see first pick letter
see second pick letter

From Ed Kehoe

To: John Fontana

Re: Pick meeting of September 12, 2000

September 13, 2000

Sir,

I would like to note at this time that in spite of the lengthy discussions initiated by myself and others on the subjects of our deep concerns (below) we have nevertheless failed in our attempts to have you reconsider your position on the following matters:

Note number 1:

The union maintains the position that this note is unclear and ambiguous as it unfairly deprives our membership a clear opportunity to pick a job based on seniority. Further, that the rule itself is in direct conflict with any reasonable expectation of what the picked job should entail based on the description on the pick i.e.; relays, heavy duty, material handling. For example: on one hand you confer the message to the employee that he is picking the heavy duty section as outlined on the pick, on the other hand you contend that you have a right to reassign the employee to another section completely disregarding the employees selected option.

Management’s intentions to have our personnel cross divisional boundaries:

As we have repeatedly stated, the practice is dangerous. We have put forth any number of reasons for our contentions on this matter, the most outstanding being the health and safety of the riding public and that of the employees. Naturally, you assume full responsibility for the result of these actions. I have asked our attorney to write a letter in protest of this action. That letter has been passed on to our union Vice President with our recommendation to take immediate action using whatever contractual rights are available to us, and if necessary to go beyond the contract to seek a remedy at law. I personally see management’s position on this issue as a wanton disregard for human life.

The inadequacies of a telephone pick as it relates to fairness in the pick process:

The allotted time for an opportunity to weigh all the ramifications involved in picking a position one is to hold for the next 14 months and quite possibly a great deal longer is totally inadequate. The full comprehension of all the jobs available can not be ascertained via the telephone. This makes it necessary for the employee to be granted an opportunity to view all the available options. According to what I understand from our discussions on this, the problem is not even one of simple economics. Frankly, I am still at a complete loss to understand your unwillingness to let us engage in a practice that is now in use by many of the other departments throughout our system. We leave ourselves open to all sorts of charges given such things as misunderstandings, language barriers, failure to update and the deliberate withholding of information. The possibility of a need to have to repeat the pick because of a grievance is indeed very great. I will not hesitate to advise it if a situation arises where it seems to be justified.

Towards the end of our discussions John Fontana indicated a willingness to look into situations where we think the employee might be entitled to additional compensation based on an additional job requirement. Examples of such requirements may be forklift, crane, or hazardous waste handling certifications. Additionally, an option for payment for training might be considered. Clearly, we understand that these were not promises on the part of management to commit to anything, merely a stated intention to review any evidence that comparable payments are being made in other departments under like circumstances for like work.

Finally, comments have been made by a few of the meeting participants as to these notes I have submitted. Clearly, these notes are mine, and mine alone. They indicate my understanding of the discussions we have had during the course of our meetings. As I stated, among other things, in my original letter of September 8, 2000:

"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."

These notes do not necessarily represent opinions or understandings of any participants at these meetings other than myself. As I have repeatedly stated throughout, I will gladly add any letters, notes or otherwise to my original observations providing of course they are submitted in a timely manner. Absent any of these, I will rely on my own notes in the event of any subsequent ramifications of discussions I have participated in.

Larry Graves states:

The pick is to be posted on Monday, September 18, 2000.

The pick will begin on Monday September 25, 2000.

Ed Kehoe

Cc Jerome Martin