This edition has been added on May 17, 1999 in tribute to Michael C. Courogen who recently passed away (See Press Release No. 1).

THE EL PASO EXPRESS ON A ROLL?

El Paso, Texas. A Alittle@ known newsletter , originating from El Paso, Texas in 1991 in a failed attempt to stop the sellout of union members productivity in favor of a styled ASupplemental Retirement Benefit@ and which neared extinction as a result of legal actions against its Chief Executive Officer by a Vice President of the United Transportation Union in April of 1994, still on-going in the 6^th Circuit in Ohio as of this date, has resurfaced, much to the chagrin of the Union hierarchy.

When asked for comment on the unlikely resurrection of the Express, Lance (Lanny - Lance is to pointed) E. Ruck, stated: AIt just goes to show you what is possible when just a few members have the good faith to attempt to protect the assets and rights of all UTU members!@ While declining to be interviewed on camera, Kenneth R. Smoot, Chief legal counsel of the Express, issued this familiar statement: AI have no questions at this time, Your Honor@!

AA NEW BEGINNING?@

Yes, Brothers and Sisters, this mild mannered metropolitan newsletter, allegedly fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, has experienced a genesis. Allegedly, because we do not expect support simply because the Express has endorsed Mom=s Apple Pie over Mitsubishi, Yamaha, or Pedro=s NAFTA Supreme Apple Pie.

Joking aside, it may be because the Express is starting to publish an accurate record of the Earley Debacle, those records a matter of APublic Record@ and subject to verification through the Courts. Unfortunately, the Express did the same thing during the Chicago Convention when it reproduced the Oliver Opinion, thinking that should suffice to expose Earley=s Amisbehaving@!

Why the Express is now being given any credence is any MEMBER=S Guess? But this does sounds like the beginning of a wonderful contest, the Express being partial to cartoons, songs, poems, biblical references, tests, sarcasm, misdirection, truth, fact, humor, vagueness, rumor, and hyperbole; a contest should not be out of the question?

Let=s take a moment to thank those who have helped provide the AAtlanta Edition@ of the Express:

Mike Murphy . . . . . . . . . . $34.80 in stamps & $100.00

Ted Brenskelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25.00

Tom Bakofsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50.00

Local 1918 UTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$200.00

Frank Avila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $50.00

Michael Courogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$25.00

It is noted their contributions provided approximately 500 copies of the August 1997 AAtlanta Edition@ of the Express which were actually given out in Atlanta, GA. at the UTU Region Meeting! Those who contributed have been added to the No. # 1 Mailing List, approximately 40 UTU members who have contributed and/or written the Express and get the first mailing. It is currently unknown whether they will get their copy before or after I return from Atlanta!

Bulk Mail - a curse or a godsend? Don=t know yet brothers and sisters, but my first experience could not be categorized as positive to this date - hell, did any delegate actually get the June Edition?

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Lance:

This is a personal donation as I enjoy reading the Express very much.

The reason I say personal and not as a Delegate of Local 265, is that I have always voted my local=s wishes, which by the way . . . . .! This delegate was not bought in Chicago. I only hope that the delegates in 99 will have the guts to clean house again.

F. M. Avila, # 265

Ed: Frank, by the way . . . . is known as editorial prerogative to protect the innocent from retaliation from some of the vindictive hierarchy! Why Frank, you=re not suggesting that some delegates were bought in Chicago, are you? Gee, I never thought about that, I just assumed they were too gullible or stupid to understand the highly sophisticated El Paso Express and Judge Oliver=s condemning Memorandum Opinion? Hell, those few who supported Mr. Earley and had the audacity to read the AEvidence@ after the election regretted voting for him!

In any event, I would commend you for voting your local=s wishes, except that I, and the delegate who was elected from my local may differ in such vote always being in the best interest of your local. Allow me to explain by analogy from what happened in my local in the last delegate vote. It is noted I was a member of the Board of Appeals, and while delegate for my local in 1991 in Hawaii, was considered an International officer at the 1995 Convention, being relegated to the stage instead of on the floor where the action is!

Suffice to say, the Local 1571 delegate, when he ran for the office, advised everyone he had no intention of voting their desire, but rather they should vote for him based upon his commitment to the Union and his belief in who was the best candidate based upon the written and oral presentations at the Convention. In essence, they should pick him because they had the faith and respect for him that he would do what was best for the membership. In a four or five candidate election, he won on the first ballot.

I am in no way finding fault in following your local=s wishes, but rather, suggesting to you and your local, the delegate must have the freedom to adjust to last minute information, which he deems reliable, before casting his final vote. Stated bluntly, and this is one of the things this writer and the El Paso Express do best, do not vote for any delegate because he will take orders from the local, vote for that candidate whom the members respect and whom they believe will represent all the members without prejudice to any group, i.e, vote for the member who has respect, vote for the member who has shown he will protect all without bias, and vote for the guy who=s not looking for a family vacation and a big paycheck, but rather is willing to work 12-14 hours a day to improve the Union and those he represents (Given the financial constraints and Our current condition, the above is a fair estimate of the minimum time needed at the next convention if WE (the members) are to make any headway in improving our lot! Thank you for your contribution and I hope to see you in Miami! Incidently, you will find enclosed a magnifying glass to help you with the Exhibits of the El Paso Express as advertised in the June Edition (See page 17). Congratulations!

Dear Sir and Brother:

Recently, during United Transportation Union Local 1918's relegated monthly meeting (July 1997), a motion was made and seconded from the floor, and approved by the membership, regarding Local 1918 donating Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00), to the EL PASO EXPRESS.

Therefore, please find enclosed, a check from UTU Local 1918, for that amount, which WE (the members of Local 1918) trust you will use,to continue the AOperation@ of the EL PASO EXPRESS.

Keep-up the excellent work, as We, (the members of UTU Local 1918), will be looking forward to receiving future editions, of this truly outstanding publication.

Fraternally and Sincerely,

 

James W. Matsler, S/T UTU # 1918

Enclosure (1)

Ed: I am humbled; a donation from a local under lodge seal? As stated in your recent local meeting, I doubt it will be long before His Imminence pulls your charter, except, you have the premier union representative in this country in your local, i.e., no union officer or carrier official can or will match wits with him voluntarily! Only his health may deter his ultimate legacy within the Union movement!

An appreciative thanks to your local; do you need four (4) little magnifying glasses?

Dear Brother Ruck:

I received the June 1997 edition of the El Paso Express, for which I thank you.

Although I retired April 1, 1996, I remain very interested in the workings of the UTU.

May I make one suggestion. Write the Express without the comedy . . . IE AChicken Little, Monty Hall, Early (sic) Bird@. Just tell the story plain and simple. Without people like you the membership would never know the true story.

I hope you do not take offense to my suggestion.

Enclosed you will find my check for $25.00. Please keep me on your mailing list and keep up the good work.

Fraternally,

Michael Courogen, Local 602, Retired

ED: Well Mister Michael Courogen, retired, as I recall, the song goes C-O- Double RR-I- GAN spells CORRIGAN, as I well know because I have a feisty Alittle@ Irish friend from Long Island , Oh, President Fauxpas reincarnated, Ah, Staten Island, who sings that song rather well. Now, use guys both being retired, allegedly, are you Irish or not? (Please read this with thick Irish brogue to get the full effect - a beer in a bowl? Shlanta Waliga - who wants my wallet?).

No thanks necessary, is this the only edition of the Express you have ever seen? I can send you back editions to 1991 if your retirement is really boring? Retired April 1, 1996, but still interested? Now Michael, you=re not just fooling us are you? Make ONE Suggestion - Sure you can!

Do I take offense at your suggestion? Of course not, Brother Courogen, in fact, we encourage suggestions and criticism.

I believe I understand your suggestion: not to write the Express without Acomedy@ (humor) but without attacking OUR Union leaders with sarcasm like AChicken Little, Monty Hall, Early (sic) Bird@! Again, Brother, I do not take any offense to your suggestion. However, I regret that I cannot accept your suggestion. While I will be more cautious and deliberate regarding my use of sarcasm in the future because of your concern, I cannot with complete good faith, deny any usage which will explain to the membership ongoing violations of their Constitution and/or Rights.

AChicken@ Little did not develop as a result of any personal character flaw in Brother Little, but rather a result of his letter which I believe indicated the sky is falling and we must seek cover immediately, i.e, pay him so we won=t have to beat him in court! His motive was political; this man is no Achicken@, mark my words. ASemper Fi@, but his actions have relegated him to the same position as Jack Nickleson as the General in AA Few Good Men@, AYou want the Truth, You can=t handle the Truth@!

AMonty Hall@, a.k.a. Clinton Miller, III earned his reputation, and it is documented in previous El Paso Express=s and Union Videos previously played at various Region Meetings. Yes, he did say AMy job as General Counsel is to keep us in the game until we can cut a deal@! Unfortunately, Clint cuts the deal the President tells him to cut, and it is not necessarily the one that represents the best interests of the members!

AEarley Bird@ ? Simple - first to sell out, first to get caught red handed, first to admit his guilt, first to use the post hoc rationalization of counsel, first to sue, first to lie, first to perjure himself, first to be paid for selling out his union, first to be granted immunity by a President, first to risk the total integrity of Our Legal System in order to protect Aone misbehaving union official@! And last but not least, first to have no regret whatsoever for his behavior; after all, he is not suing the union and he is Aforced@ to protect his good name!

Above, with nicknames, is the story plain and simple. My question is, how did you determine my story is the true story? Of course, as a delegate in Chicago, you did receive the ACorrect Record@ and Mr. Little=s January 30, 1997 letter which appeared in the June Edition of the Express as Exhibit 2, leaves no doubt we paid $168,872.45 to VP Earley and his attorneys. I guess the rest is simple deductive reasoning?

I truly do understand your suggestion. The fact is no member wants to know that his union may be corrupt and those in positions of responsibility are selling us out. However, to refuse to face the truth will only continue the situation to the detriment of the very members who pay for everything. Point of fact: We have paid an attorney approximately $17,000 so far to argue that it is within the Awide range of reasonableness@ to agree with the Carrier=s position in arbitration? Should the members have to pay to protect someone who sold out a member and the Afinal and binding@ decision of the Board of Appeals? We need our union; we just need to clean it up and prosecute those who would do these things to the full extent of the UTU Constitution and applicable civil and criminal law!

Congratulations in your retirement. The Express notes you were elected a Local Chairman on Conrail (originally from the Penn Central?) in 1986, served in that capacity for many years and was the Legislative Representative and Delegate of Local 602 at the time of your retirement. Enjoy you retirement, you=ve earned it. Come to the Houston Region meeting next year and I=ll introduce you to the feisty little Irishman with a voice like a angel. While he rarely imbibes, a few drinks and he might sing Corrigan for you! Thanks !

INTER-NET PLANS

The El Paso Express=s hopes to be on the ANet@ have been dashed due a heavy work schedule in the EL Paso Yard and the constant unavailability of it=s techinical adviser due to his responsibilities as an SP Vice General Chairman in the on-going UP/SPmerger and the AHub@bub created by the Railroad=s/Union=s newest philosophy!

(Cartoon Omitted)

The Express will be on the ANet@ soon and inquiring minds will be able to view the accurate records and correspondence as has never been available before. The Express promises to provide the Aevidence@ as its No. I item, literally challenging the powers that be to invoke the alleged, illegal ASettlement Agreement and Release@ or the alleged AJurisdiction of the Court@! Please, oh Please Chicken Little, Monty, and Earley Bird, throw me into the briar patch, i.e., a jury trial!

Yes, I will have four or five copies of the Evidence with me in Atlanta and if you are one of the first four or five who have the Acourage@ to request it in violation of the alleged, illegal ASettlement Agreement and Release@ (haha), it is yours!!! What, Me Worry?

As we sometimes say here on the border, Aleme splain it to ju@ in the identical terms I attempted to articulate my position to the Executive Board in a March 26, 1997 letter to Chairman James A Huston, to wit:

AOn the one hand, it is Counsel Miller=s opinion that such trial may not be scheduled because of the alleged ASettlement Agreement and Release@ account the Court has jurisdiction, yet, in that regard, Aall the Settlement Agreement and Release provided was that the Executive Board and its members would agree to be bound by the terms of the permanent injunction enterd by the district court in Youngstown on October 29, 1996 in Earley v. Executive Board, UTU, et al., Case No. 1:94CV0597.@ (Emphasis mine) If that is all it provided and the permanent injuntion is vacated, what prevents the trial date? The inference is clear, the court=s jurisdiction over the alleged ASettlement Agreement and Release@ is the same as a continuing permanent injunction.

However, Black=s Law Dictionar, Fifth Edition, defines AVacate@ as follows: ATo annul; to set aside; to cancel or recind. To render and act void; as, to vacate an entry of record, or a judgment. As applied to a judgment or decree it is not synonymous with Asuspend@ which means to stay enforcement of judgment or decree.@

Clearly, the exhibits I included with my letter indicate the permanent injunction is Avacated@ in the consolidated cases and the above legal definition definitely indicated there is no longer any permanent injunction to be bound by! So what is keeping the Executive Board from doing their duty? General Counsel wishes you to believe it is simply the Ajurisdiction@ of the court in the alleged ASettlement Agreement and Release@. Such is not the case.@

Update - a final, and I do mean final, letter has been sent to Chairman Huston for a trial date or a recorded vote of the members on wheher they wish to try Earley or be bound by the alleged, illegal ASettlement Agreement and release@. The obvious purpose of this is for accountability at the next convention. Aditionally, it is time to seek alternative methods of redress, i.e., VP Earley Bird, who be the suer, has gotten everything he has wanted through a skewed interpretation of Article 16 of the UTU Constitution, while yardmen Ruck, who be the suee, has basically received, well, Sooiee, yes movie buffs, we are reminded of the scene from ADeliverance@!

AAlternative Methods of Redress?@

Good Morning class, I am your instructor in Pro Se Switching - 101, my name is Lanny Ruck. For your next . . . yes come in young sir! Thank you. This class starts at 7:59 A.M., what time do you have? 8:03 Sir. Are your late? I take the Fifth! What is your name? Clarance Darrow. Please be seated. Thank you, sir. This is a three hour class, but as I have a tee time of 8:21, listen carefully, I will only say this once, research and report, 1000 words or less, 29 ' 481(h)! Any questions . hearing none, class is dis . . . Yes, Mr. Darrow? I am familiar with this section, should we include potential criminal resolution under other statutes? As you desire, Mr. Darrow, enlighten us all if it pleases you! I submit the rest is history!

AHubbub - New Philosophy@

Oh, I forget, some of our members, particularly our Conrail Brothers and Sisters may not be aware of the Newest Philosophy, as preached by His Emminence and the Management of the UP. It is an interesting concept and BN/SF General Chairman better take note per Mr. Rob Krebs in his July 22, 1997 letter to this writer to wit: AYou also asked during the El Paso town hall meeting whether we would want a single collective bargaining agreement and common seniority rosters at El Paso if the UP obtained similar arrangements. As I believe I said then, the answer, based on our current experience, is that we don=t presently intend to seek these changes. Nonetheless, we can=t let the UP obtain a competitive advantage over us; so if our conclusion changes with experience, we could pursue another implementing agreement. As I said, though, we don=t currently think the UP has an advantage in this respect@

And Now - The Rest of the Story!

For decades, long before Staggers, the Carriers cried and whined about point seniority, prior rights districts, in conjuction with their inability to properly have full usage of their employees. Somebody in the Union heard their pleas and developed the theory of AConsolidated Districts@ and Consolidated Seniority Rights. Bottom line, those hired after a certain date no longer had a point seniority or Aprior rights=, they simple had a SINGLE Consolidated date in all terminals within the AConsolidated Seniority District@ and could now be force assigned anywhere within the District when the Carrier needed men, even though the distance was often 400 or 500 hundred miles away. Great for the Carriers, but not all that swift for us employees unless you consider being a vagabon and escaping your family for months out of every year beneficial? The final culmination was an entire Consolidated System, albeit few, if any, allowed force assignment, i.e., you could go anywhere you could hold but you didn=t have to go!!!

Practical Example, involving a switchman on the SP in El Paso since one local did just donate $200 to the Express. He currently has seniority from Oregon to Louisiana, which he can exercise under specific condition, provided he can hold. He Cannot be forced to Houston or Tuscon, etc.

Enter the new philosophy, the Hub and Spoke Theory. You divide your system among hubs with the lines leaving major terminals like spokes of a wheel and then at some point, generally with 200 to 500 miles you draw a circle around that terminal and that becomes your new seniority district! You no longer have system seniority, you are locked in! Now don=t misconstrue that I=m am opposed to such, as all those with more seniority than you from other locations who use to come bump you, are now locked out! And yes, most are getting a choice of where they want to go and sufficient moving allowance depending upon how good their General Chairpersons negotiate. One apparent flaw, once you=re locked in but can no longer hold, the Carrier has the right to force you to any other hub they desire and you establish seniority in that hub, relinquishing your seniority in you orignial hub! OUCH, that hurt!

One might think that if you have to make a choice on where to relocate and give up your system senioriy, that you would get a vote of the ratification of the Hub Agreement. Not so, says His Emminence, who even had the forsight to get the Board of Directors to approve his action so there could be no internal appeal? Use the agreement of the Committee which has largest equity within the HUB? Nope, not so says His Emminence, he determines jurisdiction, apparently in the back room with Carrier Management, while the General Chairpersons are bickering needlessly! So what agreement do we use for the Houston Hub, the IGN road agreement and the HBT switchmen=s agreement (these committees combined don=t represent 20% of the employees in the Hub)? Hmm, don=t we have some International Officer who came off the Houston Belt Terminal?

The Constitution needs mending,

So Little in Ninety Nine?

No, time for the quick ending,

But he ought to resign!

 

(Cartoons Omitted here)

Inquiring Minds Want to Know?

Cleveland, Ohio. The United Transportation Union has finally submitted it=s much awaited and definitively late Form LM-2 - Labor Organization Annual Report?

While details of the lateness of the Report have yet to be confirmed by Union Officers and/or the Department of Labor, it is reported that a recent Union Afeel good about ourselves conference@ held in Atlanta, Georgia at the end of August 1997, was somewhat disrupted by a renegade union newsletter which allegedly submitted questions, in writing in said renegade publication, which apparently remain unanswered as of this date. While attempts to receive confirmation from UTU President Charles L. Little have been unsuccessful, Clinton J. Miller, III, General Cousel of the UTU gave this written statement: A I would like to dispel any rumors that the UTU President has acted in any way in violation of Federal Labor Laws or the UTU Constitution. Indeed, he answered the majority of questions before the membership in open forum, and any unresolved questions, along with those already answered, will be printed in the October Issue of the UTU News. This, of course, in keeping with the President=s AOpen Door@ Policy! We regret we may have to take action against this member in accordance with the UTU Constitution and Federal Labor Laws, specifically 29 ' 411(a)(2).

While as of yet unable to identify the offending member or the renegade newsletter, we have received what is purported to be the questions submitted on behalf of same:

1. Mr. President, while almost all International Officers and UTU union clerical employees received an approximate 3% wage increase consistent with the National Agreement, the Yardmasters representatives (2) received an approximate 25.5% increase from 1995 to 1996, or approximately $33,000 in pay increases. Did you alone authorize these increases or did the Board of Directors vote to concur or deny these increases?

2. Our figures indicate that the approximately $180,000 paid for International representation of Yardmasters is approximately 7% of the International Officer Payroll, while representing less than 2.5% of the membership. On the other hand, the Bus International Officers received approximately 7.1% of the payroll but represented approximately 10% of the membership. The figures indicate a ratio of money spent for officers to % of membership to be approximately 3:1 yardmasters, 1:1 UTU operating craft, 1:1 UTU Canada, and less than 1:1 for bus members! Why are yardmasters first class citizens and everyone else second class citizens?

3. It had been previously reported in this newsletter that you Acut some deal@ with President DuBose to get him to leave office early. As Mr. DuBose shows as an AInternational Employee@ in 1996, what did he receive $96,047.01 for?

Did the Department of Labor recently conclude the payments were improper and stop them?

4. You apparently created three positions at the International which, while not previously there in 1995 before your arrival, paid a total of $282,865.33 in 1996. The pay ranks 2^nd, 4^th, and 5^th, with Mr. Clinton Miller and George T. Dubose in first and third respectively. Could you give us the job discription and qualifications of employees, Babineaux, Bethge, and Biendenharn?

Did Unionized International employees have an opportunity to bid on these positions?

Given the critical finances of our Union, could we call this trio the Killer B=s? Any truth to the rumor Mr. Babineaux has been summarily dismissed from his position recently?

5. AThe Union operates a Job Benefit, Income Security Program. The Fund Balance is $13,811,969. The UTU General Fund is paying back the $8,350,000 loan from this fund. Repayment will be completed by 2004. Management feels this fund is more than adequate to cover any and all future claims from the Program.@

This newsletter was aware of the $7,000,000 you took from job benefit in November 1995 and filed notice with the GS&T that such use, even with the approval of the Board of Directors, was a violation of Trust Law (See Yule Case). When did you take the other $1.3 Mil and what was it spent on? Not the Custom Bus, I hope?

Is is permissable to violate federal laws as long as you have the approval of the Board of Directors??? Do you plan to tap this fund whenever necessary in the future?

6. Three attempts (certified, return receipt) to find the amount of the check cut to Mr. Earley pursuant to the alleged, illegal ASettlement Agreement and Release@ remain unanswered. Can you confirm the check was in excess of $48,000 and that the expenses provided by Mr. Earley, pursuant to & 3. B. of the ASAR@, provided to this writer at the Board of Directors meeting consistent with his request and notice of intent to sue under 29'431(c), totaled approximately $21,964.34?

Did your payment of approximately $3200 for Mr. Earley=s ACorrect Record@ to the Delegates, wherein he denied he was suing the union, as part of these Aexpenses@ pursuant to the alleged, illegal ASettlement Agreement and Release@ violate 29'481(g)?

7. It is your position that your rights under the provisions of Article 16 of the UTU Constritution allow you to violate any and all specific Constituional requirements, including but not limited to Lines 13-17 or Article 24?

In that regard, do Ayour duties and responsibilities for the proper conduct of the affairs of the organization and the accomplishmen of its objectives A require you to violate federal labor laws?

8. Did you aid Two General Chairmpersons in combining their Committees, after all General Chairpersons, including those two, had made an agreement concerning the equities in the Houston Hub, which attemped by Side Letter to give reciprocal road/yard prior rights to each Committee where they never had them before? In fact, didn=t the UP management eventually extinguish this Side Letter because of the complaints from the other affected General Chairmpersons?

9. Did you give Ablanket authority@ to strike to a UP General Chairman, who instructed the Carrier to use UP/SP Officers on SP trains, even though he did not vote his Committee, while instructing the SP General Chairman to negotiate, even though he did vote his committee?

When the SP General Chairpersons negotiated a resolution which was unacceptable to the UP General Chairperson, who originally instructed the use of Carrier Officers on SP trains, didn=t the UP sue to stop any stike by the UP General Chairperson?

9. What is the Union doing about NAFTA?

10. While you, and apparently the Board of Directors, claim these so called Ahub agreements@ are not System agreements, thus only local chairman (with JURISDICTION?) vote, don=t they extinguish the former System Seniority each employee had? Isn=t such a taking worthy of a vote?

11. How much of the member=s money are you willing to spend in 1:94CV0485 to argue that what VP Earley did to member Smoot and the Board of Appeals decision was within the Awide range of reasonableness@ allowed union officers?

In fact, isn=t it often misquoted? Doesn=t it actually say AA wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its descretion.@

While the PD cannot confirm that these were the questions presented, it does appear, if correct, they are generally Aplain and simple@ and deserving of an answer! We look forward to the next edition of the UTU news to get the answers to these questions.

NOTICE

(Express staff listing and three cartoons omitted here). For those of you who haven=t figured it out yet, we have not yet learned to scan to a pdf format. All old editions of the express used the true cut and paste method, i.e., leave a space and physically cut out the cartoon and glue it in the space. All hard copy editions are available upon request provided a small donation is made to cover the cost of mailing. Again it must be understood that what you have just read absent this paragraph and the (Cartoon Omitted) is only the body (written words) of the AAtlanta Edition@ and does not appear in it=s original form.