Brothers and Sister Patty:
 
June 3, 2004 BLET, along with BMWE, and others, filed a lawsuit against BNSF, CSXT, former Conrail, UP, NS, and Indiana Habor Belt seeking relief for violations of the FMLA.  Attached is a very good decision from US District Court (Northern District of Illinois) Judge Wayne R. Andersen.
 
Based on this decision, it is my position that UP's Attendance Policy is illegal, and that all previous disciplined accessed under that Policy should be set aside.  You can better believe that UP will not agree with my position, but that is what lawyers are for, and I am going to pursue this matter though the courts with attorneys.  The issue is before the National Division now, and I will advise you further when more information is available.
 
Fraternally,
 
Bill   

 

From: John Babler [mailto:jwbablerutu@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:36 PM
To: Dean Hazlett; Dennis Martz; J. Kevin Klein; John Handcock; John Previsich; Larry Bumpurs; Mike Thompson; Richard Karstetter; Troy L. Johnson
Cc: Bruce Holder
Subject: RE: FMLA favorable court decision regarding vacation time and PL days
 

Brothers,
 
 

Attached hereto is a December 28, 2005, favorable court decision from Judge Andersen (Northern District – Illinois) as it relates to Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and its impact on observing vacation time and PL days during a FMLA absence. This is the case everyone said could not be won. The case was handled on behalf of the UTU by the Guerrieri firm located in Washington D. C., who filed suit and the other organizations piled on with their attorneys. Pursuant to Judge Andersen’s ruling, the carriers can not require TE&Y employees (including yardmasters) to observe vacation time and/or PL days in conjunction with FMLA time. The ruling is based on the fact that the scheduling/assigning of vacation time is premised on seniority and the conditions found in the CBA’s (normally the 1949 National Vacation Agreement, as amended). PL days are scheduled on demand upon the employees proper request and personal needs (hence the name personal days) and granted by the carriers predicated on manpower needs. PL days are not to be confused with sick days. In most cases, PL days are a by-product of the crew consist agreements wherein the trainmen were allotted additional paid time off as the result of the additional on-the-job duties because of the reduction in the number of crew members. Thus, vacation time scheduling and the observance of PL days are conditions rooted in the CBA’s and such agreements were not abrogated by the FMLA.
 
 

If you will recall the carriers published a change in their FMLA policies in early November, 2003, and on the same date they mailed the policies out to the employees, they filed for injunctions against all the rail labor organizations in several district courts across the Nation to prevent any job actions as the result of the policy changes. The venues that the carriers handpicked are notoriously biased towards the railroads. Initially, UTU appeared before the courts in response to the carriers filings. Then the UTU and other labor organizations filed suit under the RLA for an injunction to maintain the status quo. The carriers’ and labor organizations’ two filings were then consolidated and brought under the umbrella of the District Court in Chicago, IL because all of the named carriers did business in area under that court's jurisdiction. The rest is history and we won. The carriers have thirty (30) days to appeal. However, the ruling stands unless reversed on appeal.
 
 

Meanwhile, the carriers will no doubt attempt to contend that the scheduling/assigning of vacation time and criteria/requirements that must be met to observe PL days are not conditions rooted in the collective bargaining agreements.
 
 

I am sending this decision to each you in the event that you were not previously advised of same.
 
 

John Babler - VP