the RSAC has
accepted 32 tasks. The status for each of the tasks accepted between 2006–2009 is provided below:
2009–02
Critical Incident Programs
Open
To provide advice regarding development of implementing regulations for Critical Incident Stress Plans as
required by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008
(RSIA2008).
2009–01
Passenger Hours of Service
Open
To provide advice regarding development of implementing regulations for the hours service of operating employees of commuter and intercity passenger railroads under
the RSIA2008.
2008–07
Conductor Certification
Open
To develop regulations for certification of railroad conductors, as required by the RSIA2008, and to consider any
appropriate related amendments to existing regulations.
2008–06 HoS Recordkeeping and Reporting Closed
To develop revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements for Hours of Service of railroad employees. Final
rule published May 27, 2009, with an effective date of
July 16, 2009.
2008–05 Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance Open
Develop a draft rule encompassing the requirements of
Section 417, Railroad Bridge Safety Assurance, of the
RSIA2008.
2008–04 Implementation of PTC Systems Open
To provide advice regarding development of implementing regulations for Positive Train Control (PTC) systems
and their deployment under the RSIA2008.
2008–03 Track Safety Standards — Rail Integrity Open
To consider specific improvements to the Track Safety
Standards or other responsive actions designed to enhance
rail integrity.
2008–01
Report on Railroad Bridges
Closed
Report to the Federal Railroad Administrator on the current state of railroad bridge safety management, updating the findings and conclusions of the 1993 Summary
Report of the FRA Railroad Bridge Safety Survey, including recommendations for further action.
2007–01
Track Safety Standards
Open
To consider specific improvements to the Track Safety
Standards or other responsive actions, supplementing work already underway on continuous welded rail
(CWR).
2006–03
Medical Standards
Open
To enhance the safety of persons in the railroad operating
environment and the public by establishing standards and
procedures for determining the medical fitness-for-duty
of safety-critical personnel engaged in safety-critical functions.
2006–02 Track Safety Standards and CWR Open
To review and revise the continuous welded rail (CWR)
related provisions of the Track Safety Standards, with particular emphasis on reduction of derailments and consequent injuries and damage caused by defective conditions,
including joint failures, in track using CWR.
2006–01
Locomotive Safety Standards
Open
To review 49 CFR Part 229, Railroad Locomotive Safety
Standards, and revise as appropriate.
The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008
— Grade Crossing Safety
Toll-Free Number to Report Grade Crossing Problems.
Requires the railroads to establish and maintain a toll-free
telephone number for reporting malfunctions of grade
crossing signals, gates, and other devices and disabled
vehicles blocking railroad tracks.
Sight Distance.
Requires the FRA to develop model legislation to encourage States to adopt and enforce laws regarding overgrown
vegetation, standing railroad equipment, and other
obstructions at grade crossings, which can obstruct the
view of approaching pedestrians and vehicles.
Accident and Incident Reporting.
Requires the FRA to conduct periodic audits of railroads
to ensure they are reporting all accidents and incidents to
the National Accident Database.
National Crossing Inventory.
Requires railroads to report information, including information about warning devices and signage, on grade
crossings to enable the FRA to maintain an accurate
inventory of such crossings.
State Action Plan.
Requires the Secretary to identify, on an annual basis, the
top 10 States that have had the most grade crossing collisions, and to work with them to develop a State grade
crossing action plan that identifies specific solutions for
improving safety at grade crossings.
Emergency Grade Crossing Improvements.
Establishes a grant program to provide emergency grade
crossing safety improvements at locations where there has
been a grade crossing collision involving a school bus or
multiple injuries or fatalities.
Hours of Service
The major changes contained in the Hours of Service
(HoS) became effective July 16, 2009, and have been well
received by BRS members. We have heard comments like,
“I finally, can get a real eight hours of rest after going on the
law,” and “It’s about time we got rid of counting the last hour
of travel toward our rest.”
85
HoS changes effecting signalmen:
1. Railroad contractors are now covered by the HoS
regulations.
2. The minimum time off duty increases from 8
hours to 10 consecutive hours during the previous 24-hour period.
3. The last hour of travel time spent returning from
the final trouble call no longer counts toward an
employee’s required off-duty time.
4. The emergency provision that allows signal
employees to work an additional 4 hours beyond
the 12-hour maximum on duty time in a bona
fide emergency remains unchanged; however,
signal employees may not conduct routine
repairs, maintenance, or inspections under the
emergency provision.
5. The mandatory 10-hour rest period must be
consecutive and undisturbed.
6. Signal employees operating motor vehicles are
not subject to other hours of service regulations other than FRA’s. FRA issued a “To
whom it may concern” letter that explains to
law enforcement that signal employees operating CDL-required vehicles are only covered by
FRA HoS, not the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA). Signal employees are
not required by law to keep a driver’s daily logbook though some railroads are requiring their
signal employees do so anyway.
On June 26, 2009, FRA issued policy statement and
interpretive document FRA-2009-0057. BRS commented to the FRA docket covering three areas:
1. The FRA is proposing redefining what constitutes a 24-hour period.
Under the current HoS interpretation, when
an employee reports for duty, the employee
determines if he or she has fulfilled the required
statutory minimum off-duty period. If so, a new
24-hour period begins. The FRA is considering
changing this interpretation of the 24-hour period. The BRS has submitted comments opposing
these changes.
The FRA’s new proposed interpretation would
change the long-standing interpretation of when
the 24-hour period begins. The FRA is proposing a “continuous lookback.” Under the FRA’s
continuous lookback: the 10 hours of uninterrupted rest must be within the 24-hour period.
86
This change would start the 24-hour period at
least 10 hours before the employee reports for
duty. In certain circumstances, the “continuous
lookback” provision would start the 24-hour
period greater than 10 hours in the past. In the
best-case scenario, this would cause expiration
of the employee’s 24-hour period only 14 hours
after reporting for duty.
Additionally, if an off-duty signal employee
receives a call to report to work a certain number of hours later, the “continuous lookback”
condition would cause the 24-hour period to
initiate 10 hours before the employee was notified to report for work. In extreme cases, the
proposed 24-hour period interpretation could
leave employees with barely more than 4 hours
to work before their 24-hour period expires and
causes them to go off duty.
Currently, two HoS regulatory events exist that
cause a signal employee to run out of available
time to work — if an employee reaches the
maximum on-duty time allowed by law, either
12 or 16 hours, or the expiration of the 24-hour
period.
The RSIA2008 made no changes to the 4-hour
emergency provision, which permits signal
employees to extend their on-duty hours an
additional 4 hours beyond the 12-hour limitation when an emergency exists, for a total of 16
hours. The railroads utilize this 4-hour emergency provision regularly to repair safety-critical
equipment.
Under the FRA’s new proposed interpretation,
a signal employee would be prohibited from
working beyond 14 hours, even under the emergency provision, because the 24-hour period
would expire at a maximum of 14 hours after
the employee reports for duty and before the 16hour trigger could ever be reached. This becomes
even more convoluted and limiting when
attempting to resolve broken service scenarios
where a signal employee has multiple trouble
calls separated by intermittent periods of rest,
and even meal periods, during the abbreviated
24-hour period.
Obviously, Congress never intended or anticipated the FRA changing its interpretation on
what constitutes the 24-hour period. If it had,
Congress certainly would have modified the 4hour emergency provision. The BRS has filed
documents with the FRA in opposition to the
reinterpretation of the HoS 24-hour rule.
regulations. This regulation will cover all safety-critical
employees, including contractors and subcontractors.
It is important to mention, that, for now, this is
only a proposal. If the FRA rejects our comments
and implements a new interpretation of the HoS,
the BRS will issue a press release and post a notice
on the BRS website informing members of these
changes.
The medical standards are still in the rulemaking stage.
As such, the language and scope of the regulations have
not been finalized, and everything contained in this
report on medical standards is subject to change.
2. BRS also asked FRA for a new interpretation on
what constitutes covered service for signal employees (which was not changed by FRA’s June 26,
2009, policy statement). FRA’s old interpretative
document (FRA Technical Bulletin G-00-02) references “energized conductors” as a threshold or
trigger to determine when an activity transforms
from non-covered to covered service. BRS points
out that safety-critical circuits are still safety-critical
circuits whether or not they are energized.
3. BRS also addressed that FRA needs to interpret
HoS restrictions on signal employees who only
drive CDL-required trucks (which was not interpreted in FRA’s June 26, 2009, policy statement).
In 2008, the HoS regulation changes exempted
signal employees from the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) HoS regulations.
However, because FRA does not consider driving
by itself covered service, a loophole was created.
A signal employee that drives a CDL-required
vehicle and never performs covered service, never
triggers the “commingled” provision of the FRA
HoS regulation. Therefore, if a signal employee
only drives a CDL-required vehicle and does not
perform any covered service, there is no federally
mandated restriction on the number of hours that
he or she can drive or any requirement for rest
periods.
BRS has asked FRA to fix this omission on numerous occasions and President Pickett has also asked
Congress to modify the HoS Act to correct this
loophole.
Medical Standards RSAC
The Medical Standards RSAC rulemaking started in
2006. At the insistence of the NTSB, the FRA initiated
developing medical standards for safety-critical employees. As a result, signalmen, dispatchers, and operating
personnel will be subject to federally-mandated medical
standards.
Similar to the Hours of Service, railroads with more
than 15 safety-sensitive employees will come under the
There will be a mandatory physical every three years.
In addition, employees will be required by regulation
to notify the carrier anytime their health significantly
changes or in the event of major surgery.
Significant medical conditions that require notifying the
carrier will include:
• Diabetes with insulin injections. (Insulin-dependent employees with diabetes whose condition is
under control will be able to become classified as
fit-for-duty with restrictions, with the restriction
that their diabetes remains under control.);
• Sleep disorders;
• Fractures;
• Hospitalization;
• Major surgery;
• Heart disease;
• Loss of consciousness;
• Seizure disorders;
• Stroke;
• Visual impairment;
• Hearing impairment;
• Temporary or permanent activity restrictions; and,
• Any medical condition resulting in an absence of
30 days or more.
Disqualifying conditions that can be addressed through
treatment will be subject to medical review by the
carrier’s medical review officer. There will be one of three
results from a fitness-for-duty assessment: Fit-for-Duty,
Fit-for-Duty with Restrictions, and Not Fit-for-Duty.
For instance, the carrier could classify a signalman Fitfor-Duty with Restrictions because of a medical condition and then allow the employee to work, subject to
complying with the restriction. Allowing an employee to
work with restrictions will be the carrier’s option.
There will be a dispute resolution process, but that is still
one of the non-consensus items in the RSAC. Labor is
advocating a short timeline, which the carriers oppose.
A disqualified employee can appeal any decision to a
third party review. We also strongly argued that the
third-party doctor’s review be a real-time evaluation and
87
not simply based on a review of the employee’s medical
records. The carriers oppose that concept and want the
review to only be based on the record, even though the
BRS argued that an employee’s medical condition and fitness for duty is a moving target and should be evaluated
in real time.
The Railroad Retirement Board assured us that any
employee who is disqualified under the medical standard
regulations will qualify for Railroad Retirement occupational disability benefits if they meet the qualifying
requirements. [A railroad worker is eligible to apply for
an occupational disability at age 60 if he or she has 10
years of service, or at any age with at least 20 years of
service.]
Employees will be required to release all relevant medical records to the carrier’s medical review officer for fitness-for-duty assessments. Generally, this will only be the
every-three-year physical, unless an employee is flagged
with a potentially disqualifying condition or an employee
reports a condition. The carrier can then request all pertinent medical records. The employee has limited options
on the release of pertinent medical information, because,
until the employer’s Medical Review Officer (MRO) can
evaluate the condition and treatment, the employee can
be held out of service.
Prescription drugs, as well as over-the-counter (OTC)
medications, will be addressed by the regulation. It
appears at this date that OTC medications that are regulated by the medical standards will be confined to those
in the sedating antihistamine family of drugs.
The fitness-for-duty standards will be craft-specific. For
instance, a dispatcher does not pose a risk working out of
a wheelchair where as a signal maintainer could not perform his duties with the same restriction.
Positive Train Control
Positive Train Control (PTC) is going to revolutionize
railway signaling and establish an unprecedented level of
safety in signalized and non-signal territories. That safety
will be built on technologies that have room to expand
in functionality. The systems must not only be safe and
reliable, but must also be interoperable across our nation’s
vast rail network with differing railroads systems and
varying equipment. The systems will rely heavily on wireless communications.
Many, if not most, of the systems will harness the power
of the Global Positioning System (GPS), which is under
the complete control of the United States Department of
Defense.
88
The railroads have been testing PTC for years, but outside of Amtrak, the carriers were slow to adopt PTC on
a large scale. However, in the wake of the Chatsworth
collision in California in 2008, Congress mandated PTC
systems on designated corridors. PTC will be required for
intercity commuter rail and Class 1 railroads’ main track
where the lines move five mega-tons of cargo or more
and haul Toxic Inhalation or Poison Inhalation hazardous
materials. PTC must be installed before the end of 2015.
In general, PTC limits incidents caused by human error.
PTC’s predictive technology monitors a train’s current
conditions against its speed and end-of-authority limits.
PTC Core Functions:
• Prevent train-to-train collisions;
• Prevent overspeed derailments (Speed enforcement
is part the protection afforded by PTC. The regulation also mandates the enforcement of stop and flag
orders that have been issued to protect malfunctioning highway-rail grade crossing warning systems.);
• Prevent incursion into roadway worker work zones;
and
• Prevent movement through switches not properly
lined.
Preventing movement through switches not properly
lined was a new element that had not previously been
included as a PTC core function. This requires that PTC
systems be equipped to electronically monitor switch
position using switch circuit controllers or equivalent.
Congress added this feature to address accidents stemming from improperly lined switches in non-signal territory, such as that which occurred at Graniteville, South
Carolina, on January 6, 2005. The Graniteville collision
occurred at about 2:39 a.m. between two NS trains. One
of the trains, which was traveling at about 47 mph and
transporting chlorine gas, sodium hydroxide, and cresol,
was diverted through an improperly lined hand-operated
switch and collided with a parked train. Various tank cars
ruptured, releasing at least 90 tons of chlorine gas. Nine
people died (eight at the time of the accident, one later)
due to chlorine inhalation and at least 250 people were
treated for chlorine exposure. In addition, 5,400 residents
within a mile of the crash site were forced to evacuate
their homes for nearly two weeks while hazardous materials teams and cleanup crews decontaminated the area.
Track circuits are not required for a PTC system as
defined; however, some of the carriers have indicated that
they will be installing track circuits in PTC territory and
treating them as another hazard detector. In absence of
track circuits, a PTC system will not detect broken rails
or incursions of cars that have been left or rolled onto
the track.
FRA will require hazard detectors, which are connected
to the current signal system, to be integrated into the
PTC systems. Hazards detectors that verify route integrity (e.g. slide detectors, high water detectors) will be
integrated into PTC system. Hazard detectors that do
not verify the route will not be required to be integrated,
and not all hazard detections will enforce a stop. For
example, hotbox detectors integrated with a PTC system
will not cause a stop. In the event of a overheated journal, it is safest to allow the engineer to bring the train
to a controlled stop instead of initiating a penalty brake
application.
PTC is predictive in nature, not reactive. Meaning, a
PTC is designed to stop a train before it exceeds its
limits or authority. In general, a PTC system is designed
to warn the engineer before it initiates a penalty brake
application in order to give the engineer the opportunity
to take corrective action.
PTC can be categorized as a non-vital overlay, a vital
overlay, standalone, or mixed. PTC can be overlaid on
signalized or dark territory. Only the stand-alone system
is designed to enable PTC to become the method of
operation.
Costs of PTC installation are estimated to range from
$50,000 to $138,000 per mile, depending on the system.
The BRS endorsed the idea to FRA of reusing the existing signal blocks to feed information to the PTC system.
The PTC systems will be required to enforce the signal
system aspects. When a train
is given permission to pass a
red signal in signalized territory, the PTC system will
enforce the maximum speed
allowed by restricted speed
(15 or 20 mph depending
on the property’s operating
rules).
Signal Employee
Fatalities
Between June 1, 2008, and September 23, 2009, six
signalmen died on the job in striking events: four were
struck by trains in roadway worker situations, all in
control points, and two were struck and killed by motor
vehicles at road crossings.
1. 6/1/2008 — Union Pacific — Tulsa, OK (53 years
old, 35 years of service) A signalman was fatally
injured while working on the gate of a crossing
arm at Mingo Road in Tulsa when a vehicle struck
him. The crossing gates were down and the flashers were operating when the accident occurred.
The driver of the motor vehicle stated that the sun
was in his eyes, and he did not see that the gate
was down. The pickup that struck the maintainer
was reported to be traveling about 15 mph.
2. 8/20/2008 — Amtrak — New Carrollton, MD
(22 years old, 3 years of service) A signalman died
after being struck by an Acela Express train travelling from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA. The
fatally injured employee was part of a two-man
signal team investigating an intermittent power
switch faure. While one employee was drafting a
job briefing form and communicating with the
dispatcher, the other fouled the track without
authority or protection.
3. 12/9/2008 — BNSF — Sadler, MO (56 years
old, 35 years of service) A lone signal maintainer
was at an interlocking and believed to be working
on a switch heater. The employee was struck by a
freight train and was fatally injured. The investigation indicated that no on-track protection was
being used.
4. 1/9/2009 — Metro-North — Rye, NY (49
years old, 27 years of service) Two Metro-North
commuter signal maintainers were working in
the vicinity of Control Point 223 under watchman/lookout rules. The work being performed
included oiling/greasing switches. One employee
left to retrieve more lubrication materials and looked back
to see that the other employee
was still within the gauge
of the track and bent over.
A westbound Amtrak train
approached the maintainers on
Track No. 1. As the employee
turned to face the train, he
stepped away from Track No.
1 and into the path of an eastbound train on Track No. 2.
The employee was struck and killed.
5. 5/11/2009 — CSX — Middletown, PA (55 years
old and 35 years of service) At approximately 8:00
a.m. members of the CSX Signal Department
arrived at the Big Oak Road highway-rail grade
crossing. The workers were replacing the southwest
89
cate that the maintainer had authority to occupy
Main Track 2 between control points, but he was
struck and killed within the limits of the adjacent
control point on Main Track 2. Reports indicate
that he did not have authority to foul the track
where the impact accident occurred. Obviously, he
was unaware of an approaching freight train, which
had moved through a crossover from Main Track 1
to Main Track 2.
4
5
2
3
1
6
gnalmen?
odds for si continues:
e
th
re
a
t
ies
a
lit
Wh
fata
employee
IES
ar
PA
given ye
nal
letown,
ured in a a motor
nd in sig
)
fatally inj
— Midd
If the tre
e being
ent or by
— CSX
of service CSX Signal
employe ay worker accid
35 years
e
a signal
ad
s of the
dw
of
gr
er
il
roa
ds
old and
a
mb
-ra
Od
in
0 a.m. me k Road highway
ving train
hwayby a mo
ately 8:0
st gate
ng at a hig
the Big Oa g the southwe
ile worki
r
vehicle wh ssing.
arrived at
placin
ctor-traile
cro
a moving
rs were re ked down by a tra d in the
rail grade
ured by
ile
he worke
oc
ce
kn
pla
fatally inj
hicle wh
d been
e
s were
e being
motor ve
m that ha ing. Traffic cone
torists. Th
l employe
t or by a
rn
warn mo
of a signa worker acciden
to
mo
ds
nd
t
Od
ou
ism
tha
gr
ay
er
cross
te mechan s sitting on the
in a roadw
il grade
ga
in
x.
-ra
tra
ay
bo
the
ction
nt of
er wa
at a highw reer.
l maintain ism wiring the jun out 4:00
working
ca
red signa
a 30-year
At ab
chan
ing over
gate me
tive vest. uck the
se of the wearing a reflec
n str
s
hand tur
of
ht
ls
rig
ee
tainer wa
a
wh
g
iler makin ism with the rear iking the
actor tra
str
te mechan
on after
al
er and ga driver continued
by the loc
ck
that
d stopped
er. The tru later located an he did not realize
s
e,
ner. He wa ted to the polic
r sta
ive
dr
e
Th
meone.
struck so
, TX
Hereford
BNSF —
service)
investi3/2009 — and 17 years of
call was
k
d
a trouble
ol
train struc
years
er working
a freight
ain
rity
int
ma
ped when ainer had autho
op
VA 22630
e signal
dr
d
ha
int
nt Royal,
l that
t he was
t the ma
bu
tha
s,
s Road, Fro
te
g a signa
int
rts indica
ol
doah Shore
control po
rg
Initial repo ack 2 between the adjacent contr
917 Shenan
www.brs.o
Tr
t
of
in
no
its
Ma
22
ccupy
n the lim
that he did cident
540.622.65
led withi
indicate
pact ac
ck and kil ack 2. Reports
im
the
e
ing
in Tr
wher
approach
nt on Ma to foul the track
m
are of an
rity
was unaw gh a crossover fro
ve autho
viously, he
throu
curred. Ob ich had moved
wh
in,
Track 2.
eight tra
in
Ma
to
1
ain Track
2
1 in 2,22
In response to this disturbing trend and to increase
aw
awareness, BRS developed a flyer called “What are the
O
Odds?”. President Pickett mailed a letter and this broc
chure
to every member’s home in November of 2009.
1 in 74
*
od
Brotherho
d
a
of Railro
n
Signalme
The brochure was well received by BRS members,
FRA, and the rest of the industry. In fact, some railroads used our brochure as part of their safety program
to increase awareness of the hazards faced by roadway
worker.
• During this 16-month snapshot in time, 4.5 signalmen were being fatally struck annually.
gate mechanism that had been knocked down by
a tractor-trailer truck earlier that morning. Traffic
cones were placed in the road in front of the gate
mechanism to warn motorists. The fatally injured
signal maintainer was sitting on the ground at
the base of the gate mechanism wiring the junction box. The maintainer was wearing a reflective
vest. At about 4:00 p.m. a tractor trailer making
a right hand turn struck
the maintainer and gate
mechanism with the rear
wheels of the trailer. The
truck driver continued
on after striking the
maintainer. He was later
What are the odds for signalmen?
located and stopped by
the local police. The driver
stated to the police that he
1 in 2,222
did not realize that he had
1 in 74
struck someone.
If the trend in signal employee fatalities continues:
Odds of a signal employee being fatally injured in a given year
by a moving train in a roadway worker accident or by a motor
vehicle while working at a highwayrail grade crossing.
Odds of a signal employee being fatally injured by a moving
train in a roadway worker accident or by a motor vehicle while
working at a highway-rail grade crossing over a 30-year career.
6. 9/23/2009 — BNSF —
Hereford, TX (53 years
old and 17 years of service) A lone signal maintainer working a trouble
call was investigating a
signal that had dropped
when a freight train struck
him. Initial reports indi90
What are the odds that the
next fatality could be you?
UNDER CURRENT TRENDS
Signal
Employees
4.5
die
in on-track
(RWP), or
on-crossing striking events annually
*Roadway Worker fatality — 100% of these
fatal roadway worker accidents occurred
inside control points
• All of the fatal roadway worker accidents (4)
occurred inside control points.
• Neither of the signalmen struck at crossings were
protected by a watchman/lookout.
Thankfully, and as of this writing, the BRS has not suffered another fatality since President Pickett’s letter and
the “What are the Odds?” brochure were mailed.
What are the odds?
Of winning the Mega Millions Lottery
Of pulling a Royal Flush from five cards
Of dying from a dog attack during your lifetime
Of being bitten by a poisonous snake in a given year
Of dying from a poisonous snake bite
Of bowling a 300 game
Of an IRS audit in a given year
Of dying in a motorcycle accident during the next year
Of dying in a motor-vehicle accident during the next year
Of dying from injuries from a fall during the next year
Of drowning during the next year
Of dying in an air-travel accident during your lifetime
Of having your identity stolen
Of making a hole in one during a round of golf
Of your vasectomy failing
Of pregnancy from a one-time encounter
Of getting prostate cancer
Of being killed by lightning during the next year
Of being killed by lightning during your lifetime
Of living to 100 years of age
1) 6/1/2008 — Union Pacific — Tulsa, OK
(53 years old, 35 years of service)
A signalman was fatally injured while working on the gate
of a crossing arm at Mingo Road in Tulsa when a vehicle
struck him. The crossing gates were down and the flashers were operating when the accident occurred. The driver
of the motor vehicle stated that the sun was in his eyes,
and he did not see that the gate was down. The pickup
that struck the maintainer was reported to only be traveling about 15 mph.
2) 8/20/2008 — Amtrak — New Carrollton, MD
An Amtrak signalman died after being struck by an Acela
Express train travelling from Washington, DC to Boston,
MA. The fatally injured employee was part of a two-man
signal team investigating an intermittent power switch failure. While one employee was drafting a job briefing form
and communicating with the dispatcher, the other fouled
the track without authority or protection.
*
1 in 135,145,920
1 in
649,740
1 in
115,489
1 in
37,500
1 in 50,000,000
1 in
11,500
1 in
130
1 in
67,588
1 in
6,539
1 in
15,085
1 in
82,777
1 in
20,000
1 in
200
1 in
5,000
1 in
5,000
1 in
25
1 in
6
1 in
6,177,230
1 in
83,930
1 in
50
*
3) 12/9/2008 — BNSF — Sadler, MO
A lone signal maintainer was at an interlocking and
believed to be working on a switch heater. The employee
was struck by a freight train and was fatally injured. The
investigation indicated that no on-track protection was
being used.
4) 1/9/2009 — Metro-North — Rye, NY
Two Metro-North commuter signal maintainers were
working in the vicinity of Control Point 223 under watchman/lookout rules. The work being performed included oiling/greasing switches. One employee left to retrieve more
lubrication materials and looked back to see that the other
employee was still within the gauge of the track and bent
over. A westbound Amtrak train approached the maintainers on Track No. 1. As the employee turned to face the
train, he stepped away from Track No. 1 and into the path
of an eastbound train on Track No. 2. The employee was
struck and killed.
*
FAMES
As a result of the rash of roadway worker fatalities, Jo
Strang, Associate Administrator for Safety — FRA, asked
the BRS and the BMWED to participate in a new task
force called FAMES (Fatality Analysis Maintenance-ofWay Employees and Signalmen). This task force is independent of the RSAC.
Because President Pickett was deeply disturbed by the
fatal events, he assigned two Vice Presidents, Jerry Boles
and Joe Mattingly, and two Grand Lodge Representatives,
Kelly Haley and John Bragg, to the FAMES group. There
are currently 28 members comprised of Labor, management, and the FRA in FAMES. From the onset, BRS
pushed to expand the focus of the group beyond just
roadway worker fatalities to also include motor-vehicle
strikes at highway-rail grade crossings.
The FAMES group has developed a database and are
painstakingly reviewing each fatal striking event in detail
to find commonalities. The purpose of the FAMES group
is to analyze all striking event fatalities suffered by maintenance-of-way and signal employees in order to formulate
industry recommendations with the goal of reducing
the risk of future occurrences and ultimately eliminating
striking-event fatalities to roadway workers.
Fall Protection
In a 1978 policy statement published in the Federal
Register, FRA established its jurisdiction over fall protection on signal structures. The statement essentially says
that OSHA does not apply and that FRA has jurisdiction. President Pickett has asked FRA to give jurisdiction back to OSHA or establish fall protection standards
under FRA regulations for signal structures.
may be a while before we see any positive movement on
fall protection.
Signalmen Certification and Training
The 2008 Rail Safety Improvement Act established minimum training standards for railroad workers and provides
for the certification of train conductors. In addition,
within six months after promulgating conductor certification rules, the Department of Transportation (DOT)
Secretary must report to Congress about whether the
certification of other specified crafts and classes (including
carmen and signal employees) is necessary to reduce the
number and rate of accidents and incidents or to improve
railroad safety.
DOT and FRA are not expected to move on the certification of signal employees or other crafts until conductor
certification regulations are completed. It is anticipated
that that the DOT Secretary will recommend certification of signal employees.
Monthly Test Interval Waiver
On January 4, 2010, FRA published a waiver request
from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) asking
FRA to expand the minimum monthly testing interval to
a maximum of 35 days for various tests required under
49 CFR parts 234 and 236.
History
The importance of regular inspections and testing of the
nation’s train signal systems cannot be overstated. Regular
periodic testing provides assurances that the systems
are in proper working order or indicates to the testing
employee, usually the signal maintainer, that the system is
in need of adjustment or repair.
It has been more than three decades
since the FRA established that policy.
During that time, FRA has established
fall protection on railroad bridges and
ignored all other structures. While
FRA has not taken any tangible action
on this subject outside of the agency,
it has recently assigned fall protection for signal structures internally for
review. In private conversations, FRA
has indicated that a rulemaking on fall
protection will be forthcoming, but
it has not indicated formally or informally when this will rise to the top
of FRA’s to-do list. With the agency
still being overwhelmed by issues contained in the 2008 Rail Safety bill, it
91
The BRS
points out
that the
monthly
testing
requirements
are minimum standards and
relaxing this
standard by
modifying
FRA’s interpretation or
providing
a waiver
could have
a significant
impact on
safety.
Prior to
2004, virtually all of the
nation’s rail
carriers were
in noncompliance with the minimum standards as they
apply to the monthly testing interval. In the extreme, the
rail carriers’ misinterpretation permitted monthly inspections on the first day of one month and the last day
of the next. As long as the inspections were completed
within the calendar month, no exceptions were taken.
This misinterpretation allowed monthly testing intervals
to go well beyond a 30-day timeframe. While 60 days
between inspections was not the norm, it happened
often, and monthly testing intervals beyond 30, 40, and
even 50 days were common.
To address this practice, in 2004, FRA clarified the minimum standard concerning monthly testing frequency
and corrected the carriers’ longstanding misinterpretation of the various regulations in a letter from FRA’s
Chief Counsel, S. Mark Lindsey. With that letter, FRA
put the railroads and signal employees on notice that
FRA-required monthly tests must be completed within
30 or 31 days of the previous monthly inspection. FRA
also established that this testing frequency is a minimum
standard, and the railroads are free to establish testing
schedules with more frequent testing intervals.
Position
Since FRA issued its ruling that the monthly testing
interval must adhere to a strict 30- or 31-day window,
92
we have seen the focus of the signal maintainer’s job shift
away from maintenance and repairs and towards satisfying the FRA testing requirements.
The BRS is acutely aware of the need for regular periodic testing to keep the various systems operating as
designed, but we are also listening to what our members
are telling us. This shift toward “testing-centric” jobs
has reduced the time available for signal maintainers
to perform needed adjustments and repairs. It appears
that FRA’s interpretation, which the BRS endorsed, has
contributed to a work environment where signing off on
the monthly tests and getting the paperwork completed
is interfering with needed maintenance and repairs.
Therefore, based on the feedback from our members, we
find that the inflexibility of the monthly testing schedule
provided in the regulations is in opposition to our primary goal of safety.
Because of the monthly cycle of required tests and
inspections, signal maintainers usually report for duty
each day with a set number of monthly tests that need to
be completed before the end of the workday. If, during
testing, the employee takes exception to a test, he or she
is required to make immediate repairs to bring the device
into compliance or take other action to ensure safety.
On almost all of the properties, signal maintainers are
primarily responsible for the monthly tests as well as the
repairs if an exception is taken to any of the tests. Many
of the tests are subjective and not objective. As such,
whether a device passes or fails depends on the employee’s opinion.
For example, when a signal maintainer inspects a flasher
to determine if it is adequately visible to the operator
of a motor vehicle at a highway-rail grade crossing, the
employee’s judgment determines if the lenses and optics
need to be cleaned; understand that the functionality of
these optical components deteriorates slowly, as dust and
condensation take their toll. This deterioration of visibility is a slow process and usually takes many months
before the optics need to be cleaned to restore their functionality. The point at which the visibility of a flasher
crosses over from adequate to inadequate is left to the
opinion of the signal maintainer, as there is no objective
test to make this determination.
When a problem is discovered that will preclude the
completion of the other monthly inspections which are
due on the same day, it places the employee in a situation where there is no good answer. The employee must
choose whether to fix the problem and justify to their
supervisor why the other inspections are incomplete, or
he or she may choose to reconsider their determination
of whether the device passed or failed.
The railroad industry generally admits that signal maintainers are already over burdened in their duties and
responsibilities. We do not want a signal maintainer’s
determination on whether a test or inspection passes
or fails to be unduly influenced by how many more
monthly tests are due that day. For this reason, and in
the interest of safety, the BRS endorses some relief.
The tests and inspections required by regulation are generally a way to monitor and measure the systems robustness or isolate deficiencies. However, to maintain the
integrity of the systems, there must be time built into
these jobs to perform needed repairs and maintenance
that are indicated by the tests and inspections. Signal
maintainers are most efficient and effective when they
are empowered to perform safety critical maintenance
and repairs as exceptions are discovered.
BRS asked FRA to approve AAR’s waiver with the following restrictions:
1. The waiver only applies to 49 CFR §§234.249,
234.251, 234.253, 234.255, 234.257, 234.261,
236.382, and 236.576;
2. Monthly inspections shall be completed at least
once each calendar month;
3. A grace period shall be established whereby
monthly inspections will not be considered in violation of the regulation as long as the
monthly inspection is completed within 35 days of the preceding monthly
inspection;
ing monthly inspections should remain the target for
completing the tests and inspections. The tolerance for
going beyond the recognized minimum standard should
be captured in a standing grace period.
It is the opinion of the BRS that approving AAR’s waiver within the limited parameters described above will
have a positive impact on safety by providing signalmen
the flexibility to make needed repairs as they encounter
exceptions. The self-reporting feature, for inspections
that exceed the 35-day limit, will enable FRA to closely
monitor the success of the waiver and adjust or revoke
the waiver if needed.
Conclusion
The industry has come a long way from when 60 days
between tests was acceptable. It is our opinion that the
expansion of the monthly testing window to include a
grace period that extends the interval to 35 days, as long
as the monthly testing frequency is confined to at least
once each calendar month, establishes a balance between
safety and efficiency. This added flexibility should have
a positive impact on safety while maintaining the spirit
of the regulations. In the end, we think that the safety
and performance of the various systems impacted by this
waiver will actually be elevated because signalmen will
be able to focus less time on system testing and more
time on maintenance of these safety-critical systems.
As of this writing, FRA has not yet approved or denied
AAR’s waiver. 4. The waiver shall not modify any other
periodic testing intervals;
5. AAR-represented carriers that choose to
utilize this waiver must do so on a system-wide basis and must do so in writing to FRA before the waiver becomes
effective; and
6. AAR-represented carriers that choose
to utilize this waiver must provide a
monthly report to FRA of all tests
where the monthly inspections exceeded 35 days between inspections.
The BRS asks FRA to keep this extension
of the monthly periodic testing interval in
the context of a “grace period” provided by
waiver. The current timeframe for performBrotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
93
REGULAR CONVENTION
Signalmen’s Political League
Participation in the political process is at the forefront
of everyone’s mind these days, and continues to be a
fundamental tradition of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen. Throughout our 100 year history, Signalmen
have recognized the great importance of supporting
political candidates for public office. BRS, now more
than ever, understands the importance of continued
support by the candidates of working men and women,
both at home and in the workplace.
In 1972, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
established a Political Action Committee called the
Signalmen’s Political League (SPL) in an effort to coordinate and expand the participation of individual members
in political activities.
Awards Program
The BRS recently improved its SPL awards program.
Currently there are four levels of contribution. Also, the
quality and style of SPL gifts has been updated.
President’s Club — This is the highest level of the
Signalmen’s Political League program for members contributing $51.00 or more per month. This entitles the
member to a SPL Watch, SPL Jacket,
SPL Shirt, SPL Hat, and/or SPL Gold
Pin w/stone.
Vice President’s Club — This level
of the Signalmen’s Political League program is
i for
f members contributing in the range of $20.00 to $50.00 per
month. This contribution entitles the member to a SPL
Jacket, SPL Hat, and/or SPL Gold Pin.
Senator’s Club — Members who contribute between
$10.00 to $19.00 per month are entitled to a SPL Shirt,
SPL Hat, and/or SPL Silver pin.
Representative’s Club — This is lowest level of contribution to the Signalmen’s Political League that ranges
between $5.00 to $9.00 per month. Members who contribute are entitled to a SPL Hat and/or SPL Silver pin.
Participation
At the close of this reporting period there are approximately 1,276 BRS members contributing to the
Signalmen’s Political League. This roughly translates to
about $136,000.00 per year. This amount compared to
that of the last reporting period of 2006 has increased. CONVENTION REPORT OF — Joe L. Mattingly
International Vice President assigned to the Midwest Region
General Chairman Bill Keebler. The current agreement
was signed in Brewster, Ohio, on November 18, 2008,
and will remain in force until July 1, 2012. A new
Section VI Notice may be filed on January 1, 2012.
(Maintenance of Way) Wheeling & Lake Erie
Maintenance-of-Way employees belong to Local #231.
They are represented by the United General Committee
and General Chairman Eldon Luttrell and Assistant
was signed in Brewster, Ohio, on August 29, 2008, and
will remain in force until July 1, 2012. A new Section VI
Notice may be filed on January 1, 2012.
(Locomotive Mechanics) Wheeling & Lake Erie
Locomotive Mechanics employees belong to Local #237.
They are represented by the United General Committee
and General Chairman Eldon Luttrell and Assistant
was signed in Brewster, Ohio, on August 8, 2008, and
will remain in force until July 1, 2012. A new Section VI
Notice may be filed on December 31, 2011.
National Negotiations
At last count the BRS Midwest assignment had five (5)
assigned properties represented by the National Carrier’s
Conference with respect to the 2010 round of National
Negotiations. They are the Alton & Southern Railway,
the Belt Railway Company of Chicago, the Canadian
Pacific/Soo Line, the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad
Company, and the Terminal Railroad Association of St.
Louis. Via notice dated November 2, 2009, the NCCC
served a Section VI Notice on the organization. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen — 2010 Officers’ Report
95
Key Chain
Mug
Mini Mag-Lite w\Carabiner
10
POINTS
20
POINTS
Hat
Glasses - Set of Six
You can redeem your points toward
a single item or combinations of items
where the points equal those you have been awarded.
EXAMPLE #1: Joe Signalman’s pledge to SPL is $10 per month. For
each $1 pledged in his monthly SPL contribution, he receives 10
SPL points, so Joe has 100 recognition points to redeem toward
SPL gifts. Joe selects a Mini-Mag-Lite for 20 points, a long sleeve
shirt for 30 points, and Klein pliers for 50 points.
If you wish, you can increase your pledge
and receive additional points to redeem.
For each $1 increase you will
receive 10 recognition points.
EXAMPLE #2: Joe Signalman has been contributing $10 per
month to SPL. Joe will receive 10 points per $1 of the $5
increase, so he will receive 50 recogition points to redeem.
30
POINTS
Clipper
Watch
Mag-Lite Flashlight
Polo Shirt
Denim Shirt
Gray Polo Shirt
Mag-Lite and
Buck Knife
40
POINTS
Jacket
Twill Shirt - Khaki
50
POINTS
5-inch
Lock-Blade Knife
w/Sheath
Twill Shirt - Navy
Wrist
Watch
9-inch Klein Pliers
Duffel Bag
Pocket Watch
100
POINTS
Mag-Lite and
Leatherman
200
POINTS
Wool/Leather
Coat

regular convention - Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

Transcription

Similar documents

April 2013 - San Joaquin Valley Toy Train Operators, Inc.

The Underground Railroad

AC Bilbrew Book Club

PDF - Central Coast Railroad Festival

NannyKIDS - Metuchen-Edison Historical Society

Railroad / Mechanical

our latest work party - Backyard Railroaders

4 • Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News By Reed Karaim and

Area Maps - Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center

4th Quarter - North Shore Railroad