February 6, 1998
VIA FAX, Original Via US Mail
Mr. Charles Little
International President
United Transportation Union
14600 Detroit Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44107-4250
Dear Sir & Brother:
Reference your "press release" of February 4, 1998,
posted at "http://www.utu.org/NEWS98/4-98204A.htm", with reference to the
proposed upcoming representation election.
In a free society, I feel mandated to respond to your
correspondence, and as a dues paying member of the UTU make known the feelings of at least
one delegate in this Union.
The referenced correspondence, to which you are signatory,
could only be categorized as post hoc rationalization for purely self-serving and
political reasons, which could never stand the test of a reasonable man.
In reviewing the filing of January 12, 1998 to the National
Mediation Board (NMB), over the signature of your agent, Mr. Clinton J. Miller, III
(General Counsel), there are several points which come forward, specifically, not limited
1. ". . .the dramatic acceleration of hiring and
integration of operating employees that has occurred in the rail industry (with its
attendant consequences described below) and the developing Board precedent as to the
propriety of a single craft or class of Train and Engine Service Employees have worked to
change the initial position of UTU herein." (emphasis added)
2. ". . . makes clear that as a matter of functional
integration and community of interest, the line between the craft or class of engineers on
the one hand, and conductors and trainmen on the other, has been blurred to the point of
practical extinction."
3. ". . .the Board should now find that this matter does
involve a "representation dispute" under the Act, and that a single operating
craft or class of "Train and Engine Service Employees" now exists,
industry-wide, mandating appropriate Board action under Section 2 Ninth of the Act in
conjunction with the representation application on Union Pacific submitted herewith."
(emphasis added)
4. "A breakthrough occurred in late 1993. In Florida
East Coast RR ("FEC"), 21 NMB 35 (1993), the Board finally recognized a
consolidated craft or class of Train and Engine Service Employees on a particular carrier.
In deciding that the evidence was sufficient to warrant such a finding, the Board noted
that it had considered many requests to depart from historical patterns in the railroad
industry, but had not until then found sufficient cause to do so (Id. at 42-43), that
retention of separate crafts or classes would result in artificial fragmentation of
employees in ways that did not reflect actual operations, and that the involved FEC
employees could bid for any position for which they qualified. (Id. at 43-45). The
Board concluded that conductors and engineers on FEC shared a community of interest
sufficient to find a craft or class of Train and Engine Service Employees. (Id. at
45.)" (emphasis added)
5. "Therefore, UTU respectfully requests the Board to find
in the context of this matter that a "representation dispute" exists
rail-industry wide among the operating employees in a single craft or class of Train
and Engine Service Employees on properties covered by PEB 219 and Pub. L. 102-29
(4/17/91), and to order elections among the employees who are members thereof, starting
with the operating employees on Union Pacific covered by the application submitted
herewith". (emphasis added)
and additionally your document
(http://www.utu.org/NEWS98/4-89119A.htm), stating, in pertinent part:
"The UTU is responding to the industry trend in seeking
NMB action, because the railroad industry is contracting and existing contracts and rules
have effectively eliminated operating craft distinctions." (emphasis added)
and last, the document of your agent filed with the NMB of date
January 16, 1998, stating in pertinent part:
". . .I cannot let its (BLE) assertion that traditional
operating craft lines still exist in the railroad industry." (emphasis added)
My concern, as should be that of most Union Pacific employees
represented by the UTU, goes back to the styled "committment letter", executed
between yourself and the Union Pacific, absent the required democratic process as mandated
by the UTU Constitution. In that letter, by the language, and your own statements and
those of the General Counsel and the Assistant President, "only those changes. .
.", meant just what it said. However, when put to the test in the Yost Arbitration,
neither you nor the other signatory party to the document were available in arbitration to
give the intent of the framers, and consequently, it means what it says----whatever that
is.
Ergo, though you publicly stated that it was a document as
"good as gold", when put to the test, it really meant what had been advised by
then counsel Highsaw and Mahoney, the destruction of the sanctity of the collective
bargaining agreements.
As you are aware, or should be, the UTU Constitution is an
internal organic document, and really has little, if any, force or effect on other than
the members of the UTU. In your short tenure as the International President, you have on
numerous occasions invoked your styled power under the provisions of Article 16 of same to
violate the UTU Constitution, and the only recourse to the membership would be found in a
court of competent jurisdiction.
For you to now come forward, pledging to hold same document,
and the rights of the dues paying members under such, as sacrosanct, is ludicrous.
Your track record precedes you, the closing of locals with more
than 25 members (for political purposes), the so-called appointment of representatives
(for political purposes), your interpretation which found you harmless when faced with
proper charges (for self serving purposes, and contrary to the intent of the delegates),
to list but a few.
As a practical matter, in the era of word merchants, it is
probably your intent to, for once, fall back on the UTU Constitution, since what is being
requested of the NMB, is not what you have alleged in your most recent written document.
And to that end, the UTU Constitution, Article 30, stating, in pertinent part:
"If any portion of this Constitution is found to be in
violation of a Federal, State, or Provincial law, such law shall supersede that portion of
this Constitution, but only to the extent and within the limits of the law, and provided
that any change shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Constitution."
could, and probably will provide the necessary recourse in this
area. Through your agent you have petitioned the NMB for a single craft or class or
service, and if granted, this would most definitely supersede the mandates of our internal
organic law, i.e. the UTU Constitution. And if history holds true, the International would
fashion some type of frivolous litigation to show that, at the very least, we "fought
the good fight".
As all who hold high office/s, it is common for them to desire
a legacy. I would contend that in your case it would not be different. To date, your
legacy, commonly referred to as the "New Beginning", has seen the elimination of
the sanctity of the collective bargaining agreements, the overturn of the historical
application of the sanctity of seniority, and if allowed to go unchecked, the elimination
of craft autonomy.
In principle, I will be the first to concur that there is some
relative wisdom in the theory of a single union for operating employees, however, history
will show that the UTU was created on such a belief, strength in numbers. Since creation,
the numbers have plummeted, and the rights of the individual crafts have been negotiated
away---for the benefit of select groups. Hindsight could probably show that many of your
decisions and those of your predecessors were ill-fated, however, we now have the ability
to learn from these mistakes, and hopefully not go down the same paths.
At some point you should come to the membership and truthfully
state the reason/s for this decision for a "single craft or class of service",
and at least let them be aware of the next stage in the plan.
Most Fraternally Yours,
Robert A. Cushing, Jr.
Delegate, UTU Local 1918
bc: World Wide Web
