From Ed Kehoe

To: Jerome Martin

Re: Pick meeting of September 7, 2000

September 8, 2000

Gentlemen, as you will no doubt recall I had asked during the meeting that notes of our discussion should be kept in order that the parties fully understand the salient parts of the agreements, points of contention, and other parts of our discussion that should be preserved for purposes of future reference.

I was told by Mr. Ingolia that "it just isn’t done". It would seem that in the past it was a practice of; "you keep your notes and I’ll keep mine". I expressed my disagreement with the past practice as stated, but it seems that I am more or less alone in this argument.

Nevertheless, during the course of our discussions I made several statements to which I added the phrase "for the record", a statement which would appear to be entirely futile given the fact that there is no record. Once again I can not express too strongly, my total disagreement with this procedure and so I am sending you this letter which I may or may not use for reference at some future date. In other words gentlemen, this is my record. Absent any recourse, in writing of course from management’s side of the table, this writing will stand as my record of the particularized points mentioned herein. There is a definite requirement for the actions that I take. I can recall in at least one particular case whereas I participated in a grievance procedure in which the hourly workers would have made substantial gains over a training issue, a case which was subsequently lost largely on the basis that union leaders at the time kept no record of the statements regarding the issue that was discussed at a particular pick. Needless to say, management had no record of it either.

I am certain that those union representatives were acting in good faith at the time of that meeting, my past dealings on issues with the authority or anyone else for that matter leaves me with no such illusions. Simply put, it’s just a very bad practice.

I have stated in no uncertain terms that I am in total disagreement with any practice, past or present, which would call for signal personnel to cross divisional boundaries to work in unfamiliar areas. The practice in my opinion demonstrates a total disregard for the safety of our workers. Further, I have categorically stated that in my opinion the imminent consequences of such action on the part of management will result in injuries or fatalities to the workers and the riding public. You have the expertise, the available data and a virtual preponderance of resources on which to base your findings that my objections to this practice are without merit. I might add at this time that by virtue of your position as an employer you also have the power to implement this practice and so you have decided to do so. I have already taken actions, through the limited resources of the union to attempt to have this practice enjoined. I might add at this time that if there has ever been an instance in which my concerns for the safety of those I represent has been unfounded, I most certainly hope that this is that time.

I have also objected to the telephone pick on the grounds that it needlessly deprives the Signal personnel of an adequate opportunity to view their available job opportunities. The practice therefore deprives them of exercising their right of seniority. The very idea that before picking a job, the candidates must somehow have already predetermined all of the pros and cons of each possible choice, absent the option to view all the jobs that are available to choose from is inherently ridiculous. In addition to the aforementioned, there is the very real possibility of the person on the union end of the telephone overlooking or otherwise failing to notice an available position. Many times a person will notice that a job has been filled by someone who has mistakenly picked out of the prescribed order. A telephone option does not give the candidate an opportunity to call the attention of the union representative to what is perceived as a mistake. I have heard on many occasions that in fact people have been placed into positions where they did not belong. There is also the problem of a language barrier. This is a very real and an ongoing problem within the Signal department. The possibility that the candidate my not understand the available choices, or that the union rep might misunderstand the candidate is very real and could result in the pick being recalled and subsequently done over. The old saying "there is never enough time to do it right, but there is always enough time to do it over" has certainly found a home in this particular situation. The option of not allowing the candidates to view the schedule of all the available positions unfairly denies them their opportunity to exercise their rights of seniority.

Once again I ask that note number 1 be altered or otherwise changed to indicate strongly and affirmatively that those candidates who will be picking into the various sections of the shop, will, or will not in fact be picking into that particular job. For all practical purposes, the option of a high seniority candidate picking into a specific area of the shop, only to be assigned afterward to another section of the shop is a blatant outrage. Further, the options of reassigning people after the pick encourages favoritism and opens up an area of misappropriation of overtime opportunities. I object to the terms and conditions of Rule # 1 in its present form and I asked that it be changed before the conclusions of our meetings.

The subjects of contention I have alluded to in this letter are by no means all-inclusive. This document is not intended to replace all the points of disagreements we may have had. Rather it is intended to emphasize, and perhaps to augment those particular situations in which I strongly believe that a record is needed.

Finally, the newly renovated conference room on the tenth floor was ideally suited for the purposes of our meeting, thank you! No wonder then such an ideal location was in such great demand, and as to be expected we had relinquish the room at a specified time in order to accommodate others wishing to share this resource. Having said that, I wonder if you might allow us, the union, to play the role of host for our next meeting. I feel certain that I could arrange a room for us at the union hall, and that I would be able to retain the use of that room for whatever time we should require. I believe that a one day prior notification would be sufficient for that purpose.

Cc: John Fontana

see second pick letter
see third pick letter